DA 804.1 . L3 M32 1923 Mackenzie, W. C. 1862-1952. The life and times of John Maitland Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/lifetirnesofjohnm00mack_0 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JOHN MAITLAND DUKE OF LAUDERDALE (1616-1682) ft * \ / JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE ( From an engraving by J. S. Agar , after Lely) [front THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JOHN MAITLAND DUKE OF LAUDERDALE (1616-1682) BY W. C. MACKENZIE, F.S.A.(Scot.) Author of Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat : His Life and Times The Races of Ireland and Scotland, etc . LONDON KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO. LTD. NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO. 1923 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY THE EDINBURGH PRESS, 9 AND II YOUNG STREET, EDINBURGH PREFATORY NOTE The representatives of the first and the last letters of the historical 4 4 Cabal ” have not yet found a place in biographical literature. Arlington, Buckingham, and Ashley have all had their 44 Lives ” written, but Clifford and Lauderdale have so far not been yoked to the shafts. Of the quinary the last was cer¬ tainly not the least, whether viewed in the light of political achievement, or judged by the possession of personal gifts. The following pages will pro¬ bably show that the variety of Lauderdale’s experi¬ ences as a man of affairs was not exceeded, if it was equalled, by that of any of his colleagues in the celebrated Council called the Cabal. The late Bishop Dowden of Edinburgh, in his introduction to the Lauderdale correspondence (contained in Volume 15 of the Scottish Histoj'y Society's Publications ), says that the character of this 44 remarkable man is still sub judice at the bar of history,” and that the 44 long prevailing ” views concerning him “have beyond doubt been con¬ siderably modified in recent years.” These alleged modifications have escaped my notice, but I am quite prepared to believe that the additional light which, of recent years, has been thrown upon the history of the seventeenth century, may have had the effect stated by Bishop Dowden. VI PREFATORY NOTE As bearing upon the matter of this biography, perhaps the most important body of new evidence which has been disclosed, is contained in the Lauderdale Papers , selected and edited by Dr Osmund Airy, and in the State and family Papers relating to the period of the Restoration. I have made liberal use of these sources of information. Lauderdale’s name is, in our histories, almost exclusively associated with his administration of Scotland — the “ King of Scotland,” as he was called by contemporaries — during the reign of Charles II., and the part he played in the pre¬ mature attempt — premature by ten years — to restore the Stewart dynasty, is obscurely hidden in contemporary records. Also, there is little known of his secret, but none the less real, influence in the foreign affairs of the Kingdom after the Restoration. I have tried to elucidate his pre- Restoration work, and to measure his share of responsibility in shaping the foreign policy of Charles II. But Lauderdale’s reputation as a statesman must stand or fall by his policy as the virtual Dictator of Scotland for twenty years after the Restoration. A true conception of the Covenanting troubles in Scotland suffers (it seems to me) from the violence of the prejudices which they have aroused in most writers on the subject. There has been a lack of equilibrium, probably on both sides. The historian, however, has no concern with the duties of an advocate. His duty is to ascertain, if he can, the whole of the facts and base his judgement upon PREFATORY NOTE Vll them. He need not divest himself of sympathy, but he must not divest himself of candour. I have tried to observe that rule in my analysis. It remains to say a word about the human aspect of this biography. Mainly a study of politics, civil and ecclesiastic, it aims also at being a study of a human soul. The psychological problem presented by a Lauderdale is, to me, one of extraordinary interest. A youth, eminent for his piety, ends his career as an old man with an evil reputation, which, deserved or not, will always, perhaps, stain his por¬ trait in history. What are the processes through which character is developed ? What, in Lauder¬ dale’s case, were the predetermining causes of the change in his character ? The moralist and the historian alike are concerned with these questions and their answers. W. C. MACKENZIE. London, 1923. i CONTENTS PAGE Chapter I. Introductory i Social and ecclesiastical conditions in Scotland at the middle of the sixteenth century — The Roman Church and its corruptions — Its repressive methods and their victims — John Knox and William Maitland and their influence on the Reformation — The Scottish nobility and their attitude towards Reform — The “ minor prophets ” and their work — An estimate of the influ¬ ence of Knox. Chapter II . . . . . u The Maitland family and their position in the State — The birth of John, Viscount Maitland, afterwards Earl and Duke of Lauderdale — His early aptitude for poli¬ tics — A key to his times — The evolution of Church and State in Scotland since the time of Knox — The frame¬ work of the Reformed Church from England rather than from Geneva — Laski’s “ Church of the Strangers ” — The First Book of Discipline — “ Superintendents ” and “ Bishops ” — Andrew Melville and his special work — The Second Book of Discipline — King James and the “ prerogative ” — Calvinism in England — Charles I and his attitude towards ecclesiastical ques¬ tions — Laud's interference with Scottish affairs — Charles I and his Scottish policy — The “ Lords of the Articles ” and a summary of the history of the “ Articles ” — Their effect upon legislation — The National Covenant of 1638 and its results. Chapter III . . . . .3 7 The Scottish Commissioners in London 1640 — Their success in withstanding the King — Their relations with the House of Commons — Charles I in Scotland — Argyll and Montrose : an estimate of the two men — Maitland’s relations towards them — Maitland an Elder of the Kirk — The confidence reposed in him by the Kirk — Hypocrite or “ fanatic " : which ? — The crisis in England and the opening stages of the Civil War — The English Parliament turns for help to Scot¬ land — The Solemn League and Covenant and its impli¬ cations — The ideals of the Scottish Kirk — Its inherit¬ ance from Rome and Geneva — Toleration in England and Scotland. IX X CONTENTS PAGE Chapter IV .... 53 The Covenant and its mistakes — Scottish aspirations and English practicality — Henderson and Maitland as the guardians of Scottish interests — Independency and Presbyterianism — Their conflicting ideals — Maitland’s indispensability to Scotland — His diplomatic talents — The Committee of Both Kingdoms — English and Scot¬ tish differences — The attitude of the King towards the Scots — The Scottish contribution towards the victory of the English Parliament — The treaty of Uxbridge a Scottish negotiation — English and Scottish relation¬ ship towards ecclesiasticism — The General Assembly the popular Parliament of Scotland — Maitland (now the Earl of Lauderdale) and Episcopacy — The effect of the victories of Montrose upon the King. Chapter V . . . . . .70 The failure of the Treaty of Uxbridge — Cromwell and the New Model — Cromwell and the Scots — The Scottish “ ami of flesh ” and the Independents — England and Presbyterianism — The King and his “ double con¬ science ” — French intrigues — A review of the Uxbridge propositions — Will Murray afterwards Earl of Dysart and father of the future Duchess of Lauderdale — Negotiations between the King and the Scots — The King goes to the Scottish Camp — An analysis of the situation — The King and the Scottish Army fail to reach an agreement — Death of Alexander Henderson — The King’s obstinacy — The Scottish Estates decide to hand him over to the English Parliament — The stipulation for his safety. Chapter VI . . . . .90 Lauderdale’s application to business — The Scottish Commissioners and the English Parliament — The Scot¬ tish claim for arrears of pay to their Army — Lauder¬ dale and the “ Sectaries ” — The question of the disposal of the King’s person — The agreement between the English Parliament and the Scottish Commissioners — The King and the “ traitor Scot ” story — Scotland’s “ Black Saturday " — The Scottish Commissioners leave London — The English Parliament and the “ New Model ” — The character of Cromwell — The King the Army’s prisoner — Parliament and Army — The Army’s negotiations with the King — The King’s aims — The real masters of the situation — Lauderdale has an inter¬ view with the King — Lauderdale’s dislike of Charles I — The Scottish nobility and the Scottish people — The problem to be solved by Lauderdale — He goes to Woburn Abbey — He is forcibly prevented from seeing the King — The Scottish protest against the affront. Chapter VII . . . . .111 A time of trial — The breach between the English and Scottish allies — The Royalist movement in Scotland — The Duke of Hamilton and his brother the Earl of CONTENTS xi PAGE Lanark — Lauderdale, Lanark, and Loudoun as associ¬ ates — They go to Hampton Court on a secret mission to the King — Lauderdale and Lanark at Nonsuch — They offer the King the means of escape which he declines — The conference between the King and the two noble¬ men — The plans for a Scottish (Royalist) invasion of England — The Marquis of Ormonde and Lauderdale — Ormonde’s adventure with highwaymen — Lauderdale’s interview with Ormonde between Marlow and Henley — They hatch a plot for the King’s restoration — Lauderdale the probable originator of the “ Engage¬ ment ” — The King and his bids to the different parties — The King’s escape to the Isle of Wight — Lauderdale, Lanark, and Loudoun at the Isle of Wight — The Treaty of Carisbrooke otherwise called the “ Engage¬ ment ” — Its conditions analysed — Lauderdale as a patriotic Scot. Chapter VIII ..... 130 Lauderdale commends the Engagement to the Scottish Estates — Lauderdale and the South-west of Scotland — Characteristics of East and West — The clergy and the Engagement — The nobility and the Engagement — The antagonism of the pulpit — Clergy versus Estates — A forced levy — The restiveness of the English Royal¬ ists — The Engagers and the City of London — Assist¬ ance from abroad — Lauderdale’s mission to Prince Charles — His mission to France and Holland. Chapter IX ..... 143 Lauderdale’s political standpoint — His devotion to Prince Charles afterwards Charles II — His adventures in search of Prince Charles — His business with Prince Charles — His business with the Prince of Orange — His business with France — His experiences with the advisers of Prince Charles — His successful diplomacy — The Army of the Engagement and its shortcomings — The Scottish Engagers and their English allies — The disastrous defeat at Preston — The tragic results of the Engagement — Hamilton and the King — Cromwell in Scotland — His relations with Argyll — Argyll’s disser¬ vice to Scotland. Chapter X . . . . . .160 The effect upon Scotland of the execution of Charles I — Argyll’s infirmity — The proclamation of Charles II — Its implications — An international situation of extreme delicacy — A missed opportunity and the reason — The Kirk intoxicated by success — The Covenant from English and Scottish standpoints — Scottish negotia¬ tions with Charles — Lauderdale at the Hague — The factions at the Hague — Montrose’s Royalism — Lauder¬ dale and the Covenant — Negotiations broken off and subsequently renewed — Hyde’s burst of indignation against the Covenanters — Montrose’s expedition and its outcome — Montrose’s execution — Lauderdale ac- CONTENTS PAGE Xll companies Charles to Scotland — Was he aware of the King’s intention to break the treaty ? — His version of the preliminary negotiations. Chapter XI ..... 180 The price paid by Charles — Cromwell turns his atten¬ tion to Scotland — Dunbar Drove — Cromwell’s debate with the clergy — The effect of Dunbar Drove — The “ Start ” — Charles invades England — The “ crowning mercy " at Worcester — Lauderdale escapes from Worcester — The lack of powder — Profit and loss — Lauderdale's adventures after Worcester — His estate forfeited — A prisoner in the Tower of London, Port¬ land Castle, and Windsor Castle — His occupations in captivity — The opening of his prison-gates — The friendship existing between Charles and Lauderdale — The close of the Covenanting chapter. Chapter XII . . . . 195 The Restoration and its effects — Restoration and re¬ pudiation — Lauderdale and national unity — Charles II and Scotland — Lauderdale and Sharp at the Hague — Clarendon on Lauderdale — The Secretaryship for Scotland — The Scottish Administration — The Scottish Cavaliers — Trial and execution of Argyll — The English garrisons in Scotland — Scottish policy and Whitehall — The two points of view. Chapter XIII . . . . . 209 The “ Drunken Parliament ” — The extravagance of its legislation — Lauderdale's efforts in favour of Presby¬ terianism — The character of James Sharp — The inter¬ penetration of Church and State — The position of the Church of Scotland at the Restoration — The Hobbesi- anism of Lauderdale — His conceptions of Church and State — The counter-current in his new attitude — His views of democracy — Politics rendered complex by Church questions — Absolute monarchy a breach with Lauderdale’s past. Chapter XIV ..... 222 The discussion in London about an ecclesiastical frame¬ work for Scotland — Lauderdale opposes the premature establishment of Episcopacy — He is overborne by the majority — The Savoy Conference — James Sharp and his doings — Sharp feeling his way — Sharp and Baillie — Sharp’s correspondence with Drummond — Baillie warns Lauderdale — Sharp’s double-dealing — He is made Primate of Scotland — The consecration of the Scottish Bishops in Westminster Abbey — The per¬ sonnel of the Episcopate. Chapter XV ..... Scotland in 1661 — Englishmen and Scotsmen — Scot¬ land and Episcopacy — Centres of non-Presbyterianism — The Scottish pulpit and its tendency — The quality 241 CONTENTS of the preachers — Ministers and people — The estab¬ lishment of Episcopacy — Lauderdale’s ecclesiastical policy — The Covenants declared illegal — The Act of Indemnity secured by Lauderdale — The plot to ruin Lauderdale — Billets — Lauderdale foils the plotters — Middleton disgraced — Middleton deprived of his Com- missionership — Rothes succeeds him — Lauderdale’s prestige high — Lauderdale and the Bishops — Lauder¬ dale and Sir Archibald Johnstone of Warriston — The Scottish statesmen and Whitehall. Chapter XVI ..... Lauderdale in Scotland — Sharp becomes “ wholly his ” — The prelates and the nobles — Middleton sent to Tangiers — Giving the Bishops rope — The testimony of Sir Robert Moray to Lauderdale’s wisdom — A spec¬ tator rather than a dictator — One mistake after an¬ other — The ecclesiastical machinery undisturbed — The essential difference — The Kirk Sessions and the scope of their operations — The terrors of excommunica¬ tion — Bullies and hypocrites — The “ curates " — The High Commission Court — Dugald Dalgetty — House and field Conventicles — The Pentland Rising and the fight at Rullion Green — The rule of the Bishops — The ineptitude of Parliament — Lauderdale and the Royal prerogative — Rothes relieved of the Commissionership — The keys “ hing at the right belt.” Chapter XVII ..... The First Indulgence in Scotland and its purpose — Alexander Burnet resigns the See of Glasgow — Is suc¬ ceeded by Robert Leighton — The character of Leighton — The Privy Council’s rough soldiers — Lauderdale’s new policy — The Assertory Act — Lauderdale’s popu¬ larity in Scotland — His magnificent reception in Edinburgh as Commissioner — He is eulogized in England — His Parliamentary programme — His atti¬ tude towards domestic politics — Scottish public men jealous of English interference with Scottish affairs — Lauderdale’s share in the fall of Clarendon — He rises on Clarendon’s fall — The Secret Treaty of Dover — The mock treaty signed by the Cabal — The political importance of “ Madame Carwell ” — The “ personal ” conception of foreign policy — Lauderdale and foreign policy — The economic relations of England and Scot¬ land — The need for union — The attitude of Charles and Lauderdale towards union — The negotiations for union — Their failure and the reasons for failure — The Militia Act and its consequences. Chapter XVIII . The change in Lauderdale’s life and its cause — The “ woman in the case ” — The beautiful Countess of Dysart — Her relations with Cromwell — She saves Lauderdale’s life after the Battle of Worcester — Cromwell’s animosity towards Lauderdale — Lauder¬ dale’s relations with the Countess after the Restoration xiii PAGE 263 28l 304 XIV CONTENTS PAGE — His relations with his wife — Their home at Highgate — A visit from Pepys — Lauderdale at supper — His views on the bagpipe — The home broken up — The Countess of Lauderdale dies in Paris — Lauderdale marries the Countess of Dysart — Her influence over him — Opinions of contemporaries about her — Lauder¬ dale’s attraction for women — Lady Margaret Kennedy and her relations with Lauderdale — She marries Gilbert Burnet the historian — Sir George Mackenzie’s hints about the marriage — Lady Margaret a militant Presbyterian — The views of the Duchess of Hamilton about the Presbyterian ministers — The “indulged” clergy — The younger generation of ministers — Leighton’s concessions — Why the Indulgence failed — King’s curates and Bishop’s curates — An epidemic of conventicling — Government alarm — Why dissent was repressed in England and Scotland — A “ damned traitorous book ” — Lauderdale’s impatience — The “ Clanking Act ” — The attempts at conciliation and accommodation — Why they failed — The dilemma of the Indulgees — The olive branch and the bludgeon. Chapter XIX ..... 329 Lauderdale and foreign politics — His political relation¬ ship towards the King — Signs the Treaty of 1672 as a member of the Cabal — Is created a Duke — His rela¬ tions with Shaftesbury — His attitude towards Roman¬ ism — The Declaration of Indulgence in England — Lauderdale and the English Dissenters — The revolt of the Scottish Parliament — The Duke and Duchess of Lauderdale in Scotland — The unpopularity of the Duchess — Lauderdale and the Scots nobles — The character of the Duke of Hamilton — The anti- Lauderdale ” junta ” — Their objects — The defection of Tweeddale — The matrimonial projects of the Duchess — Political jobbing in Scotland — The Scots and the Dutch Wars — Lauderdale’s alleged aims — The opposition to Lauderdale breaks down — The masterful tactics of the Uncrowned King — The opposition engineered by Shaftesbury. Chapter XX ..... 350 English tributes to Lauderdale’s services — Lauderdale allies himself with Danby and the English Bishops — The Scottish deputation to London — Charles and Scotland as a province of England — Lauderdale’s outspokenness — His enemies seize on his words — The story of Gilbert Burnet and Lauderdale — Burnet's ingenuousness — The King protects Lauderdale against his enemies — Lauderdale courts the Scottish Presby¬ terians — The state of ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland — Conventicles and the three alternatives — The moderate view of conventicles — Lauderdale’s mistake in dealing with them — Lauderdale and Bishop Leigh¬ ton — Leighton as peacemaker — His resignation and retirement and death — The end of the era of con¬ ciliation. CONTENTS xv PAGE Chapter XXI ..... 373 The Commons drive at Lauderdale — The Earl of Kincardine before a Committee of the Commons — Lauderdale and arbitrary government — The Scottish Parliament is dissolved — Lauderdale governs without a Parliament — Charles II as a secret diplomatist — The rise and fall of field conventicles in Scotland — Lauderdale’s Scottish army — Shaftesbury intrigues against him — “ Popemakers ” in London — An in¬ demnity for Lauderdale — He is created Earl of Guilford — The Earl of Atholl’s “ machanick fellowes ” — Trouble with the advocates — Ecclesiastical muti¬ neers — The “ eternal feminine” — Sharp as “ Judas ” — Drastic measures by the Privy Council of Scotland — The breach between Lauderdale and Kincardine — The Lauderdalians and the Hamiltonians — Another attack on Lauderdale by the Commons — Lauderdale attacks the Prince of Orange — Lauderdale and the non¬ resisting Test Bill — Shaftesbury’s manoeuvre — The secret treaty of Charles with Louis — Danby and Lauderdale refuse to sign it — Lauderdale the only minister trusted by Charles — An ugly spirit in Scot¬ land — Fresh measures of repression — Lauderdale’s church appointments and their political flavour — He plays with the idea of a further Indulgence — The Bishops too strong for him. Chapter XXII ..... 399 Lauderdale and the Bishops — Dissatisfaction with Hamilton’s leadership — A game of “ graft ” — Conven¬ ticles again — The new measures for repressing them — Trouble in the West — The Highland Host — Condi¬ tions analysed — Hamilton's “ sciatica ” — The centre of interest shifts to London — The King’s views on Scottish affairs — The discomfiture of the Hamil¬ tonians — The keynote of the King’s interest in Scottish politics — A letter from Amsterdam and its effects — The affair of James Mitchell — The rabbling of Dr Hickes, Lauderdale’s chaplain — Lauderdale accused of working for France — The pitcher and its two ears. Chapter XXIII ..... 429 The Commons and the King’s Ministers — Sir Andrew Forrester’s account of the attack on Lauderdale in the Commons — Charles in a passion — Queensberry’s corre¬ spondence with Atholl and what it reveals — Money wanted from Scotland — A Convention of the Estates — The jerrymandering of the Elections — Amenities between Lauderdale and Hamilton — Matthew Mac- kaile on the situation — Lauderdale and Scottish tranquillity — The two Dukes and the two buckets — The ” Woeful West ” — A great conventicle — Making swords of pruning-hooks — Heritors and “ curates ” — The Covenanters in Northumberland — John Welsh — The Hamiltonians and the English Whigs — Lauder- XVI CONTENTS PAGE dale and the Highlands — The relations between Lauderdale and the Earl of Argyll — Argyll and the MacLeans — Justice in Scotland tainted at its source — Lauderdale and the Church — The basis of Lauder¬ dale’s politics in a nutshell — A barbarous raid on Covenanters — The Covenanting torch being passed on — Virginia and thumbscrews for Presbyterians — William Veitch — Lauderdale incensed by the Cove¬ nanters — Hamilton and the “ good people." Chapter XXIV 459 Shaftesbury’s rhetoric in the Commons — His attack upon Lauderdale’s administration — The Kirkton in¬ cident — Lauderdale and Romanism — The gossip of Gilbert Burnet — The confession of Charles — A re¬ newal of trouble in Scotland — The fight at Lesmahagow — The murder of Archbishop Sharp — Lauderdale again attacked by the Commons — The left wing of the Covenanters — Graham of Claverhouse and the fight at Drumclog — The Duke of Monmouth sent to Scotland — Bothwell Brig and its results — Lauderdale denounced by Russell at a Meeting of Council — The charges against Lauderdale — He is defended successfully by Sir George Mackenzie, King’s Advocate — Moderation urged upon the Privy Council of Scotland — The Protestant Duke and the Catholic Duke — An estimate of Lauderdale’s influence — The Duke of York in Scotland — The relations between him and Lauderdale — The affair of Argyll — Shaftesbury’s letter to Locke about Lauderdale — Lauderdale resigns the Secretary¬ ship — The reasons for his retirement — The Duke of York’s policy in Scotland — Cargillites and Cameronians — Some reforms effected by the Duke of York. Chapter XXV 489 Lauderdale at Bath and Tunbridge Wells — His efforts on behalf of Argyll — The Scottish attitude towards the Duke of York — Death of Lauderdale at Tunbridge Wells — Fountainhall on Lauderdale — Lauderdale’s magnificent funeral — An analysis of his character — The prejudiced estimates of Clarendon and Burnet — His favourable critics — What Law and Kirkton say — Richard Baxter’s letter to Lauderdale — Odious slanders discredited — Gradual deterioration in char¬ acter — The butt of libertines — The influence of his wife — The mephitic atmosphere of the Court — His public career and its guiding principles — His early devotion to the cause of liberty — His later devotion to absolutism — The hidden springs of his policy — The results of his policy — Its final failure. Index 509 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY Scotland of the seventeenth century can only be understood aright, by gauging the true value of the revolutionary epoch through which the country had passed in the sixteenth century. About the middle of that century, new religious and social tendencies were showing themselves in the State. The burghs, and especially the trade guilds in the burghs, were growing more powerful, more enlightened, more restive under the shackles of religious dogmas that were no longer believed, and social standards that were no longer accepted. On the other hand, the Church had reached a state of decrepitude ; her vigour had been sapped by wealth ; her usefulness impaired by simony ; and her doctrines stained by superstition. Her teachers had sunk into a condition of deplorable ignorance, and many of her ministers were leading lives of notorious vice.1 Wealth poured into her lap by credulous or pious donors, had induced luxury ; and luxury had brought forth its usual progeny. 1 Evidence of the truth of these statements is supplied by the Pope’s Legate, Father Nicolas de Gouda, who visited Mary Queen of Scots in 1562 ( Narrative of Scottish Catholics , pp. 75-6). The ignorance of the priests is shown by the fact that some of them thought that the New Testament was composed by Luther (Skelton’s Maitland oj Lethington , i. p. 204). A 2 INTRODUCTORY The Church became corrupt, ineffective, and finally contemptible. The satirical poets of Scotland, from Dunbar to Lindsay and the Wedderburns, made her a target for their shafts. The poets gave literary expression to the main drift of the people’s thoughts. The deadly weapon of ridicule killed whatever respect was left for Holy Church. The exaggerations of those who satirized her were readily believed by the people ; by them her former glory and beneficent past were equally forgotten or ignored. Yet the Church was not wholly corrupt. There was a sound remnant of virtue and learning, which, if wisely utilized, might have postponed the day of settlement. But the Church rushed blindly to her deserved doom. Prudence and foresight were conspicuously lacking in the policy of the prelates who ruled her destinies. They had the choice of two alternatives : reformation of themselves, or annihilation of their enemies. But for reforming themselves they had not sufficient grace ; and for destroying their foes they had not sufficient energy. When the first murmurs of dissent from their doctrine and protest against their lives were heard in the sixteenth century, they sent to the stake two foreigners, James liesby, an English¬ man, and a follower of Wykclif, and Paul Craw, a Bohemian, and a follower of Hus. Also, they persecuted certain Lollards, who had impregnated Ayrshire with new and startling theories in religion and politics. But when Lutheranism,1 like a slowly advancing tide, began to spread over the land, they put forth no serious effort to check its pro¬ gress, partly because they were tolerant, but chiefly 1 The Lutheranism of the early reformers in Scotland was more medieval in type than the Calvinism of the later reformers. Page 2, line 25. For Sixteenth Century read Fifteenth Century. ■ INTRODUCTORY 3 because they were lazy. It is true that they burnt the ex-abbot, Patrick Hamilton, the first notable Scot to suffer for his Protestant views ; they burnt George Wishart, the intrepid and scholarly mentor of John Knox ; and they burnt Walter Mill, the aged ex-monk, and the last of the Protestant martyrs in Scotland. In these, and other instances, they displayed a spirit of savage repression in marked contrast to the mildness of their general policy. But force was only spasmodically employed to dam the tide of heresy, and to stop the clamant cry for reform. The hunting of heretics by the Scottish prelates, was in no way comparable to the relentless and merciless persecution that marked Romanism elsewhere in its efforts to smother advanced thought. But it would have been better for the Scottish prelates had they never grasped the nettle at all, than to have seized it with so hesitating a hand. The cruelty of the methods they employed in the isolated instances of their vengeance ; the irresolution they displayed in carry¬ ing out a policy of repression to its logical issue ; and the singular ineptitude manifested by their choice of victims ; all contributed to hasten the downfall of their ecclesiastical system and the ruin of themselves. When, at length, they recognized the growing danger of their position, and professed themselves ready for measures of moderate reform, it was too late. The time for moderate reform was irrevocably past. The Roman Church had become an anachronism in Scotland, and was doomed to disappear. Its disappearance brought far-reaching issues in its train. The Scotland of Mary Queen of Scots was fundamentally different from the Scotland of Mary of Lorraine. The latter, an estimable woman 4 INTRODUCTORY and a resourceful ruler, encountered perplexities during her regency that taxed to the utmost her political sagacity and her moral strength. During that period, the ultimate issue of the fight between the Reformers and the Reactionaries lay in the balance. Her death coincided with the victory of the Reformers. That victory was won mainly by the efforts of two men of widely different temperaments and attainments : John Knox, the preacher, and William Maitland, the statesman. By the dominating virility of his character and the burning eloquence of his preaching, Knox kept the fires of revolution alight. By the dexterity of his diplomacy, Maitland procured the English fuel that made the fires blaze afresh, just when the embers seemed to be expiring. Had Knox, instead of Maitland, gone to the Court of Elizabeth, not an English soldier would have crossed the Border. Had Maitland, instead of Knox, attempted to rouse the Scottish populace, not a man of the “ rascal multitude” would have overturned a Popish altar. Thus, the work of the statesman was the complement of the work of the preacher ; and the work of both produced the Revolution. Or, to speak more accurately, they were the agents of the forces that caused it. Doubtless the Reformation (as the most im¬ portant religious and political epoch in Scottish history is too mildly styled), would have taken place sooner or later without either Knox or Maitland. But assuredly, in that event, it would have assumed a different form from the actual occurrence. The crisis produced the men ; and the men stamped their character upon their handi¬ work. It cannot be asserted that the Reformed religion must necessarily have been enshrined in a INTRODUCTORY 5 Presbyterian framework. But it is certain that the basis of parity on which the Presbyterian system rests, was fundamentally akin to the demo¬ cratic ideals in sociology and economics with which the people had become indoctrinated by trading contact with Continental centres of advanced thought. Socially, a condition of sturdy independ¬ ence, and ecclesiastically, an equality of status, are complementary ideals ; and the national life of the Scottish people since 1560 has endeavoured, with more or less success, to conform to them. One of the most important results of the Revolution was to create a genuine feeling of Nationalism in Scotland, which had previously been lacking ; and this national feeling was the offspring of new ideals in the sphere of religion, wedded to new aspirations in the domain of politics. Thus the Revolution was in truth a parting of the ways. In its accomplishment, the preacher and the statesman each had his share. But Mait¬ land’s predilections were never those of a zealot, and his temperament was out of harmony with his times. For a Revolution, a moderate man like Maitland, a man capable of seeing both sides of a question, is no fit leader. He may be useful, as Maitland was useful, in paving the way for the Revolution ; but he is incapable either of directing the popular tide, or of stemming it. Maitland stepped off the stage to make way for a man endowed with greater force of character ; and his later appearances were tragically suggestive of the fallen star. It is stated by Buckle, and has since been frequently repeated, that the Scottish Revolution was accomplished during the absence of Knox from his native land. Whether Knox was physically 6 INTRODUCTORY absent or present in Scotland, his spirit was ever in his native land, and his influence was an in¬ spiration of incalculable value to the movement for reform. When chained to the galley-oar in France, paying the penalty of his association with tyrannicides ; or when officiating in England, as King Edward’s select Preacher ; or when engaged in liturgical disputations with Anglicans at Frank¬ fort ; or when sitting at the feet of Calvin at Geneva ; at all points, he was preparing himself by discipline, by experience, and by knowledge, for the great work that lay before him ; and, when, in 1555, he returned to Scotland, he returned as a skilled organizer, a trained theologian, and a fiery orator. The nobles of Scotland were unsympathetic towards a popular movement having liberty as its goal. But they were not indifferent to the wealth of the Church, and the prospect of its diversion to themselves. They were a group of men as poor as they were proud, whose estates had been eaten up by the expense of maintaining the pomp of feudalism. Hitherto, the opposing forces in Scot¬ land had been the Crown and the nobles, the latter generally proving the more potent, except when confronted by a masterful King like James IV. Behind both was the Church, ready to seize the bone while the temporal rivals were snarling at one another. The middle and lower classes, forming a nucleus for genuine nationalism, were now and henceforth to have a voice in the State ; and under their leaders of the Reformed clergy, they were destined to play an important part in the disappear¬ ance equally of the feudalism of the nobles and the Romanism of the Church. The presence of Knox in Scotland was quickly INTRODUCTORY 7 felt. The nobles realized that a new force was among them, capable of shaping their inchoate schemes into a national revolt ; capable, too, in a measure, of diverting their selfish cupidity into a channel of pure patriotism. There could have been no real sympathy between a man like Knox, and men like the typical lords temporal of Scotland. But they were mutually serviceable in attacking a common enemy, whose spoliation was sought by both; but for different ends. For Knox desired to shatter the power and seize the wealth of the Church for the benefit of the nation ; the nobles, primarily, for the benefit of a caste : their own. But the immediate object of both was identical. A common cause was thus provided by a common ground for co-operation. The nobles could not succeed in their designs without the people ; and the people were as yet powerless to act without their natural leaders. The Church knew well the danger by which she was now threatened. She knew whence was derived the increasing strength of the rising flood of popular wrath ; whence the source of dissenting congregations that were springing up on all sides ; and whence proceeded the trumpet-call that made polished courtiers like the Queen’s bastard brother, and trained statesmen like Maitland, equally with the mass of rugged, uncultured nobles, listen with earnest attention to the new theology that made them think, and the new patriotism that made them act. John Knox was a firebrand that, in the view of the Church, would be none the worse for being thrust literally among the faggots. But Knox was not destitute of prudence ; and prudence suggested flight ; and flight meant the ultimate salvation of the movement through the postpone- 8 INTRODUCTORY ment of its fruition. Knox fled to Geneva in July 1555, and his effigy (instead of himself) was burnt by an enraged Government that had been deprived of its vengeance, backed by a scandalized prelacy that had been robbed of its prey. The movement, however, went on. The mantle of Elijah was taken up by minor prophets. During the first exile of Knox from Scotland (1547-1555), John Willock, the ex-friar of Ayrshire, and the ex-physician of Emden, greatly stimulated the cause by his high character and his sound learning. William Harlaw, an Edinburgh tradesman, showed that he could wield the Sword of the Spirit as effectively as the needle of the tailor. Erskine of Dun, a sincere convert among the barons, made the cause respectable among his fellows, who looked up to him as a man who had a reputation for learning. The Earl of Glencairn, a genuine Reformer, was the chief buckler of Protestantism in the West. But a complete break with the ancient Church was not yet in contemplation. During the second exile of Knox, the 44 minor prophets ” once more sustained the main burden of the cause on their shoulders, the nobles, as a body, oscillating between a desire for revolution and a stronger desire for safety. With Willock and Harlaw, co-operated at this time John Douglas, another ex-friar, and Paul Methven, another ex¬ tradesman. But the mainspring of the movement being absent, there was a lack of zeal among the converts. They were lulled by the soft voice of the Queen-Regent, who tried to rock them to sleep by crooning a song of toleration. Mary of Lorraine displayed at this' critical period consider¬ able tact and diplomatic skill. She knew that persecution would result in the loss of the ground INTRODUCTORY 9 she had won temporarily by the flight of Knox ; and her policy was to retrieve by mildness the position the Church had lost by repression. Her diplomacy was for a time successful. Knox, waiting in Dieppe, for an opportunity of returning to Scotland, was in despair. Without the nobility, as he (and England) knew, he could do nothing ; and the nobility, as a body, were lukewarm. Towards Protestantism, as a religion differing from Romanism, their attitude was still one of curiosity rather than conviction. They protested, not so much against the Roman dogmas, as against the Roman possessions. What they really wanted was, not so much a new faith as new lands. They were quite ready for a compromise. From Dieppe, at this juncture, Knox poured forth his soul in a fiery appeal to the timid trimmers. The appeal had an instant and astounding effect ; and its result shows clearly the enormous influence wielded by Knox. In the last months of 1557, a bond was drawn up : the first of the Covenants was signed ; and the nobles were at last stirred to a feeling resembling Nationalism against the new-born reactionary policy of the Queen-Regent, manufactured in France by the Guises. In 1559, John Knox again reached Scotland, and his presence (the greatest asset of the Reformers), by stimulating popular enthusiasm, strengthened the hands of the nobles, and with the active assistance of England, led to the final consummation of the Scottish Revolution. Note. — There was what is called a “ Celtic ” fervour about Knox’s preaching that, in later times, has Certainly been a conspicuous characteristic of Highland pulpits. Judging by . his. name} Knox IO INTRODUCTORY was probably of Celtic origin. In the Register of the Privy Council of England his name appears as “ Knock,” and he himself sometimes spelt it as “ Knokks,” i.e. the plural form of “ Knock.” The latter seemingly belongs to the topographical cate¬ gory (i e.g . Hill, Glen, Dale, etc.), the names in which originally distinguished the bearers from others having the same Christian names. •‘Knock” occurs frequently in Scottish and Irish topography. It is the English form of the Gaelic Cnoc , meaning a hill or knoll. Knox left his mark on English Church discipline, as well as his name in the English Privy Council Register. He served the Church of England for five years (1549-1553), in Newcastle, Berwick, and in or near London, and he was the “runagate Scot ” who inspired the so-called “ Black Rubric ” of the English Prayer-Book. He narrowly escaped being made a bishop. The Duke of Northumber¬ land solicitously sought his appointment to the See of Rochester for two reasons : he wanted to get rid of him (and his fellow-Scots) in the North, where he was too outspoken to please His Grace ; and he wished him to come South in order to “ quicken and sharp the Bishop of Canterbury, whereof he hath need.” Fortunately for Scotland, Knox did not take the bait. CHAPTER II William Maitland of Lethington, the statesman of the Scottish Reformation, was the first of his family to acquire widespread celebrity in public life. Through the tortuous ways of his diplomacy, his quick changes from one side to another, his plots to remove obstacles from his path, we can trace a fixed purpose running like a thread through a design.1 Was that purpose the patriotic desire to serve Scotland, or the determination to satisfy the ambition of William Maitland ? The question must remain unanswered if inconclusive discussion is to be avoided. But there can be no doubt of his influence whenever and wherever exerted ; and for the work done by him in co-operation with the other Reformers, Scotland owes him a debt of gratitude. Long trusted by Mary Queen of Scots as her astute man of affairs, he long deserved her confidence. But a consistently faithful servant to his sovereign he was not. Yet his death in prison in 1573 (by taking poison, so it was popularly but, perhaps, erroneously reported),2 as a whole¬ hearted supporter of Mary, may be held to have atoned for his lapses. His loyalty to Scotland in his diplomatic dealings with England was never 1 Maitland was Buchanan’s “ Cliamseleon,” and Richard Banna- tyne’s “ Mitchell Wylie of Scotland ” (by which name he meant “ Machiavelli ”). 2 “ He died at Leith after the old Roman fashion, as was said,” so writes his contemporary, Sir James Melville of Halhill. li 12 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF under suspicion. Accustomed to clerical diplo¬ matists, Scotland possessed in Maitland a new type of statesman, who proved himself fit, at all times, to cope with the experienced Ministers of England, and fit occasionally to beat them at their own game. As William Maitland was the confidential adviser of Mary Queen of Scots, so his younger brother, John, became the trusted counsellor of Queen Mary’s son, the King who was the most unkingly of the Stewarts. Sir John Maitland had the same talent for statecraft as his brother. The Maitlands, although an ancient family, were ranked among the lesser barons of Scotland. Yet, when at the zenith of their power, William and John Maitland dominated the affairs of the kingdom in a way that dwarfed the influence of the greatest of Scotland’s nobles. Their sovereigns ruled, and they ruled their sovereigns. The blind father of these men of affairs, Sir Richard Maitland of Lethington, was a poet ; 1 his sons were eminently practical men, though one was a poet as well. Sir John Maitland cultivated the friendship of the Kirk and of the middle classes. Shrewdly he divined their growing power ; he ranged himself on their side, and he acquired their confidence. Most important of all, he gained complete ascendancy over the mind of the young King, who was sagacious enough — he was a wise youth — to appraise, at their just value, the talents of the man to whose political guidance he resigned himself wholly. Maitland saw clearly that before good government could be 1 Sir Richard Maitland liad no mean opinion of the importance of his family, as may he gathered from his : “ Quha does not know the Maitland bluid The best in all this land.” JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 13 secured for Scotland, the power of the great nobles, who regarded themselves as above the law, must be broken. In the despatches of Sir Ralph Sadler, an Englishman who knew the Scottish nobility well, the latter are described as being in a state of “ beastly liberty.” Their lawlessness was not the result of the Reformation ; it had existed in pro¬ nounced forms long before. There was a striking contrast between the authority of the English Crown over the English nobles during the reign of Henry VTII. and Elizabeth, and the con¬ temporary relations between the Scottish Crown and nobility. The Scottish nobles obeyed the Crown only when its mandates were in consonance with the interests of the country ; or (as was more frequently the motive), when their own privileges were not adversely affected by their obedience. When James the Sixth took the reins of office in his own hands, he found himself called to the task of so adjusting the relations between his nobles and the Crown, as would enable him to rule as well as to reign. Sir John Maitland, afterwards Lord Maitland of Thirlestane (he was promoted from the Secretary¬ ship to the Chancellorship), directed the movement against the nobles, and nerved the arm of James to strike shrewd blows in the cause of Reform. His advocacy of increased powers for the Crown was based upon the theory that the strengthening of those powers was bound up with the repression of crime, the administration of justice, and the economic, political, and moral welfare of the country. His teaching sank deeply into a mind that was peculiarly receptive of any doctrine which magni¬ fied monarchical privileges. In his youth James conceived a view of the royal prerogative which 14 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF Time and success served to confirm and strengthen. When Maitland advised him to measure his strength against his nobility, he may not have foreseen that the weapon he advocated for repressing the law¬ lessness of the nobles, would one day be used for restricting the liberties of the nation. During the reign of James, fundamental questions affecting the rights and privileges inherent in the Crown, became the subject of acute difference between the King and his Scottish people. In the reign of Charles the First, this question divided the King from his English subjects by a gulf that stretched from the cradle to the block. In the reign of Charles the Second, the same questions pressed for a final solu¬ tion, which was dexterously avoided by a king who would have yielded honour itself rather than go on his travels again. The settlement came after the reign of the last, and (in some respects) the worst of the Stewart kings. In 1595, James the Sixth lost his sagacious counsellor, Lord Maitland, and the country lost a patriot, who, in the opinion of Lord Burghley, was “the wisest man in Scotland.” For years he had been, in effect, the ruler of Scotland, and his sway was, on the whole, beneficent. In the following century, his grandson and namesake, John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale, was also the virtual ruler of Scotland for a time. His career, which we are now about to study, forms a curious pendant to the lives of his justly celebrated grandfather, and his still more famous grand-uncle, William Maitland of Lethington. The subject of this biography was born at Lethington, on the 24th of May 1616. His father, John, Lord Maitland (created first Earl of Lauder¬ dale in 1624), who married Isabel Seaton, second JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 15 daughter of Alexander, Earl of Dunfermline, was the son and heir of Chancellor Maitland of Thirle- stane. He had fifteen children, of whom only four, three sons and one daughter, survived their mother, who died in 1638. The eldest of the surviving sons was the future Duke of Lauderdale. Early in life,1 John, Viscount Maitland, showed a remarkable aptitude for politics. In 1640, at the age of twenty-four, he accompanied from Ripon to London, the Scots Commissioners — composed of representatives of Church and State — who were appointed to discuss terms of peace with Charles the First, after his discomfiture by the Scots army in what was known as the “ Second Bishops’ War.” Thus, at the threshold of his career, we find Maitland in an atmosphere of politics and religion. Throughout his long career, these two were never completely disentangled, for, in the public life of Scotland, they were inseparable. In order to pro¬ vide a key to Maitland’s times, it will be necessary to study briefly the evolution of Church and State in Scotland from the temporary chaos produced by the Reformation of the sixteenth century. It has already been shown that the ferment which had been working in men’s minds on the eve of the Reformation, mainly affected the middle classes, especially the dwellers in the burghs. * Later, it spread below to the lower orders, and above (to a limited extent) to the aristocracy. But a large minority (perhaps an actual majority), in the country parishes, remained outside the in¬ fluence of the movement, and it was many years before the full tide of the Reformation reached the «* 1 He was apparently educated at St Andrews University, judging by an extract from the University’s Register (1631) which' has been kindly sent to me by Mr Maitland Anderson, the Librarian. 16 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF more distant coasts. In some parts, Protestantism has not, to this day, ousted Romanism. The Reformed ministry was at first composed of ex¬ monks, or (according to the Pope’s Legate) of 44 quite unlearned ” men, 44 being cobblers, shoe¬ makers, tanners or the like, while their ministrations consist merely of declamation against the Supreme Pontiff, and the holy sacrifice of the altar, the idolatry of the Mass, worship of images, and in¬ vocation of saints.”1 To which it may be fairly replied, that if these humble tradesmen were more 44 unlearned ” than the priests whom they displaced, their state of ignorance must have been abysmal. The task that lay before John Knox and his colleagues, in placing their Reformed Church on a sure basis, was a heavy one. In one sense, they had to make bricks without straw. They had to construct a National Church without the cement of complete national concurrence. Knox had before his eyes the Genevan ideal. But the Church at Geneva was essentially a municipal body on a theocratic basis ; and a Civic Church was unsuited to a nation. Therefore Knox had to look else¬ where for his polity, though he took his dogma mainly from Geneva. The latter was midway between the medievalism of the Lutherans and the rationalism of the Zwinglians. In the Confession of Faith prepared for the English congregation at Geneva (of which Knox had been the Minister) and approved of by the Church of Scotland at the beginning of the Reformation, Free-will is included with the 44 Masse ” and 44 Purgatorie ” as 1 Narrative of Scottish Catholics , p. 73. The source of the evidence is of course prejudiced ; probably a lew individuals are made to stand for a class. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE i? a “doctrine of devils and men.” In the Confession authorized in 1560 by the Scottish Estates, the Calvinian doctrine of the Communion is incor¬ porated, the “ bare sign ” of Zwingli, and the tran- substantiation of the Roman Church, being equally condemned. The “ mysticall action ” mentioned in the Confession is substantially the doctrine of Aelfric the Grammarian of Malmesbury, six centuries pre¬ viously. The Confession of Faith adopted by the Reformed Church of Scotland, is essentially the same as that of the Reformed Church of England in the reign of Edward the Sixth. The framework of the Reformed Church of Scotland possibly came from England rather than from Geneva. In the reign of Edward the Sixth, experiments, all tending to make the Church of England more definitely Protestant, were being made ; but they were interrupted by the premature death of the King. But for the early death of King Edward and of Martin Bucer, it is probable that the Church of England would have been reconstituted on a Presbyterian basis. Everything was pointing that way. The prelatic idea was in strong disfavour. Parity in the Church was accept¬ able even to some bishops. Bishop Poynet desired that the title of “ Superintendent ” should be sub¬ stituted for that of Bishop. For, he explained, “ Bishop simply means Superintendent. ” And about 1552, there were proposals afoot for dropping the title of Bishop altogether. Then came to England John Laski, a Pole of noble birth, who, with his friends, Martin Bucer, an Alsatian, and Peter Martyr, a Florentine, gave a strong impetus to the Protestant feeling. Laski, who is said to have resembled Knox in force of character, succeeded in obtaining legal recognition and an endowment THE LIFE AND TIMES OF 18 for his “ Church of the Strangers,” consisting of non- conforming Congregations of foreigners in London, whose common ties were nationality and ultra- Protestantism.1 The Congregations had pastors, elders, and deacons, and were disciplined by a General Church Council that met quarterly. At bottom, the polity was Presbyterian without the name, but there was a blend of Congregationalism that may have influenced future generations. Epis¬ copacy of a kind was represented by the appointment of Laski, in the charter of 1550, as “Superintendent,” a German title that meant nothing more than what the word expresses. Laski was “fixed moderator” of the General Council. There is good reason to believe that the pro¬ motion of “the Church of the Strangers” had, as one of its objects, the provision of a model for the reorganization of the Church of England on Presbyterian lines. The accession of Queen Mary dissipated alike the foreign congregations and the schemes of reform. Laski fled to the Continent, where he died in 1560. The year of his death was the year of the birth of the Reformed Church in Scotland. The “Church of the Strangers ” was intended as a model for England, and it may have served as one for Scotland. Knox must have followed the Laskian experiment with the keenest interest, and there is no room for doubt that if he did not deliberately organize the Protestant Church in Scotland on a definitely Laskian basis, there was, at any rate, 1 In 1547 there was a foreign Congregation (probably French) or the beginning of one, whose descendants still meet in the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral, but this Congregation had no legal status. Laski’s Church received by Charter the revenues and freehold of the Church of Austin Friars, adjoining Old Broad Street in the City. There is a Dutch Reformed Church in Austin Friars to this day. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 19 little to distinguish its framework from that of the “ Church of the Strangers ” in London.1 Compromise with some of the existing conditions became necessary, in order to preserve the infant Church from strangulation by material interests. The First Book of Discipline, drawn up in 1560, by the “Six Johns ” is thoroughly informed with the spirit of democracy. Special emphasis is laid upon the necessity for the education of the people, and the care of the poor. Every parish, it is insisted, should have a school; and though it was long before this idea took effective root, it was ultimately responsible for the admirable system of elementary education that so long gave Scotland a decided advantage over England. But the Book of Discipline was not fated to become the law of the land. It was too national for the aristocracy, who were prepared quite heartily to damn the Mass, and all the other appurtenances of Knox’s “currsed Papistrie,” so long as neither their privileges nor their properties were interfered with. Many years before the Scottish Reformation, the commenda¬ tion of the revenues of the wealthy abbeys and priories had been gradually passing into the hands of laymen. Even baby priors were not unknown. On the eve of the Reformation, this process of diverting ecclesiastical revenues into lay coffers was accelerated by the action of the hierarchy of the Old Church. Foreseeing the coming storm, and despite their own canons, they took cover by alienating, in many cases, the temporalities of the Church held in trust by them, to aristocratic lay¬ men as private holders. The nobles of Scotland 1 Probably Knox was also influenced by the contemporary movement in France on Presbyterian lines. The nucleus of all Presbyterian Churches is to be found in the system worked out by Francois Lambert, and adopted by a Synod summoned by Philip of Hesse in 1526. 20 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF were not disposed to devote their share of the plunder to the cause of the Reformed Kirk, nor to the promotion of education, nor to the relief of the poor. What they had they would hold ; they would not restore the patrimony of the Church to the uses for which it was originally intended. For Knox and his colleagues to press their views uncompromisingly on Parliament would have been futile. They had to consent to an arrangement, by virtue of which one-third of the ecclesiastical revenues was to be divided between the Crown and the Kirk. Similarly, in order to maintain the Constitution intact, Catholic Bishops were allowed to retain their seats in Parliament, and liberal provision was made for pensioning until their death, the clergy of the Old Faith. There was a gratifying atmo¬ sphere of tenderness towards the persons of the Romanists, that contrasted strongly with the fierce¬ ness with which their doctrines were assailed. John Knox died in 1572, leaving his mantle to Andrew Melville, and Elisha proved a worthy .successor of Elijah. In the same year the first parochial Presbytery in England was set up at Wandsworth, and the brand of bishops known as “ tulchan ” 1 was first manufactured in Scotland. It has been asserted by a distinguished historian2 that the Church organized by Knox in Scotland was “prelatic,” and that there is little proof that 1 “ Tulchan” is a Scots word meaning the stuffed skin of a calf set beside a cow as a milk-inducer. It is an apt word to describe the Protestant Bishops, who, in order to preserve the Episcopal Estate in Parliament were employed to take the places in Parliament of the Catholic Bishops as the latter died out. Their employers were the lay lords, who held the ecclesiastical properties, and paid their “ tulchan” creatures small stipends to play at being bishops. ( Tulchan appears to be ultimately derivable from a Celtic word for “ hillock ” or “ knoll.”) 2 The late Dr Maitland. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 21 he regarded its prelatic constitution as a concession to contemporary needs. But what exactly does “ prelatry ” connote ? Knox’s “ Bishops ” were called “ Superintendents,” as in the German and Laskian Churches, and as recommended by some English bishops for the Church of England. Knox and his colleagues thoroughly understood the necessity for avoiding as a name of ill-omen, the use of the word 4 4 Bishop.” In the First Book of Discipline , they showed their views of prelatry in the following forceful language : — “ It is neither the clipping of their crownes, the greasing of their fingers, nor the blowing (breathing upon candidates at ordination) of the dumb dogges (the Bishops did not preach), called the Bishops, neither the laying on of their hands, that maketh ministers of Christ Jesus.” It is difficult to conceive more pronounced anti-prelatic views than these. The authority of the Superintendents of the Reformed Church was delegated by the General Assembly of the Church, to which body they were responsible. Their duties could be undertaken by any ordinary minister. They 'preached. There was no Episcopal ordina¬ tion. There was parity (at any rate in theory) between Superintendent and ministers. There was no prelatry unless a supervisor is a prelate.1 The founders of the Reformed, Church in Scot¬ land laid its bases well and surely, and left no room for doubt on questions of parity and discipline. Probably John Knox cared not a bodle whether an official of the Church was called a Bishop, or a Superintendent, or a Presbyter, or a Priest, or an Elder, so long as it was clearly understood that, 1 ef Knox hated Prelacy nearly as much as he hated Popery,” says Mr Skelton in his Maitland of Lethington (ii. 16). 22 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF as Tyndale put it in his Practice of Prelates, these were simply Greek and English names for the same officer (with his functions differentiated); and that the title of 44 Bishop ” carried with it no im¬ plication of Apostolical Succession or sacerdotalism. From Jerome, who declared in the fourth century that 44 a Presbyter is the same as a Bishop,” to Gratian and Peter Lombard in the twelfth century ; and from them to Wyclif and Tyndale among the early Reformers in England, there was always a body of opinion opposed to prelatic claims. A threefold Ministry of Doctrine, Discipline, and Distribution was recognized alike by Calvin and Knox ; and the Churches of Geneva and Scotland were organized on that basis. In liturgical matters, Knox bequeathed to the Scottish Church the Book of Common Order , which, in conjunction with English colleagues, he had prepared for his English congregation in Geneva. In succession to the second Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth, it held its place (as a guide) until '1637, when it was superseded by 44 Laud’s Liturgy ” ; and finally, as the result of a growing repugnance for liturgical observances, both books were abolished (in Edin¬ burgh), by an injunction which required the Ministers to use only those extempore prayers they had been accustomed to make, before and after their sermons.1 Andrew Melville was the ecclesiastical statesman who gave the Church in Scotland its final Presby¬ terian form, with its machinery of Kirk Sessions, 1 In 1640, set forms of prayer were for the first time regarded as “ not spritwall eneuch,” and the Book of Common Order commenced to fall into disuse (see The Diocese and Presbytery of Dunkeld on the Ritual of the Church, pp. 60-5). The Directory of Public Worship , approved by the General Assembly in 1645, took the place of the Book of Common Order. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 23 Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies. And the General Assemblies of the Kirk became the true Parliament of the nation. This fact must be grasped firmly if the civil and religious history of Scotland from the signing of the National Covenant in 1638 to the Revolution in 1688 — exactly half a century — is to be read aright. It was only in the General Assembly that the voice of the nation could be adequately heard. For the greater part of these fifty years, the Estates were under the thumb of the Crown, or were the creatures of the Crown. But in the Kirk Assemblies, where the lay element was always considerable, the liberties of the nation were jealously guarded from the encroachments of the Crown. Equally by outspoken word and by energetic action, these intrepid, if intolerant, Church Parliaments battled unceasingly (until they were silenced by Cromwell) for what they held to be the civil and religious well-being of the people, whose sole protectors they were against aggression. The tenderness of the Reformed Kirk for the lower orders is expressed in the First Book of Discipline, where attention is directed to the oppression of the 44 poore brethren, the labourers and manurers of the ground by these cruel beastes the Papists ” ; while the Confession of Faith makes it obligatory 44 to represse tyrannic,” and 44 to defend the op¬ pressed.” Throughout the history of the Kirk, her attitude towards the lower orders was consistently sympathetic. The Second Book of Discipline (attributed to Andrew Melville), was produced in 1581, and in the same year, Scotland was divided into Ptesby- teries. Some of the Canons of the Second Book, relating to the functions of Church Courts, were 24 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF inserted in an Act of Parliament in 1592. The Second Book of Discipline was the complement of the First. It was concerned mainly with “ redding the marches ” between Church and State. That was a Melvillian task which was performed, in theory, with conspicuous ability. Yet, in practice, it proved to be hedged with veritable thorns. The formation of Presbyteries coincided writh a declara¬ tion against Episcopacy. The “ tulchan ” bishops remained, but they were under the authority of the General Assembly ; and they gradually disappeared. But James the Sixth of Scotland commenced the restoration of Episcopacy by appointing three Bishops before he crossed the Border, and Janies the First of England completed the Episcopal edifice. King James and the Scots Presbyterians, led by the two Melvilles, who detested Bishops, failed to find a common ground of agreement. To James, with his notions of the royal prerogative, Andrew Melville’s declaration that th£re wrere “ twa Kings in Scotland, twa Kingdoms, and twa Jurisdic¬ tions,” was profoundly distasteful ; nor was he better pleased with James Melville’s contemptuous allusion to “the goucked gloriosity of the Bishops.” Andrew Melville’s description, at Whitehall, of Bancroft’s vestments as “ Romish rags ” was in keeping with his plain speaking at the Hampton Court Conferences, where the English audiences were astounded to hear the King “ so talkit to and reassounit with.” Truly, these Scottish Reformers — Knox and the Melvilles, and some of their successors — feared the face of no man, King or Bishop. It was James the Sixth of Scotland who extolled Presbytery at the expense of Episcopacy, and who scrupled not to revile the English Prayer- JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 25 Book.1 It was the same James, but now James the First of England, who declared that “ Presby¬ terianism agreeth as well with monarchy as God and the devil.” Also, James had shrewdly per¬ ceived that Bishops were the best buttresses he could have, for the defence of the legacy of absolute power left to him by the Tudors. “No Bishop, no King ” was an aphorism that expressed his alliance with the Episcopal bench. It was at the beginning of the seventeenth century that per¬ manent issues between the Crown and the Church of Scotland, which were to continue until the Stewarts were driven from the Throne, began to shape themselves with distinctness. The contro¬ versies of a large part of the next fifty years centred upon the limits to be placed on the King’s prerogative. W as the King to be subject to the laws, or was he to be above all law ? Was he to be obeyed blindly, or only if his commands were lawful ? Was he to be the governor of men’s consciences as well as of their persons ? W as he to control, or be controlled by, the religion of his people ? These w^ere questions that had already been answered by George Buchanan, the old tutor of King James. They could only be answered in, one way by the heirs of Knox and the Melvilles. James, still a Calvinist, though now an Episco¬ palian, revelled in theological disputes. He was a witty, though a wordy man ; and a shrewd, though a feckless King. During his reign, and that of his predecessor, the prevailing dogma, even 1 James, when in Scotland, described the Presbyterian system as “the sincerest (purest) Kirk in the world.” The English Prayer- Book was “an ill-said mass.” The order of Anglican bishops “smelled vilely of Popish pride ” and their copes and ceremonies were “ badges of Popery.” Well did Andrew Melville describe James as “God’s silly vassal.” (“Silly,” of course, means “poor,” used as a term of compassion.) 26 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF among those Bishops who persecuted the Puritans, (e.g. Whitgift), was Calvinian, and the bent of the Puritans was in a Presbyterian direction. That bent received a strong stimulus from the teaching of Thomas Cartright, the Cambridge professor who got the better of Whitgift in controversy, but who had to transfer his abilities to countries where they were better appreciated than in England. Presbyterianism in England, throughout the reigns of James the First and Charles the First, and at the outbreak of the Civil War, thoroughly per¬ meated London, which, with Lancashire, remained the great stronghold of the Presbyterian persuasion after it had been obliterated in the rest of the country. The Calvinian dogma in England gradu¬ ally lost its hold on all but the Puritans, especially after Laud had reached the Chair of Canterbury. But while Arminianism spread in England, Scotland was faithful to its Calvinism, and has so remained, though in a modified degree, to the present day. The Scots, like the French, are a logical people ; and a logical system, whether of theology or philosophy, has always had its attractions for them. Charles the First, born a Scot, and baptized a Presbyterian,1 did not long remain either a pre- destinarian in doctrine, or a Puritan in ritual. On the contrary, he became the devoted son of a Church purged partially of Puritanism and Calvinism, and ruled by men like Bancroft, who was the first in England to proclaim the Divine Right of Bishops, and priests like Laud, who was the first to elevate ritual to the dignity of a dogma. Firmly clinging to the belief that underlay his father’s aphorism, 1 “ This Kirk where his Majestie had both his birth and baptisme ” Acts of Parliament of Scotland, V. p. 276). JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 27 “No Bishop, no King,” Charles magnified the Episcopal office as a shield to the Throne. He realized that the high schemes of the Crown and of Episcopacy must stand or fall together ; that mutual support was therefore essential ; and that uniformity of ritual and doctrine must be secured in the Church to place King and Bishop in unchal¬ lenged and unchallengeable security. Completely sincere in his attachment to Episcopacy, as under¬ stood by Bancroft and Laud, he paid the penalty ultimately of his devotion to the principles that they inculcated. In Laud, Charles found a Bishop after his own heart to further his views, and Laud found a King after his own heart to promote his high Episcopal pretensions. After he had reached the Chair of Canterbury, Laud soon shaped the Church of England in a Ritualistic mould ; and his success encouraged him to meddle with the affairs of the Church of Scotland as well. He, himself, protests that he was far from being the “ chief incendiary ” in the Scottish business ; and that all he did was to give his “ best counsel ” to the Scottish Bishops, and his “ best assistance ” to the King.1 The Scottish troubles, according to him, were caused, not by the attempt to foist Anglican ritual and liturgy upon the people, but by “ temporal dis¬ contents and several ambitions of the great men, which had been long aworking,” and that “ religion was called in upon the bye to gain the clergy and by them the multitude.” Beyond doubt, the main cause of the unrest in Scotland was the policy of Charles in magnify¬ ing the influence of the Bishops and minifying that of the nobles. The latter were incensed 1 The Works of Land , III. p. 304. 28 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF by the revocation of all post-Reformation gifts of Church lands and tithes. Although sub¬ sequently modified to apply only to the Crown s share of the spoil (afterwards parcelled out among the nobles), and although finally withdrawn in consideration of the payment to the Crown of rent, this revocation left a legacy of ill-feeling on the part of the nobility towards the King, that proved of great disservice to his cause in later years. The avowed aim of Charles in these proceedings was entirely just, in so far as it sought to restore to the Church a larger share of the revenues that were originally in her possession. His father had found it necessary, for the support of the Church, to supplement her scanty income with a share of the tithes ; and Charles was now enabled, from the increased revenue of the Crown, to reserve for the use of the Church, the whole of the teind, valued at one-fifth of the rent. The King’s obvious intention to exalt the Church at the expense of the nobility, was shown, further, by his attitude towards the machinery of Parliamentary legislation. The “ Articles ” were so powerful an instrument of control, that any changes in the balance of their constitution were bound to be viewed with alarm. In the days of the Regent Morton, who established the “ tulchan ” Bishops, these dignitaries, although still one of the Estates of the Realm, were politically impotent. Charles aimed at restoring their successors to the privileges in Parliament that the Prelates had pre¬ viously enjoyed, with the Archbishop of St Andrews, the Primate of Scotland, ranking on ceremonial occasions before the Chancellor of Scotland. The effect of the changes wrought by Charles in the constitution of the Articles was to make the Bishops JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 29 the King’s humble servants, as a matter of course, and the nobles whom the Bishops nominated on the Articles were certain to be, at least, Episcopal well-wishers, if they were not the Bishops’ tools. Laud notes the “ clamour against the Bishops’ power in choosing the Lords of the Articles,” and asserts that “ they had that power by the funda¬ mental laws of the Kingdom.”1 The summary of the history of the Articles given below, shows how far that assertion accorded with the facts.2 Thus, at the time that Charles tried to thrust what is known (not altogether accurately), as “ Laud’s Liturgy ” upon the people of Scotland, he had to encounter a triple wall of national opposition. The nobles disliked the Bishops, because they encroached upon their revenues and their privileges ; the middle classes because they feared the growth of their power in Church and State alike ; and the lower classes because they were apprehensive of the country being tossed from the horns of the mitre right back into the lap of the “ Scarlet Woman.” The new Service-Book was regarded by all classes in Scotland as the final link in the chain that was designed to bind the Kirk to the domina¬ tion of the Bishops, and men’s consciences to the supremacy of the King. Its imposition on the country was hotly resented. The mere fact that it was believed to have been hatched in England was sufficient to arouse national feeling, and to make its acceptance impossible. It was the cul¬ minating act in a series of measures, beginning 1 The Works of Laud , III. p. 299. About this time the King had created a Bishopric of Edinburgh, and the “ Great Church of St Giles” was being made into a Cathedral. (Laud’s Works, HI. p. 315.) 2 See note on the Articles at the end of this chapter. 30 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF with the irritating Book of Canons 1 issued by the King, all tending in the same direction. But in the teeth of the national opposition, Charles per¬ sisted in the folly of thrusting his Prayer-Book on a people who were equally determined to have nothing whatever to do with it. The results were first a deadlock, and then the National Covenant of 1638. This was neither the first nor the last of the Scottish Covenants. But why “ Covenant”? The word, as applied to an agreement, or a bond, is of illuminating significance. John Knox had a good deal in common with the Hebrew prophets. He resembled them in his fearless outspokenness, in his passion for righteousness, and in his sense of direct responsibility to God. He shared with his master, Calvin, the view that clergy and magistrates alike were the ministers of God, appointed to do His Will, and that every office in Church and State alike was consequently sacred. These views entered into the core of the teaching of the Reformed Kirk, and coloured the Scottish view of religion for generations.2 Therefore, the Old Testament atmo¬ sphere in which the people lived, naturally produced Old Testament phrasing when a high purpose of national importance had to be achieved. A “ Covenant with God ” possessed a significance and force that no national undertaking, however binding, could possibly have secured. And a “National” Covenant superadded the element of patriotism to that of religion. This explains the 1 The Canons were printed in Aberdeen in 1636, with the King’s authority. One of the Canons (with which all laymen will sympathize), ordained that “ preachers in their sermons and prayers eschew tedious¬ ness.” Another forbids extempore prayers. Children were to be taught according to Deux et Rex. (Laud’s Works, V. pp. 589, 597-8.) 2 The Scottish Covenants, too, were national, as were those of the Jews, thus providing another link with the Biblical prototypes. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 31 devotion of the Scots to their “ Covenants ” ; the religious and national meaning inherent in them ; the desperate tenacity with which the people clung to them ; and the fearless intrepidity with which they died for them. The opposition to the new Canons and the new Liturgy resulted in welding together the different classes of the Scottish people into national unity, based on a common danger. This unity was based, too, on a common resolve : to fight, if need be, in defence of civil and religious liberties. The Covenant stirred emotions of unexpected depths that were unflinchingly Protestant, uncompromisingly anti- Prelatic, and withal, passionately National. And yet in a sense, the movement was not national, for it did not embrace the Highlands. The reaction against Prelacy had barely touched the North, and a few years later, Highland Catholics and Lowland Covenanters were at one another’s throats. But the Highlands, separated from the Lowlands by barriers of language and habits, no less than by hills and forests, were still, in a real sense, outside the orbit of Scottish nationality. The National Covenant (of which Archibald Johnstone, afterwards Lord Warriston, and Sir Thomas Hope, the King’s Advocate, were the principal authors),1 was supplemented by the action of a General Assembly at Glasgow, under the moderatorship of Alexander Henderson, the greatest Scottish Churchman of his time, and an opponent for whom Laud had the highest respect. Episcopacy was declared to be abolished, and the Bishops de¬ posed ; the irritating Canons and the obnoxious Liturgy, the Court of High Commission, and what 1 Alexander Henderson is also believed to have had a hand in drafting it. 32 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF were known as the Five Articles of Perth 1 were all uncompromisingly condemned. Thus the King was plainly defied. He took up the challenge, and entered upon “The First Bishops’ War” in 1639. 2 The Covenanters found valuable military material in numerous Scottish soldiers home from the Wars in Germany. These men had fought under Gustavus Adolphus, in whose service, too, the Covenanting General, Field-Marshal Alexander Leslie, “ the crooked auld carle,” had won distinction. The Covenanters were inspired by enthusiasm. The King could find neither money nor enthusiasm in England, where the essential oneness of the national cause in both countries was fully recog¬ nized. Charles had perforce to give way. But the truce was of short duration : and in 1640 the Second Bishops’ War broke out. The Scots crossed the Border and drove before them the King’s troops, who had no heart in their work. Charles was again compelled to treat, and negotiations were opened at Ripon. Meanwhile things had moved quicklyin England. The opportunity provided by the presence of the Scots army on English soil for the assertion of popular rights in England, was not neglected. The King summoned the Long Parliament. He soon discovered that he had less to hope from it than from the Short Parliament. The Commissioners from the Scots army wTere welcomed by the 1 These dealt with : (1) Kneeling at the Sacrament ; (2) The private administration of the Communion ; (3) Baptism ; (4) Confirmation of the Bishops ; (5) The observance of Church festivals. 2 In that year (1639) the Scots were in close communication with Richelieu, and certain Scots lords addressed a letter t« Louis direct. The French were fishing in drumly waters. It was their usual method of embarrassing England. In 1637, Richelieu sent a priest named Chamberlain to Edinburgh to stir up trouble. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 33 Parliament, when the negotiations with the King were transferred to London from Ripon. W e have now viewed the circumstances under which John Maitland made his first appearance on the stage of public life, at the close of 1640 ; and we have seen the forces that were at work in Scotland during a period of three-quarters of a century, moulding the national life into the shape in which we find it, just before the middle of the seventeenth century. Note on the “ Articles.” The germ of the idea that subsequently fructified in the institution of the Parliamentary Committee, known as the “ Lords of the Articles,” appears in the proceedings of the Parliament that was held at Perth in February 1369. It was then ordained that a Committee be appointed by Parliament to deliberate upon certain affairs of the King and the Kingdom, previous to their being brought before the whole Parliament. The first specific mention of the Lords of the Articles, as such, appears in the records of the Parliament of 1467, when three representatives of each of the Three Estates were chosen to serve on the Articles, or Parliamentary Bills. The Three Ancient Estates — whose representatives in the Scottish Parliament all sat together in one House — were the Church (represented by the Bishops, the mitred Abbots, and the Priors), the Baronage (the great nobles and the gentry), and the Burghs (represented by their Provosts or other burgesses). Representation in Parliament was not always re¬ garded as a privilege. On the contrary, it was frequently regarded as a hardship, owing to the c 34 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF expense which it entailed. Thus the gentry (the “lairds”) in the reign of James the First (of Scotland), obtained leave to attend by proxy, and in course of time, they disappeared altogether from Parliamentary life. They re-appeared in the reign of James the Sixth, on the elimination of the mitred Abbots; and in 1587, they found, as “ Commissioners of the Shires,” separate repre¬ sentation on the Articles ; they were to have the same number on that Committee as the Burghs. Thus, the Lords of the Articles came to consist of prelates, noblemen, barons (so called to dis¬ tinguish the lairds from the great nobles1), and burgesses. In 1640, when the Church as a separate Parliamentary Estate was abolished, the “trewe Estates of this Kingdom” were declared to be noblemen, barons, and burgesses. The number of members acting on the Articles varied considerably from time to time. Originally, apparently, three from each of the Three Estates, the number showed a complete absence of uni¬ formity until 1587, when it was ordained that not fewer than six, nor more than ten, from each Estate, should be elected. Thereafter, the correct number from each Estate seems to have been tacitly accepted as eight, with an additional eight who were Crown officers nominated by the King. Inferentially, it seems clear that, originally, each Estate chose its own representatives on the Articles. But in the Parliament of 1524, the temporal lords chose the six spiritual lords. And Randolph, Queen Elizabeth’s Minister in Scotland, thus describes the mode of election in 1560 : — “ The Lords Spiritual choose the Temporal, and 1 Nobles, Lairds, and Burghs all held in baronage from the Crown ; the Burghs as a community. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 35 the Temporal the Spiritual ; the Burgesses their own.” In the Parliament of 1633, eight of the clergy were elected on the Articles by the nobility ; eight of the nobility by the clergy ; eight of the barons, and eight of the burgesses by the sixteen bishops and nobles ; and eight officers of the Crown were nominated by the King. In the Parliament of 1639 (there being no longer a “ Spiritual ” Estate), eight noblemen and four officers of State were nominated by the King’s Commissioner, the Earl of Traquair, to serve on the Articles ; and eight barons and eight burgesses were then elected by the nobles.1 In 1640, Parliament was empowered to choose Lords of the Articles, or not, as might be decided. If they were chosen, each Estate was to elect its own Commissioners ; and the Committee were to deal with matters already discussed by Parliament, and remitted to the Committee for report. The practice actually followed after 1640, was for each Estate to elect its own representatives on the Articles. The same Parliament (or Convention) of 1640 repealed an Act passed in 1594, ordaining that a Committee consisting of four from each Estate should meet twenty days before Parliament was opened, to consider articles previously sent in to the Clerk of Register, “ so that things reasonable and necessary may be presented in a book to the Lords of the Articles at the meeting of Parlia¬ ment.” Also, by this Act of 1594 (repealed in 1640), power was reserved to the King to present Articles at any time. 1 Protests were lodged against this method of election as forming a bad precedent. It was this Parliament that confirmed the revolu¬ tionary proceedings of the Church Assembly at Glasgow. The Acts legalizing the Assembly’s resolutions were not ratified until 1641, when, in the month of August, the King visited Edinburgh. 36 JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE In 1661, when the election to the Articles took place, the nobility retired to the Inner House ; the barons stayed in the Parliament House ; and the burgesses went to the room of the King’s Commissioner. Each body chose twelve of its own number, and presented them to the Commissioner. In 1662, Bishops were restored to representation on the Articles. In 1663, the procedure adopted by the Parliament of 1633 was followed exactly, and from that date, the same composition of the Articles, and method of election continued in force until 1689, when the whole system was declared to be a national grievance. Finally, in 1690, the Act of 1663 was rescinded ; and it was enacted that an equal number from each Estate be chosen to serve on the Articles, each by its own Estate ; that Parliament be at liberty to legislate without the intervention of a Committee ; and that the King could appoint Officers of State to be present without a vote. And that was the last change made before the Union of the Parliaments in 1707. 1 1 These particulars have been obtained from the Acts of Parliament of Scotland. CHAPTER III On the 20th November 1640, the King informed the House of Lords that the Scots Commissioners had arrived in London. The chief lay Com¬ missioners were the Earl of Rothes and John Campbell, Lord Loudoun.1 Lord Maitland was probably one of the official Commissioners ; at any rate he was in their company.2 The Commis¬ sioners had their headquarters in Worcester House in the City, and the neighbouring church of St Antholin’s was set apart for the use of their ministers, who included Alexander Henderson. There was a way out of Worcester House to the gallery of St Antholin’s “ near London Stone.” According to Clarendon (an unfriendly critic), “ from the first appearance of the day in the morn¬ ing on every Sunday, to the shutting in of the light, the church was never empty.”3 The Commissioners had an easy task. Fortified by the moral backing of the majority of the members of the House of Commons, and with a victorious army in the North, able and ready to enforce their demands, they compelled the King to submit to their terms. They required the King to recall his minatory proclamations ; to place the Scottish fortresses at the disposal of the Scottish 1 Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion, B. III. 37. 2 Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie , 1. p. 473. 3 History, B. III. 37- St Antholin’s was destroyed in the Great Fire of 1666. It was rebuilt by Wren in 1677. The building was taken down in 1875. It stood at the corner of Sise Lane and Budge Row. 37 38 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF Parliament ; to pay all the expenses of the war ; and to punish those, who by their evil counsels, had advised the King to embark upon hostilities. The importance of the Scottish success to the Liberal Party in the House of Commons can hardly be over-estimated. It enabled Pym and his followers to press for, and obtain, concessions that would otherwise have been impossible of realization without an open rupture. It enabled them to procure the abolition of the Star Chamber, the High Commission, ship-money, tonnage and poundage (except by Parliamentary consent) ; and to pass a Bill that secured the election of a Parlia¬ ment at least once in three years. On 11th Nov¬ ember Strafford was impeached ; afterwards Laud was sent to the Tower ; and Charles found himself suddenly stripped of his machinery for oppression, and deprived of the men who worked it. On 3rd February 1641, the House of Commons voted £300,000 towards “ the losses and necessities of our Brethren of Scotland,” a handsome sum, but by no means an over-valuation of the services to English reform rendered by the Scots. The affec¬ tionate language of the Commons was a source of gratification to the Commissioners, who returned thanks “ for the style of Brethren given them in the vote of the House.” It was not, however, until July that the work taken in hand by Pym and his supporters was finished, and it was not until August that the money owing to the Scots was paid, and the army returned home.1 The Church question in England was settled 1 In August 1641, Lord Maitland was instructed by the Estates sitting in Edinburgh, on the question of the disbanding of the “English ” army and the garrisons of Berwick and Carlisle. He was told to stay at York until the army was disbanded. (Acts of Parliament of Scot¬ land , V. pp. 346-7.) JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 39 after the civil reforms had been wrested from the King. Clearly, changes in a Puritan direction could not be carried out so long as Laudian bishops remained in power. There was a moderate party in the House of Commons, headed by Lucius Cary, Lord Falkland, which desired not the aboli¬ tion of prelacy, but the restriction of its privileges. But the friends of compromise were found to be in the minority, and finally the Bishops had to go. Charles did not yet confess himself beaten. He had realized what a faithful friend and a powerful enemy Scotland could be. Why not secure the interest of his native country in support of a Royal Stewart ? To Scotland therefore he went, even before the Scots army had left England. He reached Edinburgh on 14th August 1641. It was a fruitless journey. The Scots were suspicious, as they had good reason to be. In vain did Charles distribute his favours. I11 vain did he* make Alexander Leslie Earl of Leven, and give Earldoms, also, to Lords Loudoun and Lindsay. And equally in vain did he seek first to cow, and then to conciliate with a Marquisate, the powerful Earl of Argyll.1 Argyll, or to give him his Highland patronymic, MacCailin Mor (son of great Colin), was not only the chief of the Clan Campbell : he was also the indisputable master of the Scottish Estates. And if Argyll dominated the Scottish Parliament, the Kirk dominated Argyll. It was Argyll’s misfor¬ tune to be a contemporary, and a rival for power, of the most romantic figure in Scottish history : 1 “ It would pity any man’s heart,” writes Sir Patrick Wemyss to Ormonde, “ to see how he (the King) looks, for he is never at quiet amongst them, and glad he is when he sees any man that he thinks loves him, yet he is seeming merry at meat. Henderson is greater with him than ever Canterbury (Laud) was. He is never from him night nor day.” (Carte, I. p. 4.) 4o THE LIFE AND TIMES OF James Graham, Earl (subsequently Marquis) of Montrose. The Chief of the Campbells and the Graham were unevenly matched. Born into the greatest family of the West Highlands, Argyll possessed advantages for acquiring political pre¬ dominance that Montrose never enjoyed. The Grahams lacked the national prestige of the Camp¬ bells. Montrose spent his most formative years out of Scotland, what time Argyll was preparing the ground for consolidating his power. Argyll was plainly a sincere Presbyterian ; and a profes¬ sion, at least, of Presbyterianism was essential for success in Scottish political life. Montrose was a fervent and enthusiastic Covenanter ; but his fervency was reserved for the National Covenant, and his enthusiasm was reserved for the sacred cause of Scottish liberty. Bishops, as he declared at the end of his career, he never cared for, but to Presbyterianism, as a system of Church govern¬ ment, he was equally indifferent. Thus, in a contest between Argyll and Montrose for political power, Argyll was bound to win. Argyll appears before us in history as a crafty man, with a mind like a dungeon for darkness and depth. Unlike most of his forebears and successors, he was unwarlike by temperament. His place was in the council chamber, not in the field. And as a councillor in the most distracted period of Scottish history, he guided his country’s destinies, if not always wisely, at any rate patriotically. Having put his hand to the Covenanting plough, he never turned back. At a time when consistency in politicians was rare, he remained true to his principles. But his statesmanship lacked foresight and courage, and was consequently not statesman¬ ship of the highest order. He was constitutionally JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 41 cautious, and inclined to play for safety ; the safety, it should in fairness be added, not merely of him¬ self personally, but of his country as well. It was a policy that broke down at a time of crisis, and in the result, brought Scotland under the heel of Cromwell, and Argyll himself to the block. “ A gloomy, unattractive fanatic.” Such is the popular, but mistaken, portrait that history has drawn of this remarkable chief of Clan Diarmid. Xo greater contrast can be imagined than the popular picture of Montrose. Flawless his character was not, and it was well, lest weaker men should despair. His breach with the Covenanters was perhaps not uninfluenced by his jealousy of Argyll, for his ambition could brook no rival. When a Covenanter, his treachery towards Huntly was a blot on his escutcheon. When a Royalist, his tacit acquiescence in the Irish barbarities towards the inhabitants of Aberdeen was a disgrace alike to his nationality and his humanity.1 And at one time, after going over to the King, he looked like changing sides once more (though some historians assign other reasons for his apparent hesitancy). Yet, in spite of these smudges on his fair fame (which his apologists strive, with small success, to remove), the character of Montrose remains the most fascinating that Scotland has yet given the world. His countrymen, and some who are not his countrymen, have used up all the available adjectives to express their sense of his greatness and goodness. Truly, he was a gallant gentleman, who had few lapses, and a magnificent soldier who made few mistakes. As a diplomatist, he was not 1 Even the gentle Bishop Leighton alludes to Montrose as “the sword of a cruel enemy.” The Irish were regarded with horror by the Scots Presbyterians as the Papists who had massacred their co-religionists in Ireland. 42 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF remarkably successful, and when he engaged in political intrigue (as witness his attempt to sweep Argyll out of his path hy the Cumbernauld Bond, and in the affair called The Incident) he was not particularly happy. The tragedy of Montrose’s life was that he served a King who was always too late. That was the overmastering weakness of Charles the First in granting reforms ; it was the crushing misfortune of his servant Montrose in winning victories. His brilliant campaign at the head of his Highlanders was terribly futile. He drenched Scotland in the blood of her sons when she needed eveiy drop for her own vitality. He weakened her, and disunited her, when she needed every ounce of her national strength. And all to no purpose. The campaign ruined the cause of the Covenanters, but it did not save King Charles from the scaffold ; on the contrary it helped to hasten the end. It was a unique effort, but it failed to make any perceptible change in the current of history. Montrose gained glory and imperishable renown ; his Highlanders obtained booty and revenge ; but as a nation, Scotland suffered grievous loss, unrelieved by any tangible benefits. And perhaps the greatest loss was the loss of Montrose’s military genius in the service of his country, when Scotland, with her back to the wall, was struggling against Cromwell, whose only peer, in either nation, as a soldier, was the great Marquis. Montrose’s victories were Scotland’s tragedies. With these two men, Argyll and Montrose, the life of Maitland was closely bound up during the first ten years of his public career. His first important mission was in the role of a peace¬ maker. The General Assembly of the Kirk, held JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 43 at St Andrews in July 1642, drew up a supplica¬ tion to the King for peace, based upon uniformity of Church Government in the three Kingdoms ; and it was also desired to obtain the assent of Charles to a Parliament and an Assembly. In addition, a reply was prepared to a communica¬ tion which had been received from the English Parliament. This reply concurred heartily in the Parliament’s views about Bishops, and expressed a desire for a common Confession of Faith, Catechism, and Directory for Public W orship. The Assembly charged Maitland with the duty of bringing these messages to the King and the English Parliament. Like his father, the Earl of Lauderdale, Maitland was an Elder of the Kirk, and both took an active part in the proceedings of the Assembly of 1642. The selection of so young a man as Maitland for such an important errand, clearly shows the confidence reposed by the Assembly in his integrity and diplomatic skill. This evidence of the high esteem in which he was held on the threshold of his public career at once confronts us with the question: “Was he a hypocrite from the very commencement of his public career, or was he (in very truth) what the late Mr Andrew Lang called ‘ the pious Lord Maitland ’ and 4 the godly Lord Maitland ’ ? ” Mr Lang forgot his sneer in a later part of his History , and declared that Maitland was a “religious fanatic in his youth ” ; which can only mean that, in Mr Lang’s belief, Maitland was a convinced Covenanter in his early days.1 1 History of Scotland , III. pp. 105, 111 and 293. As a pendant to Mr Lang’s views expressed in the text, the opinion (noticed later) of Dr Airy, that Maitland was a conscious hypocrite from the beginning of his career, is not without interest. These adverse views of the character of Maitland in his youth 44 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF The present writer cannot pretend to judge whether or not Maitland, at the age of twenty- seven, was a “ godly youth,” or a clever schemer. But it can be asserted with confidence, that there is nothing in his actions which is in the least incon¬ sistent with the assumption that when he entered public life, he was completely sincere in his religious beliefs, and wholly honest in his political motives ; and his attachment to the Covenant was proved on more than one occasion. Of his political ability there was never any doubt, and it will be seen later on, that the proofs of his exceptional talent are neither few nor inconspicuous. The General Assembly’s petition to the King was, of course, fruitless. But Maitland’s mission to the English Parliament was successful. He brought back to Scotland, a message charged writh goodwill and cordial acquiescence in the Assembly’s desire for a common statement of faith and discipline. A hearty invitation was given to the Kirk to send delegates to the Westminster Assembly of Divines, which was to meet on 5th November, for the purpose of preparing a creed and a directory of worship. The General Assembly chose five ministers, Alexander Henderson, Robert Douglas, George Gillespie, all of Edinburgh, Samuel Ruther¬ ford of St Andrews, and Robert Baillie of Glasgow, and three “ruling elders,” John, Earl of Cassillis, John, Lord Maitland, and Sir Archibald Johnstone (who had been knighted by Charles) to represent the Kirk at the Westminster Assembly (which did not meet until 1st July 1643). receive not the faintest support from contemporary sources. On the contrary, his intimates were in accord in acclaiming his pious zeal. It was not Baillie alone — as a minister he might have been too indulgent in his opinion — who praised him. Lord Balcarres, a nobleman like himself, expressed on his death-bed his “ joyful assurance,” in 1659, that Maitland would “go to the Saints.” JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 45 Meanwhile the quarrel between the King and the English Parliament was quickly passing beyond the possibility of repair. The Irish massacres, and the suspicious wooing of Scotland by Charles, had made the House of Commons restive. The Grand Remonstrance was an attempt to prolong the discussion of an accommodation ; but there was little hope of a permanent settlement. The crisis was precipitated by the attempted seizure of the Five members, a fatal blunder on the part of Charles, from the effect of which his cause never recovered. When the King’s Standard was un¬ furled in August 1642, both sides prepared for a grim struggle. The first stage of the Civil War was watched with tense interest in Scotland. The sympathies of the Scots, as a nation, were on the side of the Parlia¬ ment. Yet the national sentiment for the Scottish dynasty of the Stewarts, and for a King who was born a Scotsman, was a corrective factor of some weight. Early in 1643 the influence of the Kirk was exercised on the side of peace. Commissioners were sent to the King at Oxford ; but the errand was fruitless.1 With, or without, the King’s con¬ sent, the Estates were resolved to meet in June. The Duke of Hamilton recommended Charles to offer no opposition to the proposal to hold a Convention. The Duke was entrusted by the King to watch over his interests in Scotland. At the Convention he endeavoured, in conjunction with the Earl of Traquair, to soothe the Estates with soft words from Charles. But the Estates, backed by the clergy, were in no mood for lullabies ; rather were they in a mood for slogans. Hamilton proved 1 The King tried to make use of the Commissioners by inciting them against Argyll. 46 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF himself a weak champion of the Crown. He, him¬ self, was a possible claimant for the Scottish Throne ; yet there is no evidence that this possibility reacted upon his enthusiasm for the cause of Charles. The truth is, that he was a victim of his character, which was naturally that of a trimmer. He agreed partly with both sides ; and he tried to have a foot in each camp. In the effort to achieve this straddle, he fell. When there was still some doubt of Scotland’s ultimate attitude towards the War, it was settled by the action of the English Parliament. Things were going badly for the Parliament. Scottish assistance was urgently needed. On what terms would Scotland give her help ? Argyll and his colleagues knew well the precise value of a Scottish army to the Parliamentary party in their pressing need. They knew well that their cause, and the Parliament’s cause were, at bottom, identical. They knew well that if the English Parliament were crushed to-day, the Scottish Estates would be crushed to-morrow : and the Presbyterian Kirk would be crushed the day after to-morrow. Therefore, when the Parliament sent a deputation to Edinburgh, inviting the brotherly help of the Scots, the reception accorded to the invitation was completely reassuring. The out¬ come of the negotiations was embodied in the Solemn League and Covenant. The Constitutional alterations since 1638, alike in Church and State, showed the changed temper of the upper and middle classes in Scotland towards v the Royal prerogative. That temper made itself felt in the treaty that was now formed between the Estates, in conjunction with the Kirk, and the English Parliament. It was a treaty that covered JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 47 both the civil and religious ground of trouble between Charles and the House of Commons. In the discussions that preceded the treaty, allusions were made to the temporary alliance between Queen Elizabeth and the Scottish Reformers in the sixteenth century, when each country was serviceable to the other, but particularly England to Scotland. Some of the Convention recalled these circumstances, and remarked that “ it was but justice that they should now repay them with like assistance.” 1 The Solemn League and Covenant contained six clauses, of which four related to civil affairs, and two to matters of religion. The civil clauses 2 bound the two countries to mutual support in matters of State, and the remaining clauses to a qualified uniformity in matters of religion. The King’s person and authority were to be defended — with an important qualification. Burnet suggests that the Scots had a design for the establishment of Presbytery in England ; that the English Commis¬ sioners would not hear of it ; and that Sir Henry Vane “cast” the words ultimately adopted, namely, that “ the reformation of religion in England in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government ” was to be “according to the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches.”3 It may be doubted whether Burnet, in making 1 Burnet’s Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton (1852), p. 301. 2 The essence of these clauses consisted in the obligation to “ preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments and the liberties of the Kingdoms ” ; and to “ preserve and defend the King’s Majesty, person, and authority in the preservation and defence of the true religion and liberties of the Kingdoms.” The effect of this clause will be noticed later 011 (see Chap. X.). 3 The Solemn League and Covenant underwent several unessential alterations from Henderson’s original draft, the main object of these alterations being a desire on the part of the English to escape the necessity of describing with too great precision, the nature and scope of their obligations in the sphere of religion. 48 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF this statement, was correctly informed. It is not in agreement either with the letter or the spirit of a declaration by Alexander Henderson, who, according to Baillie, drafted the treaty. In a paper prepared by him for the Scottish Commissioners in London in 1641 (after the negotiations with the King had been transferred from Ripon), Henderson expressly repudiates the suggestion that he or the Commissioners were “ presuming ” to propound the form of government of the Church of Scotland as a pattern for the Church of England.1 That was his standpoint in 1641, and it must have been his standpoint in 1643. And Henderson, we are assured by Mr Lang, was always “ a gentleman of honour.” We may therefore safely assume that if Henderson, who represented the views of the Scottish clergy, was not the actual author of the formula adopted for the reformation of religion in England, he offered, at least, no resistance to its embodiment in the treaty. These being the cir¬ cumstances, a good deal of the abuse levelled at the Kirk for striving to force Presbyterianism upon England, by means of the Solemn League and Covenant, is founded upon a misapprehension of the original aim of that treaty. What, then, did Scotland — and the Kirk in particular — gain, or seek to gain, by the treaty ? First and foremost, security. The agreement ex¬ pressly stipulated for the “ preservation ” of the established form of Church government in Scot¬ land (Presbyterianism).2 On this point, again, Henderson clearly defines the Scottish position. In January 1642-3, he declares, in a petition from 1 Hetherington’s History of the Westminster Assembly, Appendix 1. 2 The words are: “The preservation of the Reformed religion in the Church of Scotland in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government against our common enemies.” JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 49 the General Assembly to the King, that 44 former experience and daily (common) sense teaching us that without the reformation of the Kirk of England, there is no hope or possibility of the continuance of reformation here. 5’ 1 There is nothing ambiguous in that statement. The Scots were anxious to see the Church of England reformed, because it was the only guarantee they could have against the overthrow of their own Church. While they would like to see (naturally enough) Presbyterianism accepted in England, they had no desire to press that polity as a pattern for the sister country. The main thing was to get rid of the Bishops, for so long as there were Bishops (so they contended),2 there was always a danger of a relapse into Romanism. And Romanism was the unspeakably evil thing ; the very appearance of which they were determined to avoid.3 The Scots were thus striving for safety. But not for safety alone. They had their ideals, whether mistaken or not, and the obstinacy with which they clung to those ideals is responsible for most of the temporary misfortunes that were to crush their country in the coming years. The foundation of their ideals was that their Kirk was before every¬ thing, a National Church. Being a National Church, uniformity in' creed and discipline was a logical necessity. That necessity excluded tolera¬ tion of rival creeds and discipline. It did not, however, exclude what the Presbyterians called 44 accommodation ” for tender consciences ; but the 44 tender consciences ” must* be inside the Church. The national idea was at the root of Scottish 1 Clarendon, B. VI. 340. 2 See Henderson’s paper in Hetherington’s History (i\pp. 1). 3 The treaty expressly provided for the ee extirpation ” of Popery and Prelacy. D 5° THE LIFE AND TIMES OF intolerance of the seventeenth century : because nationality implied unity ; and the enforcement of unity necessarily implied the absence of toleration. We know better in the twentieth century. We know that the effect of trying to force the consciences of men into a prescribed mould is to sear them, or to sour them. Such a system can only turn out either cunning hypocrites or wooden formalists. But in the seventeenth century this lesson had not yet been learned. It was a time of experiments. In England there were more sects — some holding the wildest and most fantastic creeds conceivable — than could easily be enumer¬ ated. Every man was becoming a law to himself in religious matters, and would have been equally anarchic in civil affairs but for the strong hand of the magistrate. The Scottish ideal of co-operation between magistrate and minister was the Genevan ideal ; and it was laid down in the First Book of Discipline. Church and State were to be comple¬ mentary in their functions. The Church was to censure the faults neglected, or not punished, by the State ; and thus a State-cum-Church net was spread for evil-doers, with meshes through which none might hope to escape. The 66 Keys ” and the “ Sword ” were to form a combination that none might resist. From this theory of Church and State being interdependent in the enforcement of morality, while independent in their different spheres, flowed important practical issues. As a corollary of the functions claimed by the Church, excommunication became a recognized part of its machinery. As a corollary of the doctrine of Divine origin (which was claimed for Presbytery), the spiritual independ¬ ence of the Church became a question on which JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 51 Church and State met in frequent and sharp collision. In the Church of Scotland (still follow¬ ing the Genevan model), excommunication was resorted to, sometimes in as drastic a fashion as in the Church of Rome. It was a weapon that was peculiarly dangerous to human liberty, although designed mainly to restrain license. Its passive acceptance by the Scottish people showed that either they had not yet shaken themselves com¬ pletely free from the shackles of Rome, or that their wrists were not fretted by the new gyves, because they had been manufactured in Geneva. Generally speaking, the clergy performed their duties as spiritual police discreetly and honestly. Their supervision of the morals of the people resulted in cleaner lives, if not in more regenerate hearts. Their example was in strict conformity with their precepts. If their minds were narrow, their sympathies were wide. They were the guides, philosophers and friends of their people ; and their people trusted, even when they did not love them. Their very intolerance was, in many cases, the fruit of their sincerity. Indifference and tolerance are easily mistaken for one another. But burning conviction and cool toleration are antipathetic. The toleration that succeeding generations have learned by experience to prize, was unknown in the seventeenth century. We can only gauge correctly the sentiments of that time, by the isolated instances of bigotry that are to this day occasionally discoverable. The only sect that then understood the true principles of toleration were the Baptists. Toleration as under¬ stood by the Independents in England, was only partial. A genuinely tolerant voice like that of Fuller, or Chillingworth, or Roger Williams, or 52 JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE Lilburne, or Marten, was a voice crying in the wilderness. When, therefore, the attitude of the Scottish Presbyterians towards the civil and religious ques¬ tions of Charles the First’s time is judged, it should be judged, not as has been too frequently the case, by the standards of the nineteenth or twentieth century, but by the standards of the seventeenth century.1 1 Where, in the whole of the Scottish Statutes, is there a more striking example of intolerance than the Ordinance passed by the English Parliament in 1648 for the suppression of blasphemies and heresies? Death or imprisonment was the penalty, according to the nature of the olfence. So intolerance was not confined to the clergy on the one hand, or the common people on the other. Cartright, the eminent Cambridge professor, declared that “ heretics ought to be put to death.” The statesmen and the professors who took that view defended their attitude on the ground that blasphemers and heretics were a danger to the spiritual and moral welfare of the State. Plato seems to have held a similar view. J CHAPTER IV The men charged with the mission of bringing the Solemn League and Covenant from Scotland to Westminster, were Henderson and Gillespie, the ministers, and Maitland, the dexterous layman.1 With Robert Meldrum, they were admitted to the Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster, to be present there and to debate upon occasion2 (but not to vote). The Covenant, as finally revised in Scotland from Henderson’s draft, was subjected to certain amendments by the Assembly, the most important of which was its extension to Ireland ; uniformity in all three Kingdoms was to be the goal. It is worthy of notice that Presbyterian Scotland, the supposed home of intolerance, made no demand to impose the Reformed religion on Catholic Ireland ; that was left to the Westminster Assembly of Divines, backed by the House of Commons.3 Finally, the Solemn League and Covenant was passed by both Houses of Parliament ; it was sub¬ scribed by the Commons by a large majority, who swore to defend its provisions. Thus on the 28th September 1613, this international treaty, solemnly entered into by the Parliaments of England and 1 Burnet’s Dukes of Hamilton , p. 307. 2 Baillie’s Letters , I. p. 49. 3 Nevertheless the Scottish lay Commissioners were instructed by the Committee of Estates to help the Commissioners of the Kirk in their efforts for conformity and in getting the Covenant signed, not only in England but in Ireland. Acts Par. Scot., VI. pt. 1, pp. 70-1. 53 54 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF Scotland, was launched on its perilous voyage. Traversing a sea abounding in rocks and shoals ; to-day tossed by the waves of religious passion ; to-morrow becalmed in the waters of political in¬ difference ; one day hailed as if it were a blessing from Heaven ; the next day denounced as if it were an invention of the devil ; the frail bark of the Covenant was ill-fitted to encounter such variable conditions. Had its designers taken greater pains to make it completely seaworthy, it might have reached ultimately a far more com¬ modious haven than the narrow Scottish Firth that was its final resting-place ; and on the shores of which it was, in the end, left stranded. There was lack of foresight on the part of both nations. England did not foresee that Scotland would make a fetish of the religious Covenant. Scotland did not foresee that England would treat as a “ scrap of paper,” the civil League. Thus the Solemn League and Covenant, initiated by England primarily to protect her civil rights, and accepted by Scotland mainly to make secure her religious liberties, gradually became the symbol of a growing antagonism between the allied nations, which ended in armed conflict. Temporarily, the civil rights of England were saved, and the religious privileges of Scotland were preserved. But the treaty left a debt for future generations to discharge; and it was finally liquidated by the blood of martyred Scots¬ men and the tears of disillusionized Englishmen. The treaty was founded upon a fallacy. In the first glow of enthusiasm for an idealistic alliance, the English promoters believed that it would be accepted by their country in the same spirit as it was received in Scotland. But the Scottish people were well accustomed to Covenants. The JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 55 religious clauses incorporated in the Solemn League and Covenant were only a revised edition of their own National Covenant. The enforcement upon them of the Solemn League and Covenant met with little resistance. But its enforcement upon England by the English Parliament at once aroused determined antagonism by the greater part of the English laity. The latter regarded the Covenant as a Scottish institution, of which they were pro¬ foundly suspicious. Had their opposition been foreseen, the folly of compelling an entire nation to accept the provisions of an uncompromising document like the Covenant would have been avoided. The ideals of the treaty were too lofty for the practical mind of England. An international agreement for uniformity in religious questions on which no two minds thought completely alike, was not to Englishmen’s liking. Had the provisions of the treaty come down to earth, instead of soaring in the clouds of idealism, the alliance between the two countries would have been popular in England, and a cordial international understanding might have been established. But the Covenanting clauses, regarded as an alien graft, were unaccept¬ able to the English people. The Puritan clergy and the Puritan Parliament that applied compulsion in the acceptance of the Covenant, only succeeded in weakening the bond of the Solemn League, and finally dissolving it altogether. It is important to remember (what is frequently forgotten), that this Solemn League and Covenant was not an instrument, by means of which the Scots tried to force upon the English nation an alien form of Church government. The Scots prescribed no ecclesiastical polity for England. In Henderson’s words, they did not “presume” to do so. The 56 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF common error on this matter is twofold, inasmuch as it assumes (i), that it was the Scottish National Covenant that was carried across the Border ; and (2) that it was at Scottish instigation that it was imposed upon an unwilling England. The Solemn League and Covenant symbolizes the intertwining of religion and politics that was characteristic of the period. In a time of national stress, or national danger, this tendency is bound to be more or less conspicuous. In the first half of the seventeenth century, its reflection is seen in the character of the leading men in Church and State. The clergy — particularly in Scotland — were political disputants, if they were not statesmen; the politicians were religious controversialists, if they were not men of God. John, Lord Maitland, was primarily a politician, and it was as a politician and a handler of men that he was employed by the Kirk. When a Commission of eight (Hender¬ son, Douglas, Gillespie, Rutherford and Baillie, ministers ; and Maitland, Cassilis, and Warriston, elders), was appointed to watch over Scotland’s interests in London, the first two to be unanimously chosen for membership were Henderson and Mait¬ land 1 ; both indispensable men. Of the elected eight, Henderson was “ extremely averse from goeing,” owing to the state of his health ; and Baillie confesses his trepidation at the thought of “ so suddenlie to goe so farr a voyage.” Baillie and his Scottish companions had embarked upon a “ farr voyage ” of another kind. If they had hoped — as beyond doubt they did * hope — that complete assimilation between the two countries in Church government, as in civil aims, was attainable, they had to learn that they were 1 Baillie, II. p. 98, JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 57 pursuing an illusion. They were well aware that the soil of England was unfavourable to the growth of Presbyterianism. “ As yet,” wails Baillie, “ a Presbytrie to this people is conceaved to be a strange monster.” The ground of the Scottish Commissioners’ expectations lay in their army. “ Mr Henderson’s hopes,” writes Baillie, “ are not great of their conformitie to us before an armie be in England.” For the “Sectaries,” represented in the West¬ minster Assembly by a small group of conspicuously able men, were beginning to lift up their heads to some purpose. These men were not enamoured of the elaborate Presbyterian system of lesser and greater Courts. Their ideal was the independence of individual congregations, — hence their con¬ temporary name of Independents, and their modern name of Congregationalists. Their earliest name is erroneously believed to have been “ Brownists,”1 from “ Browne the first Sectarie ” as Baillie calls him. The Independents, above all things, were jealously watchful of the rights of the lay element in every congregation. The congregational system ensured lay predominance — it enabled the members of the congregation to override clerical pretensions, and to check any manifestation of clerical tyranny. Lay predominance was thus the main conception, and it was a conception that brought Independency into sharp conflict with contemporary Presbyterian ideals. For Presbytery claimed “ the power of 1 The sect founded by Robert Browne (who ultimately conformed) is distinguished, in contemporary allusions, from the Independents, though their principles of Church government were alike. The name “ Independents,” as descriptive of those principles, is said to have first been used by Henry Jacob in 1G09 (Drysdale’s Hist, of the Presbyterians in England, p. 5 (note). In one sense the name “ Independents ” embraced all who were called by contemporaries “the Sectaries,” inasmuch as it served as a broad mark of distinction between them and the Presbyterian Puritans. 58 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF the Keys,” while Independency refused to acknow¬ ledge any such claim. Presbytery demanded the right to excommunicate. Independency rejected this doctrine as unscriptural, and exercisable, if exercised at all, by the State alone. These were fundamentally the irreconcilable ideals that separ¬ ated the two systems, not government by Church Courts as against government by individual congre¬ gations. It was a question of conscience, not a question of organization ; and when there is a clash of conscience, its echoes betray the bitterest of strifes. Thus, the uniformity desired by the Scottish Commissioners had its subtlest foe, not in the dis¬ affected Episcopacy that, for the moment, remained ostentatiously in the background, but in the very heart of the dominant Presbyterianism itself, as represented by a host of sects of which the Independents became incomparably the most influ¬ ential. How greatly the Commissioners resented the thwarting of their hopes by the stubborn “ Sectaries,” is shown by Baillie’s remark, that they proposed not to “ meddle in haste with the question of Independency till it please God to advance our armie, which we expect will much assist our arguments.”1 The Sword of the Spirit had, in fact, to be reinforced by the pike of the soldier. But while the army tarried, and the theologians argued, the lay element among the Commissioners was not idle. For the Scots had three distinct lines of persuasion along which to make their views prevail. Their army had to win battles in the field ; their preachers iiad to silence antagonists in the W estminster Assembly ; and their lay 1 Baillie, II. p. 111. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 59 Commissioners had to influence those English members of Parliament who really counted in effective politics. These were alternative instru¬ ments of success ; collectively, their effect would be irresistible. For influencing the politicians, Maitland was the man on whom Scottish hopes mainly rested. “ I profess,” says Baillie, “ the very great sufAciencie and happiness (tactfulness) of good Maitland.” The Scots could not do without him, according to Baillie ; and obviously, he was not alone in his opinion. “ I think it reasonable and necessary,” he writes, “ that come who will, Maitland should be adjoined to them. F orget not this, for if this be neglected, it would be an injurie and a disgrace to a youth that brings, by his noble carriage, credit to our nation, and help to our cause. The best here makes very much of him, and are often in our house visiting him, such as Northumberland, Sey, Waller, Salis- bery, and such-like.”1 Thus Maitland, before he had reached the age of thirty, was already regarded as the most promising diplomatist that Scotland possessed. The modes in which his diplomatic talents were exercised, and particularly the shape into which his personal character was gradually moulded, form one of the most interesting psychological studies to be found in the history of the seventeenth century. One thing is abundantly clear : FI is first essays in political work, supervised by the cool, critical eye of “ cunning ” Argyll, were admirably performed, while his labours on behalf of the Church of Scotland gained the applause equally of the statesmanlike Alexander Henderson, and the honest, if (mentally) the less generously equipped 1 Baillie, II. p. 107. 6o THE LIFE AND TIMES OF Robert Eaillie. Nor was a recognition of his abilities confined to his fellow-countrymen. When the Committee of both Kingdoms was formed, in February 1644, to supersede the relatively unimportant Committee of Safety, the Scottish representatives included Maitland ; according to Sir George Mackenzie, he was elected President.1 The other Scottish members were the Earl of Loudoun, Warriston, and Barclay.2 The Committee, which was composed entirely of civilians — seven peers and fourteen commoners — resembled a modern Coalition Cabinet in its constitution and functions. The Executive of Parliament, it was responsible to Parliament ; nevertheless, the power it wielded was far-reaching. Originally coming into existence for a period of three months only, the Committee proved indis¬ pensable, and its re-appointment by Parliament for an unlimited time, at a crisis in the national history, was the sequel of its usefulness. It in¬ cluded Cromwell, Essex, Manchester, and Waller, none of whom took an active part in its delibera¬ tions, owing to their frequent absence on military duties. The two Vanes were also members. Pres¬ byterians and Independents collaborated heartily on this Committee, when faced by a common danger ; it was only after the worst of the danger was past, that the ineradicable religious differences which separated them, began plainly to show themselves. These differences, in time, became acute, 1 Memoirs, p. 9. 2 The instructions given to the Scottish Commissioners by the Com¬ mittee of Estates ( i.e . the Committee that attended to Parliamentary business when the House was not sitting) show that in taking important joint decisions with their English colleagues, the Commissioners were to consult the Committee “ without whois particular warrand ye shall conclude nothing.” Acts Par. Scot., VI. pt. 1, pp. 70-1. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 61 and they were accentuated by the question of nationality. The “ auld enemies ” were, at bottom, “ auld enemies ” still ; and so they were bound to remain until a common interest provided a common bond, and until the two nations stood on a footing of perfect equality. English dislike of the Scots had to be swallowed by a proud people, who, by their delegates, were forced to come to Edinburgh as supplicants for the help of “ a contemptible little nation ” ; and that assist¬ ance could not yet be dispensed with. The Scots, on the other hand, had to overcome their traditional jealousy of the sister nation in order to co-operate effectively with her against the peril that threatened both. And the Scots, by their timely help, were destined to save England from the almost certain fate of having her liberties re- shackled. It is difficult to see how the Civil War could have ended otherwise than by the triumph of Charles, had it not been for the inter¬ vention of the Scots. The King was enraged against the Scots ; and from his point of view, with good reason ; for they stood between him and victory. As the Parliament had looked to Scotland, so he looked to Ireland for succour, but with far different results. The Scots had sent not only a well- equipped army into England ; they were also maintaining an army in Ireland under Robert Monro in the same cause. Charles tried unsuccess¬ fully to bribe Monro with a pension of £2000 a year and an Earldom, to desert the Covenanting cause. Possibly he may have thought that no Scot could resist £2000 a year, whatever he may have thought of an Earldom. Monro resisted both offers, and the Scots remained in Ireland, C)2 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF to constitute a formidable barrier to the maturity of the King’s plans. These included the assistance of 10,000 Irish Roman Catholics — an embarrassing conception, inasmuch as it involved the alienation of the Royalist Protestants from the King’s cause. And all this time, the advocates of peace were striving to find common ground for an agreement between the contending parties ; while the two Parliaments, the King’s at Oxford, and the country’s at Westminster, were engaged in abusing one another freely. The breach widened, instead of narrowing, and recourse was again had to the arbitrament of the sword. Had it not been for the Scottish Army, it is probable that Charles would not have shown any inclination to come to terms with the Parlia¬ ment. But the Scots, by containing the Marquis of Newcastle, dominated the North, and the military dispositions of the King were profoundly affected by that fact. At a time when his services would have been of perhaps decisive importance else¬ where, Prince Rupert was forced by circumstances to go to the relief of the Marquis of Newcastle, who was being hard pressed by the Scots. Rupert quickly overcame all resistance, Stockton, Bolton, and Liverpool successively falling to his victorious arms. His main objective was York, where the Marquis of Newcastle, threatened in the front by the Scots at Durham, and in the rear by the two Fairfaxes, had shut himself up with 5000 horse and 6000 foot. His adversaries joined forces, and prepared for the siege of York. If its fall was to be avoided, Rupert had to drive off the besiegers ; and the besiegers, on their part, had to defeat Rupert before they could hope to capture the city. The issue was fought out on Marston Moor, JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE ’63 which, in one sense, was the decisive battle of the Civil War. Had the Parliamentary forces been routed, it is difficult to see how further resistance to Charles could have been made with any prospect of success.1 On the other hand, the completeness of the Parliamentary victory placed the final result of the war beyond reasonable doubt. The part played by the Scots in the victory has been dis¬ torted by national prejudice, contemporary and modern. The Independents strove to create the belief, that (to quote Baillie), 44 all the glory of that night was theirs ” 2 ; they had done it all, they and 44 their General-Major Cromwell.” The true facts (according to Baillie), were that “the beginning of the victorie was from David Leslie . . . he, with the Scotts and Cromwell’s horse, having the advantage of the ground, did dissipate all before them.” The worthy minister might have added that when Cromwell was driven back by Rupert, Leslie’s support at the critical moment en¬ abled the combined Parliamentary horse to scatter the Royalist troopers like 44 a little dust.” It was the defeat of the Yorkshiremen on the right that caused the crumpling up of the Scottish centre, and the flight of Leven, a misfortune that was partially retrieved by the heroic stand made by the three Scottish regiments (one of them Mait¬ land’s),3 under General Baillie, which (says the ♦ 1 Dr Gardiner (whose account of Marston Moor is marked equally by authority and impartiality), says that if Rupert had won the battle, “ the victory would have been won all along the line, and there can he no serious doubt that that victory would have given to Charles once more an undisputed throne ” (I. p. 374). 2 The Committee with the Scottish army reported to the Estates, p. 353-5. 120 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF bearer, his “ little Bible without points of Planting Antwerpen edition,5’ and makes an allusion to a bargain Lauderdale had made for his 44 Chrysos- tome.” The common enemy of both — the Inde¬ pendents — are mentioned in Baillie’s customary manner, as 44 a partie who, I doubt not at their first leisure will stretch out their foot on our necks.” He adjures Lauderdale to try to unite his three friends who have lately visited him : he is the only one who can do it. And a significant new note is sounded : 4 4 The poor King.” 1 The 44 poor King ” was yet by no means with¬ out hope of turning to good account the party antagonisms that were daily growing in intensity. From his pleasant, if enforced, residence at Hampton Court, he continued to encourage bids for his favour from all sides impartially. The Scottish Commis¬ sioners were for the moment, first favourites. Their steady affirmation of monarchical principles, formed an agreeable contrast to the growing Republicanism of the Army ; and even their Presbyterianism was less repugnant than the Independency that now dominated the House of Commons. The address delivered at Hampton Court by the Commissioners, declared that the Scottish people desired to live in 44 such obedience ” as their predecessors had done under a 44 hundred and seven of the King’s pro¬ genitors.”2 Idle Scots pressed for a new treaty with the King; the Army opposed making any more addresses to 44 Charles Stuart, that man of 1 Letters , III. p. 223. As a counterblast to Baillie’s aversion to the Independents, we have equally intolerant contemporary allusions to the Presbyterians from the other side, e.g. Mrs Hutchinson’s Memoirs. Mrs Hutchinson boldly accuses the Scots of having bartered Charles for the Parliament’s money, without saying a word about the arrears of pay due to them. No wonder Voltaire wrote ignorantly of Charles : Vendu par les Ecossais. 2 Cal. of Clarendon State Papers, p. 396. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 121 blood.” The Levellers, by their violent doctrines, made the Lords shake in their shoes. The Scottish Commissioners, by their loyal assurances, inspired the King with fresh hopes. The Scots were “clear” for the King. The Cavaliers’ “ hope ” was in them. But the Independent view was that they were “ of no more account than a last year’s almanac.” And — an English dig at Scottish avarice — “ There is £100,000 preparing to stop the Scots’ mouth.” And again : “ It is supposed the Scots are waiting to be bribed.” 1 Some of the Royalists were under no illusion about the Scots and their standpoint. “The Scots” (so they believed) were “ apprehensive ” iest the Presbyterians should be crushed in England. This would lead to a revival of the “old enmity” between the two Kingdoms. The Independents “ would labour to raise troubles” in Scotland. “ In short,” says a Royalist critic, “the Scots hated the In¬ dependents mortally, and considered their power in England as the sure means of the ruin of their religion and (what they had more at heart), their fortunes.” 2 The Royalism of the Scots was thus cynically viewed by the Cavaliers, whose “ hope,” notwithstanding, was in this “mercenary” nation. There was a time when, according to the same critic, a prospect existed of the Scots coming to terms with the Independents. 3 Ireton (or Vane) made proposals to Lauderdale for an agree¬ ment based upon the abandonment of the King. Apart from Lauderdale’s own repudiation (after the Restoration), of any dealings with Ireton,4 a 1 Cal. of Clarendon State Papers, pp. 399-404. 2 Carte’s Ormonde, II. p. 14. 3 Ibid., p. 15. 4 Glenalmond Papers (Appen. Rep. II. Hist. MSS. Com., p. 203'). Lauderdale asserted (26th August 1661) that he had never seen Ireton till he saw him hanging on the gallows at Tyburn. 122 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF Scottish- Independent alliance at this juncture, is almost inconceivable, and practical men like Ireton and Lauderdale cannot have seriously entertained the notion. The King’s escape from Hampton Court on 14th November to the Isle of Wight, (whence he hoped to escape to France), had the effect of widen¬ ing the cleavage between the Parliament and the Scots. The latter were privy to the flight from Hampton Court, if, indeed, it did not derive its inspiration from them. Matters were ripe for an agreement between the King and them, and Charles had consequently little hesitation in playing with the Parliament, as usual. Now, as formerly, the real crux of the difficulty between King and Parliament lay in the control of the Militia. That difficulty adjusted, the religious problem was not insoluble.' But the fact that both sides leaned so heartily on 44 the arm of flesh,” clearly showed that what was really sought, equally by both, was the power to enforce its will permanently on the nation. Of that desire, Lauderdale and his fellow- colleagues were not entirely innocent. Their main objects were to magnify Scotland ; to con¬ solidate the position of the Scottish nobility ; and to indoctrinate England with Scottish ideals in politics and religion by influencing the fountain¬ head of English legislation. It may be allowed that these were patriotic motives. It may be granted that Scotland had too long been treated as the 44 poor relation,” and that some recognition of her claims was overdue. The Lauderdale group were determined that as the price of Scottish help, Charles would have to satisfy their national aspirations. Towards the end of December (1647), Lauder- JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 123 dale, Lanark, and Loudoun followed the English Commissioners to the Isle of Wight, after a corre¬ spondence with the King which paved the way to a treaty. The Four Bills had been passed by Parliament without the consent of the Scottish Commissioners, which was a breach of the Treaty between the two nations ; and the Four Bills had contained not a word about the Covenant, for they related wholly to civil matters. The Scottish Commissioners remonstrated “ with open mouth,” but their protest passed unheeded.1 There was therefore no longer any real reason why they should not treat the King independently. The international treaty having been flouted by the Parliament, it was no longer operative ; for a treaty between two nations, to be valid, must necessarily be binding upon both. The view that the “ Engagement ” was “ dis¬ honest,” 2 is therefore a little difficult to understand. The Parliament had virtually broken with the Scots, and the fact was notorious that the King was attempting to negotiate a treaty with Lauderdale and his colleagues. If there was any dishonesty, it was on the part of Charles for pretending to treat with Parliament ; or on the part of the Scottish Commissioners for pretending to be working for the Covenant, while they were merely using the Covenant as a cloak to cover political designs. These designs are clearly shown by some of the clauses embodied in the treaty between Charles and the Scottish Commissioners at Carisbrooke ; and still more by a supposed secret agreement which the treaty does not reveal. What then, were the terms of the Treaty of 1 Burnet’s Dukes of Hamilton , pp. 414-5. 2 This is Dr Gardiner’s view. 124 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF Carisbrooke, commonly known as the 44 Engage¬ ment ” ? Clarendon gives a list of what he calls the 44 monstrous concessions ” obtained by the Scots from Charles.1 According to the same historian, the negotiations were commenced at Hampton Court, but certain terms imposed by the Scots 44 trenched so far upon the honour and interest of the English, that the King refused his consent.” The concessions were certainly far-reaching, but it is difficult to find anything 44 monstrous ” about them, even from the viewpoint of an unbending Royalist like Clarendon. Briefly, they bound the King : (1) to confirm the Covenant in both Kingdoms by Act of Parliament, though it was not to be forced on unwilling subjects ; (2) to confirm, for three years, by Act of Parliament, Presbyterianism in England, the Directory of Public Worship,2 and the Assembly of Divines at W estminster ; and (3) to suppress the Sectaries (of whom a lengthy list is given). These were the foundations on which the whole fabric of the Treaty rested, and without which its acceptance by Scotland was impossible. In consideration of these conditions being granted by Charles, Scotland was to endeavour to bring about a treaty between the King and his English Parliament after the disbandment of the Army. Failing this method of accommodation (the success of which could never have been seriously contemplated), a Scottish Army was to be sent into England for the purpose of effecting his 1 History, B. X. 162-5. 2 The Directory is the only tangible legacy left by the Westminster Assembly to testify to its labours ; and it is now an exclusively Scottish possession. It is strongly marked by Genevan theology supported by scriptural references of doubtful applicability. It can hardly be doubted that the Scottish clerical delegates to the Assembly had a large share in its compilation. The Shorter Catechism , one of the sections of the Directory, still occupies, though in a smaller degree than formerly, pride of place as the theological guide of Young Scotland. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 125 restoration ; putting an end to the existing Parlia¬ ment ; and replacing it with a “ free and full Parliament.” An agreement was made for co¬ operation between the Scots and the English and Irish Royalists. Charles was not to make an agreement with Parliament, or with the Army, without the concurrence of the Scots ; and the Scots were to reciprocate. The King was to help the Scots in the war with money, arms, and ammunition ; to provide ships to guard the Scottish coasts, and for the protection of Scottish merchants ; to undertake to pay the arrears due to the Scots by the Parliament,1 and the expenses of the Scottish Army during the coming war. Also, he was to authorize the Scottish Army to possess themselves of Berwick, Carlisle, New¬ castle, with the castle of Tynemouth, and the town of Hartlepool ; all to be given back by the Scots at the end of the war. A complete union of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland was to be brought about ; or, if that proved an impracticable ideal, any trading or manufacturing privileges peculiar to either Kingdom, were to be extended to the other. As a compliment to Scotland, Charles was to employ Scotsmen equally with Englishmen in all foreign employments and negotiations ; he was to give a third part of all the offices and places about the Court to Scots ; and the King and the Prince of Wales, or one of them, was to reside frequently in Scotland, “that the subjects of that Kingdom may be known to them.” 2 1 Part of this debt went as far back as the beginning of the troubles ; part was arrears of pay due to the Scottish army in Ireland ; and the remainder was for Charles’ “blood-money” (the irony of the situation !), unpaid by the Parliament. 2 In the Lauderdale Papers, I. pp. 2 and 3, there is a copy of a draft of the clauses mentioned in this paragraph. The draft had 126 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF A declaration was inserted in the Treaty by Charles, stating that by the wording of the clause confirming Presbyterianism by Act of Parliament, he was neither obliged to desire the settling of Presbyterian Government nor to present any Bill to that effect ; and that no person was to suffer for not submitting to Presbyterian government ; these reservations, however, not to extend to the agree¬ ment to suppress Sectarianism. To this declaration Lauderdale and co-adjutors subscribed as witnesses, but not as assenters. Clarendon asserts 1 — but does not state his authority for the assertion — that the Scottish Commissioners told Charles that the Treaty was actually a blind in order to persuade Scotland to send an army, and that when the work was done, everybody would submit to the King’s pleasure. Soothing words, capable of bearing this construction, may conceivably have been used, but it requires no great perspicacity to see that had the Scottish undertaking had a successful issue, every undertaking by the King embodied in the Treaty, would have been strictly enforced. The secrecy observed in the preparation of the Treaty of Carisbrooke had, as its corollary, the precautions that were taken to conceal the precious document after it was signed by both parties on 26th December 1647. The Scottish Commissioners, fearing that on their return to London they might be searched, made up the Treaty in lead, and buried it 4 4 in a garden in the Isle of Wight, whence they undergone alteration, but in substance it is the same as Clarendon’s version. Dr Airy, who has edited the Lauderdale Papers , writes as if these so-called secret clauses had not been embodied in the Treaty, and remarks on the fact that there is no mention of the Covenant in them. It cannot be supposed that Dr Airy was unaware of Clarendon’s account of this Treaty, and his comments are therefore not easy to follow. 1 History , B. X. 166. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 12 7 easily found means afterwards to receive it.” After a stay of some months in London, the Com¬ missioners returned to Scotland, “ with ” (according to Clarendon), “the hatred and contempt of the Army and the Parliament that was then governed by it, but with the veneration of the Presby¬ terian party,”1 with whom a correspondence was settled. There is reason to believe that the engagements of Charles to the Scots went beyond even the terms of the Treaty. For Burnet informs us2 that Lauderdale told him, that at the commencement of the troubles in England, the King had secretly promised the Duke of Hamilton that if the Scots would come over to his side, he would consent to the incorporation of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmorland in the Kingdom of Scotland, the seat of the Government to be in Newcastle ; and that Charles had confirmed this engagement in writing in the Isle of Wight. Lauderdale’s statement receives corroboration from Clarendon’s account of the abortive negotia¬ tions at Hampton Court, between Charles and the Scottish Commissioners for putting Berwick and Carlisle into the hands of the Scots, and for granting “ other concessions with regard to the Northern Counties.” These concessions (as already stated) “ trenched so far upon the honour and interest of the English, that the King refused his consent.” But later, in the Isle of Wight (adds Clarendon), “ in that season of despair,” the Scots “ prevailed upon him to sign the propositions previously refused.” 3 This would appear to be the genuine “ Secret 1 History, B. X. 160. 2 History of His Own Times (1839), p. 22. 3 History, B. X, 160. 128 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF Treaty ” of Carisbrooke, the exact terms of which have never come to light. Certainly there was every reason why such an agreement should be concealed from the English people, Royalists and anti- Royalists alike. Lauderdale’s object was to drive as hard a bargain for his country as possible, and he was indifferent to the fact that his terms could not but wound the national susceptibilities of England. It is true that Scotland had always been treated by England with contemptuous in¬ difference since the Union of the Crowns, and that the time was ripe for a change in the relations between the two countries. But there were practical difficulties in the way of Scotland (for example), sharing with England the conduct of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy ; while the absorption by Scotland of the Northern Counties of England was as chimerical a proposal as would have been one for the absorption of Lothian by that portion of England which lies north of the Humber. Indeed, historical precedents for the latter proposal would have been much easier to find than for the former. Nothing but a federal, or an incorporating, union between the two Kingdoms could effectually dispose of the anomalies created by a union of Crowns that was unaccompanied by a union of anything else. This was apparently recognized, though in a halting fashion, by one of the conditions of the Treaty, but it was not until sixty years later that the necessity for union became so apparent as to make that solution of the problem no longer avoidable. Such then, were Lauderdale’s dreams for the aggrandizement of his native country. Throughout his career he remained a perfervid Scot ; jealous of the honour of his nation ; watchful against any JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 129 interference by England in her affairs ; and especi¬ ally resentful of any action that carried with it the implication that Scotland was a mere province of England. But the national aspirations that dictated the Engagement were fated to be wofully dis¬ appointed by the outcome of that remarkable treaty. 1 CHAPTER VIII Clarendon states that had the terms of the Scottish treaty with Charles been known, no Englishman would have joined the Scots in their attempt to restore the King. In Clarendon’s view, the concessions “ extorted ” from Charles were “ scandalous and derogatory to the English nation and would have been abominated if known and understood by all men with all possible indignation.”1 Possibly that was so. But for the moment the Scottish Commissioners held the winning cards in the game. When they left London for Scotland in January 1648, they had already planned a rising in England. On a given signal, Kent and the Eastern Association were to take up arms ; and the signal was to be given when the Scots were ready to move. First of all, the Commissioners had to carry the Scottish Estates with them and their fellow-plotters. To carry a majority in the Estates proved com¬ paratively easy : to convince the whole country that their cause was a righteous and a patriotic cause proved impossible. To Lauderdale was delegated the task of haranguing the Estates on the Engagement, and he sought to arouse enthusiasm for it by inflaming the national pre¬ judices of his hearers. There were four things, he averred, that the English people were unable to endure : the Covenant, Presbytery, monarchical government, and — the Scots. 1 History, B. X. 161. 130 JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 131 The English dislike of the Scots was a less serious matter than the cleavage in the Scottish nation which was about to reveal itself. It was the beginning of a period of national disunion that was responsible for most of the disasters which befell Scotland soon afterwards. Lauderdale and his companions had forgotten to do one thing : they had not kept their eyes on the W est. Doubtless they had taken into account the probability that the Scottish pulpit would not favour agreement with a king who had steadfastly refused to take the Covenant ; and they knew well that the in¬ fluence of the pulpit could not be ignored. But it was hoped (it must be assumed) that the soothing terms of that portion of the Engagement which was made public would overcome the objections of the Kirk, and secure its co-operation with the Estates. There was some ground for that belief if the temper of town and country had been in complete harmony ; for Edinburgh and the other principal burghs could be won over. But Lauder¬ dale did not understand then, nor did he understand till the end of his days, the temper of the peasantry of the South-West of Scotland. They ruined his projects in 1648, as they opposed and defeated his schemes a quarter of a century later. The history of Scotland in the seventeenth century seems to show a certain difference in religious and political outlook between the traders of the East and the ploughmen of the West, if that rough discrimination is allowable. The difference may have been attributable partly to race and partly to environment. The Lowland West, even as far south as Galloway, was more Celtic in blood, if not in speech, than the Lowland East. The influence of racial characteristics is apt to be 132 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF exaggerated ; sometimes grotesquely so. But what is called 44 Celtic fervour ” is a well - grounded differentiation ; and in the domain of religion Celtic fervour is peculiarly assertive and un¬ compromising.1 At the period under review, the Highlands proper i.e. the most Celtic part of Scotland, were only partially Presbyterianized, being largely Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, and semi-pagan. When the Highlands had thoroughly assimilated Presbyterianism, it was of the bluest, and its profession was of the most perfervid. The en¬ vironment of the Lowlanders of the West, as well as their racial antecedents, may have reacted upon their religious and political attitude. The trader of the East had wider ideas and a more individual viewpoint than the ploughman of the West. He rubbed shoulders with men from 4 4 foreign parts ” ; and he learned from them that Scotland was, after all, but a small and a poor country. He was temperamentally less violent than his western fellow-countryman. He knew the value of compromise in trade, and he was more inclined than the Westerner to extend its scope to pulpit and Parliament alike. For the word 44 com¬ promise ” was rarely to be found in the vocabulary of the West. The people were bound to the preachers with the same ties that attached pastor and flock in the Highlands a generation ago. On the side of the clergy, it was a bond of which the component parts were love of authority, modified by genuine regard for the highest welfare of their parishioners. 1 The characteristics that are commonly called <( Celtic ” may really belong to the people who preceded the Celts, but being found in districts where the Celtic tongue is spoken, they are inevitably attributed to the Celtic race. At the present day, political views in Scotland are more extreme in the West than in the East ; and it is an interesting speculation how far this is due to racial characteristics. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 133 On the peoples side, the ties, paradoxically enough, were mainly those of affection and fear. The ploughman of Ayrshire, the hillman of Galloway, heeded his minister more than he heeded his Parliament, and he would obey his minister if ordered to disobey his sovereign. The ministers were not disposed to trust too implicitly the three noblemen 1 who had negotiated the Engagement. Lauderdale, it is true, had in the past been persona grata with the Kirk, as her most dexterous lay representative. But the Kirk had been unfortunate in some of her elders (Montrose, for example, who lived to find himself, in the opinion of the General Assembly, the “ spawn of Satan ”) ; and Lauderdale was now in danger of proving to be one of her most grievous disappoint¬ ments. By this time he had become so entangled in English politics that the Kirk might well feel dubious of his entire devotion to Presbytery, the Covenant, and Scotland. And unless all three were thoroughly safeguarded by the agreement with Charles, support of the Engagement by the Scottish pulpit was out of the question.2 Finally, after unavailing negotiations having as their object the acceptance of the Covenant by the King, the Kirk set her face against the Engage¬ ment. “ The whole Church,” wrote Argyll to the Earl of Morton on 15th May, “are dissenting to 1 Of the three, Loudoun soon became an anti- Engager. 2 The following (Letter, dated 8th March 1648) is Baillie’s cautious opinion on the correct attitude of the clergy : “We judge it indeed convenient that ministers be verie warie of what they speak of any matter of State and most of all what encouragement they give to the raising of a warre ; yet every subject of a Kingdome has so much to doe and suffer in his persone estate and friends when a warre comes on and warre is so great and weightie a case of conscience that ministers, both as men and according to their calling in the Church, may well be admitted to delyver their sense of that which so much concerns the conscience both of themselves and every soule of their fiocke” ( Letters , Ill. p. 26). 134 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF the Ingagement and declairs it unlawful!. ” 1 Clerical opposition ruined the whole project. By the votes of nearly all the greater nobles (Argyll being the most important exception) and a bare majority of the representatives of the gentry and the Burghs, Parliament had declared for the Engagement. Scotland was split into two factions : the Engagers, whose leader was the Marquis of Hamilton, and the anti-Engagers headed by the Marquis of Argyll. Hamilton had the law on his side, but Argyll had the prophets. And behind Argyll was the in¬ comparably powerful machinery of the Kirk for influencing public opinion. Once the Engagement was denounced from the pulpits of Scotland, its failure to carry the country was foredoomed. Argyll, cool and calculating as ever, saw further than the impressionable nobles who had listened approvingly to Lauderdale’s address to the Estates. He was not allured by the glittering picture of a grateful monarch restored by Scottish arms, shower¬ ing benefits upon the Scottish nation and, inci¬ dentally, swallowing cheerfully any ecclesiastical nostrums that his Northern advisers might desire to administer. It must have occurred to the dis¬ sentient half of the gentry and burghal elements in the Estates, that notwithstanding Lauderdale’s blandishments, Scotland was likely to experience under Koyalist auspices even worse treatment than she had received from the English Parliament, whose cause she had espoused and saved in the day of its distress. 44 Put not your trust in princes — or in Parliaments ” represented, beyond doubt, the feel¬ ing of the clergy; and in the light of the experience of the previous ten years, who can say that their attitude of suspicion had no justification ? 1 Willock’s The Great Marquess, App. III. pp. 3G5-366. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 135 The more closely the Engagement is examined, the more clearly does the fact emerge that its chief attraction in the eyes of the Scottish aristocracy, was its provision of political machinery for the preservation of class privileges, and the promotion of personal interests. Like the English Royalists, they dreaded the surging tide of Republican ideals which threatened to engulf their order throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain And (as Lord Byron confessed in a letter to the Earl of Lanark1) the moderate men among the English democrats (Cromwell for example) were more feared (and with good reason) than were even the Levellers. The Royalists of England and the quasi- Royalists of Scotland were brought face-to-face with the fact that the Throne was in imminent peril. They realized that if that buttress of their order were removed, aristocracy itself might share in its fall. A community of interests between the monarchy and the aristocracy may therefore be justly regarded as the main ground of the support given to the Engagement by the Scottish nobles. Superadded was, no doubt, a glowing prospect of 44 spoiling the Egyptians ” for their common benefit, if a Scottish army managed to get the upper hand in England. Also, some of the nobles, and probably most of the assenting gentry and burghers, must have shared Lauderdale’s fervent ideal of patriotism : the 44 greater Scotland ” that was ever before Lauderdale’s mind. But if nationalism be defined as 44 all for country,” it seems impossible to allow the title of 44 national ” to the party in Scotland that supported the Engage¬ ment. One thing seems clear : attachment to the 1 Hamilton Papers (Camden Society’s Publications, N.S. 27), p. 190. The same correspondent tells Lanark that “Argyll’s designs are dangerous” (28tli April 1G48). 136 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF person of the King formed no part of their equip¬ ment as Royalists. As embodying the ancient Stewart line of Scottish Kings, Charles, it is true, appealed to their patriotism or their Scottish prejudices. But they loved him just as little as a man, as they respected him as a monarch. Charles heartily reciprocated their feelings ; with a few ex¬ ceptions (those who served his interests) he regarded his fellow-Scots as a heretical and exasperatingly stubborn race whom he cordially detested and dis¬ trusted. Lauderdale, at any rate, had no illusions on the personal relations existing between the King and his Scottish subjects. His hopes for the ulti¬ mate success of his plans and the glorification of his native country were centred, not in the gratitude of the restored King, but in the strength and efficiency of the Scottish Army. When the Scottish Army fought for the Parliament, the same lack of illusion on the score of gratitude from the Independents is observable on the Scottish side (see Baillie). The 4 4 arm of flesh ” was regarded as being more persuasive than any abstract qualities of 44 brotherli¬ ness.” Meantime, however, the dignity if not the life, of the descendant of Fergus the Great was being threatened by the 44auld enemy.” Should not the swords of loyal Scotsmen leap from their scabbards in his defence ? It was the tongues, and not the swords, of Scotsmen that were let loose by the call to arms. In opposing the Engagement, the Scottish clergy were unwittingly protecting the future of English and Scottish democracy. They regarded the Engagement as being a plot against their 44 brethren of England,” and not against a rebellious section of the English nation. But if they are to be judged by their acts, the ministers were more JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 137 immediately concerned with the perpetuation of Presbyterianism and the Covenant than with the promotion of Republicanism and popular liberties. Had Charles consented to satisfy their requirements about the Covenant, there is no reason to doubt that, although they distrusted him thoroughly, they would have preached in favour of the Engage¬ ment instead of denouncing it as they did. Their object, to which all other considerations were subordinated, was so to 44 settle religion ” as to have uniformity in both countries, after their own Presbyterian pattern. They had passed beyond the reasonable attitude of Alexander Henderson, who would not 44 presume ” to dictate to England how she should settle her ecclesiastical affairs ; they would now accept no settlement that did not embrace both countries, and that did not enforce uniformity by putting down dissent. That was the bed they made for themselves ; and Lauderdale in later years ruthlessly forced them to lie on it. They desired to put the old wine of Catholic uniformity in the new bottles of Protestant diversity, in the vain hope that the bottles would not burst.1 The clergy defeated whatever chances the promoters of the Engagement may have hoped it possessed, of arousing the patriotism of the Scottish people, or of stimulating their loyalty. The antagonism of the pulpit cannot justly be described as anti-patriotic for opposing a movement which, from the clergy’s standpoint, they honestly believed to be detrimental to the best interests of the nation. That they deliberately provoked a 1 A manifesto issued by the Scottish Estates at the instance of the Kirk, demanding that all Englishmen should take the Covenant and that all heresy should be suppressed, had had a hardening effect in England which boded ill for Scottish interference in English affairs. 138 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF conflict with the civil power is undeniable. But there is nothing in later times exactly analogous to the peculiar position of the Scottish Kirk in 1648 ; it was unique. It is not, therefore, a sufficient answer to say that, because the ministers opposed a Parliamentary decree declaring the country to be in a state of war, they were necessarily anti-patriotic. In 1648 the Kirk was an acknowledged power in the State, and wielded an authority in national affairs to which the closest parallel is perhaps the theocracy established by Calvin in Geneva. Tacitly Parliament had to admit that, though it might legislate without interference by the Kirk for affairs of local import¬ ance, it did not dare to lay its hands on matters of national weight except in concert with the clergy. It was a tyranny under which many of the nobles writhed ; but they had to submit to it or retire from public affairs. Parliament and people were linked by the pulpit ; and without the connecting link, the whole machinery of the State was thrown out of gear. The Estates realized that if they opposed the Kirk, they threw down the gauntlet to the people. This condition of things 1 explains the efforts made by the promoters of the Engagement to placate the Kirk, and by their efforts to lose much time that was of inestimable value to their plans. 1 Clarendon writes as follows of the political relations between the Kirk and the people, and the inherently democratic spirit of the Scottish nation : — “ The Scots formed all their plans on the inclinations of the people, and first had to seduce and corrupt them before they ventured to attempt to get their concurrence in their plans. This made them submit in such a degree to their senseless and wretched clergy, whose infectious breath corrupted and governed the people, and whose authority was prevalent upon their own wives and in their domestic affairs ; and yet they never communicated to them more than the outside of their designs.” ( History , B. X. 168 (Edn. 1888).) JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 139 Their failure was especially disconcerting to Lauder¬ dale, who had doubtless reckoned upon carrying the Kirk with him by means of mutual concessions, and who did all in his power to prevent national disunion. The clergy placed every obstacle in the way of raising the levies authorized by the Estates ; and they succeeded in making hatefully unpopular, an enterprise which had been blessed by their lawful King and legalized by their National Parliament. The opposition, strong in the East, especially in Fife, was focused by the determined attitude of the South-Western counties. Compulsion had to be applied ; but even with the aid of compulsion, of the 80,000 men sanctioned by the Estates, barely a third followed Hamilton across the Border when the final plunge was taken on 8th July 1648 ; and most of these were pressed men.1 While the Hamiltonians were striving desper¬ ately, but unavailingly, to whip Scottish patriotism into something resembling energy, their English friends were getting increasingly restive in con¬ sequence of the delay in taking definite action. Signs of their impatience are not wanting in the correspondence of the time. 44 Your delays,” writes a correspondent of the Earl of Lanark in April, 44 hath made us all dispaire of receaveing any assistance from Scotland.” 44 If you mend not your pace,” says another letter, dated 44 last of Aprill,” 44 you are like to have little interest in the order of our accommodation.” On 4th May, Lanark is told that 44 the forces in Wales declared too soon in hopes of your assistance and appearance in England.” And again, on 80th May, an English 1 Gardiner, IV. p. 166. There is a suggestive allusion in the Lauderdale Papery to the “sale” of levies by anti- Engagers. 140 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF correspondent informs him that “ all affaires here will quicklie mine because of your delay es.” On 24th June he is told that 4 4 England will be lost unless the Scots army presently come in.” 1 It is clear from contemporary letters, that the Scottish clergy were relied upon by the anti- Royalists in England to defeat the movement in Scotland. Much hope was placed in Argyll, the 44 Maecenas ” of the Kirk, and dark hints are given of a sum of £10,000 that is 44 reddye ” to be dis¬ bursed in Edinburgh 2 to the opponents of the Engagement. We find allusions to 44 the powerful influence of the Presbytery ” who (it is unhistoric- ally asserted) 44 ever were and wilbee enemies to monarchy.” 3 Great efforts (the correspondence shows) were made to foment divisions in Scotland, and Argyll, for his encouragement, had assurances 44 that the trumpets of Sion will sound a liott charge for him.” 4 In June a letter informs Lanark that Argyll 44 employs serpentine art, constantly corresponding ” both with the Presbyterians in England and the Independents. The object of the Marquis was to convince his correspondents that his influence, and that of the ministers, if seconded by 44 convenient forces from England,” would be able to retard the efforts of the Engagers.5 Perhaps the most correct summing up of the whole situation is contained in a letter to Lanark, written in June. He is told, in reference to obtaining money from the City, that “the honour and advantages” the Engagers can promise themselves in England depend upon the strength and sudden march of 1 Hamilton Papers, pp. 194, 197, 218. Lauderdale and Lanark were in constant correspondence with Langdale, Musgrave, and Blackston, the leaders of the English Royalists. (Somers’ Tracts, Vol. VIII. p. 509.) 2 Ibid., p. 158. 4 Ibid., p. 196. 3 Ibid., p. 175. 6 Ibid. , p. 205. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 141 their army. “ And then ask what you will, you shall obtain. Till then, expect nothing.” The only way to get money (Lanark was assured), was for himself, Lauderdale, and Loudoun to write to the Lord Mayor and certain named Aldermen about their pressing needs.1 These hints about finance point to a weakness in the Royalist plans which contributed towards their complete lack of success. The English Royalists had no money. The Scottish noble¬ men were — well, Scottish noblemen : perennially impecunious. Scotland was a poor country. To wring the necessary cash for the coming campaign out of the people, for a rising to which half of the nation offered bitter opposition, was not a practic¬ able scheme. But how was the business to be financed ? Where were the necessary arms, am¬ munition, and equipment to come from ? How, in short, was the rising to have even a chance of success, without foreign assistance ? Foreign help was, in fact, a stern necessity. And the only two countries from which succour of any kind could be expected were France and Holland. For obvious reasons, France offered by far the more favourable prospects. But something might be got from Holland. The Princess of Orange, the daughter of the King, might be relied upon to help if she could. Henrietta Maria in France had pawned her jewels for the common cause : Mary in Holland could hardly refuse to make some sacrifice. Prince Charles was also a useful asset to possess. He had no jewels to pawn; but he could be used as a pawn. It was easily seen that the prestige of his presence in Scotland, or in the Scottish Army, would be an advantage 1 Hamilton Papers, pp. 205-6. 142 JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE of considerable value. Negotiations having that object in view were commenced early in 1648, and after some opposition on the part of certain of its members, the Prince’s Council reluctantly acceded to his personal wish that he should go to the Scots. But certain conditions were imposed by the Estates, out of regard for popular feeling in Scotland, and particularly for the jealous apprehensions of the Kirk. The ambassador who was chosen to convey Scotland’s invitation to the Prince, and to secure his consent to the conditions imposed, was Lauder¬ dale. But these were only the preliminaries of the most important part of his mission. He was, first, to secure the Prince for Scotland, and then to secure his co-operation with Scotland in obtaining the necessary supplies from France and Holland. It was a difficult and delicate task, and we shall see how it was performed. In their choice of an agent for this mission, we have one more example of the almost unlimited confidence placed by the Estates (like the Kirk in the past) in the diplomatic persuasiveness of Lauderdale. CHAPTER IX Perhaps it would be inaccurate to describe Lauder¬ dale at this stage of his career as a Royalist. As already shown, his political ideal was aristocratic rather than democratic, and for kings, as kings, he postulated a necessary place in his scheme of politics. But as a Lowland Scot ; as an elder of the Kirk ; and as the most prominent lay member of its robustly critical General Assemblies, he had lived too long in an atmosphere that was pregnant with democratic aspirations, to believe in such puerilities as the Divine Right of Kings or of Bishops. He was therefore destitute of that attitude of mind towards the Throne which dis¬ tinguished the most earnest of the Cavaliers from the less worthy Royalists, and by virtue of which they earned the respect for the sincerity of their personal convictions, that must be denied to the shrewdness of their political discernment. Lauderdale, as Burnet tells us, never liked Charles the First. But Charles the Second, as Heir- Apparent, and afterwards as crowned King, appears to have always been in his eyes a “most gracious Prince.” 1 As time went on, his liking for Charles seems to have deepened into a devotion 1 Baillie ( Letters , III. pp. 87-8) writes of Charles II. : “ His Majestie is of a very sweet and courteous disposition. . . . He is one of the most gentle, innocent, well-inclyned Princes so far as yet appears that lives in the world ; a trimme person and of a manlie carriage ; understands prettie well ; speaks not much. Would God he were amoug us.” It wras Baillie who was “ innocent,” not Charles. 143 144 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF that was demonstrably personal. This is a fact which must be kept in view in estimating the forces that deflected Lauderdale’s career from its early promise. The subtle seductiveness of per¬ sonal charm which is the possession of some men, in influencing their fellows and in undermining, consciously or unconsciously, principles that are not rooted in unshakable conviction, has perhaps not been sufficiently recognized as a force in mould¬ ing character and in shaping careers. Certainly the political relations between Charles the Second and Lauderdale were affected by the personal factor in a degree that was rare. The unfortu¬ nate aspect of their friendship was the one-sided character of its developments. It was unfortunate for Lauderdale, and (what was of much greater importance) calamitously unfortunate for his native country. Their first recorded meeting took place under circumstances that were bound to impress the personality of each upon each. Charles was then a youth of eighteen, who had already vindicated his right to be a 44 man of the world.”1 He was about to be given an opportunity of proving that he was also a man of courage and resource. Lauderdale’s mission opened up an avenue of adventure that was ever attractive to the Stewart temperament ; and Charles looked forward to their meeting with eager interest. In a letter dated 10th August,2 addressed to Lanark from the King’s ship Constant Reformation , then in the Downs, Lauderdale gives us an enter¬ taining account of his adventures in search of the elusive Prince, whose movements were at that 1 He was a father at sixteen years of age (Airy’s Charles 1C p. 03). 2 Hamilton Papers , pp. 237-9. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 145 time peculiarly active and uncertain. Charles was not at Yarmouth1 — so Lauderdale heard at Elie (Fife) where he embarked — and the Earl set out on a search for him, hoping to pick up news from passing vessels. He could learn nothing, however, for they all gave his ship a wide berth. Then he steered with a fair wind for Holland, where he discovered that the Prince had left that country three weeks previously, for what destination, his informant (the pilot) knew not. They had now a fair wind for England, and the captain being 4 4 most civill and willing,” it was decided to sail for Yarmouth. 44 So,” says Lauderdale, 44 1 resolved to bridle my curiosity, which indeed was great, to see Holland, and to content myself with a sight of the steeples.” He saw more than steeples later on. When crossing from Holland, they chased a war-ship bound, seemingly, for France, 44 but he proved to be a man not to be taken.” Then they fell in with the Roebuck , one of the Prince’s frigates, and learned that Charles was in the Downs ; that the ship they had just been chasing was the Constant Warwick , with Captain Batten on board, on his way to join the Prince, and that Scarborough was 44 declared.” The Constant Reformation and the Roebuck then sailed in company for the Downs. 44 With some crosse winde and sicknes,” writes Lauderdale, 44 1 came hither this morning into the Downs, where I had the honor to kiss the Prince’s hand in his ship and to receive from him a very gratious reception both to the busines and to myself.” Civilities over, Lauderdale came to business. 1 He went with liis fleet to Yarmouth hoping to succour Colchester. The result was disappointing. K 146 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF He had been charged by the Committee of Estates with precise instructions on the main points which he was to discuss with Charles.1 The Prince was to be invited to join the Scottish Army, or to come to Scotland, as he saw fit, with an assurance of his full liberty of action. But he was desired not to bring with him Lord George Digby, nor certain named Scottish nobles who had been declared incapable of pardon,2 nor the Princes Rupert and Maurice. Charles was also desired and expected not to bring his chaplains (who had not taken the Covenant) 44 as the kingdom cannot admit of the exercise of the Book of Common Prayer, or any of these episcopal ceremonies against which we are in so many ways engaged.” On these points Lauderdale was instructed to be inflexible, and to declare in the name of Scotland, that if any of the persons to whom objection was taken 44 will needs come along,” they would not be admitted. If the Prince decided to come and 44 owne our Ingagement,” Lauderdale was to join in the name of Scotland for obtaining whatever assistance Charles might seek in France, or Holland, or elsewhere, and 44 ingage the publick faith of this kingdom for the same.” Also, he was to ask for the assistance of the Prince in his negotiations with the Prince of Orange, the States-General of the United Provinces, or with F ranee if he went there, and was instructed to receive whatever authority Charles might give him for 44 effectuating thereof.” Also, he was to give “frequent advertisements ” of his proceedings to the Committee, and return to Scotland as soon 1 Hamilton Papers , pp. 232-4. 2 These were Montrose, Viscount Aboyne, Lord Lindsay, “some¬ time Earl of Crafurd/’ and Sir John Hurrie. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDEKDALE 147 as possible, either with the Prince, or before him, or after him, as circumstances might determine.1 The object of his mission to the Prince of Orange2 and the States- General was to explain the aims of the Engagement to them, and obtain their assistance in money, arms, ammunition, and shipping. He was empowered to make a bargain with them, pledging the credit of Scotland and paying interest, not exceeding 8 per cent., for any accommodation obtained. Pie was also instructed to crave the assistance of the three Scots regiments then in the employment of the States, and to send them over to Scotland, or some 44 sure port ” in England, and to engage to send them back to the States after they had performed the services required of them ; or sooner, if the States so de¬ manded and 44 wee be in a position so to doe.” But this was not all. The Committee em¬ powered Lauderdale 44 if expedient and feasible,” to treat and conclude with the States-General, a 44 stricter alliance and nearer conjunction ” between Scotland and the United Provinces, which neces¬ sarily implied, as a corollary, direct participation in achieving the objects of the Engagement. All this he was desired to manage to the best advan¬ tage of Scotland, by advice of the Prince, 44 and so as yow doe not cross any of the ends of the Covenant.” If called away before his mission was finished, he was to delegate his authority to what¬ ever 44 Scots Gentleman ” he considered the fittest to undertake the task imposed by the Committee. From Holland he was to go to France, and 1 Hamilton Papers , pp. 232-6. 2 Sir William Bellenden, the Scottish agent at the Hague, was not too hopeful of the Prince of Orange. “ He is not so ripe and painfull in and for husines as his condition doeth require.” No representations with him were likely to prevail that did not hold out something to the advantage of his own country. {Hamilton Papers, p. 230.) i48 ' THE LIFE AND TIMES OF deliver the Committee’s letter to the Queen (Henrietta), to whom he was to give an account of the measures being taken for the King’s rescue. Also, he was to deliver letters to the King and Queen of France, acquaint them with the “ grounds and ends ” of the Engagement, and crave assist¬ ance from them in the form of money, arms, and ammunition.1 This was a mission of the first importance to the objects of the Engagement. If successfully accomplished, it could hardly fail to affect the fortunes of the King beneficially, and might even lead to his triumphant return to power. It will be observed that the Committee expressly charged Lauderdale that none of the ends of the Covenant were to be “ crossed.” They did not dare to throw the Covenant overboard. National feeling in Scotland — apart from the sentiments of the Kirk — would have been aroused by that step, and it may be assumed that at least the burghal element of the Engagers in Parliament itself would have been strongly opposed to the jettison. Yet the Covenant was to prove the main stumbling- block in the path of co-ordinative effort in the future, as in the past it had proved the main im¬ pediment to an agreement between Charles the First and his Scottish subjects. From the very commencement of his career, the son of Charles the First was a hopeless sort of Covenanter. From his training and his associa¬ tions, the whole trend of the conditions of the Covenant was repugnant to his political and re¬ ligious outlook. But for so young a man, he was a remarkable dissembler, and a consummate master of the difficult art of speaking with his tongue in 1 Hamilton Papers , pp. 235-6. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 149 his cheek. There was no difficulty at all in getting him to agree to Lauderdale’s proposals for obtain¬ ing assistance from Holland and France. Under any circumstances, this was not an easy mission. It was rendered none the easier by the fact that •r there was a 44 controversy ” between France and Holland, and that the help of Holland might be granted only on condition that the Scots would consent to break 44 our antient league with the French.”1 But while the political objects of Lauderdale’s mission met with his entire approval — it could scarcely be otherwise — the Prince made some opposition to the conditions laid down by the Committee for his observance of the Presby¬ terian form of worship while with the Scots. It can hardly be supposed that as a question of principle, the Prince of Wales cared a bodle whether he used the English Book of Common Prayer or the Scottish Book of Common Order. But some of his Councillors cared very much. To men like the Duke of Buckingham the question was an admirable one on which to hang a witty epigram. But to men like Hyde, that honest and intolerant Anglican, it was a question on which the ecclesiastic tendencies of the future king of England might depend. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn from Lauderdale’s report that the main difficulty in arranging for Charles to go to the Scots was 44 the question of Divine worship,” and that the difficulty at one time looked insuper¬ able. 44 Therefore,” writes Lauderdale — and we have here an admirable example of his business¬ like methods in diplomacy — 44 therefore I resolved to apply myself first to remove that which appeared to be the greatest difficultie.” First of all, he 1 Hamilton Papers, p. 230. I5° THE LIFE AND TIMES OF spoke in private to the Prince, “ whose inclinations I found as good and as earnest to be with us as is possible . . . The great opinion 1 have of his person I shall leave till meeting, and then I am confident your Lo. (Lanark) will be of my opinion when you see his Highnes that we are like to be very happy in him.” The Prince’s Councillors were spoken to “ very freely ” by Lauderdale before the formal discussion by the Council of the whole subject. By some of them he was greatly pressed to wait for the consent of King Charles to his proposals, ‘5 but I flatly refused it.” He told them that a delay was “ equally as destructive to his Highnes services as a denyall and I declared flatly that in that case I wold immediately be gone and give advertisement to the Kingdom of Scot¬ land.” At last — he goes on to say — “ I broght the busines to ane issue by my importunity.” The Prince invited him to attend a meeting of his Councillors. Ever ready to resent any inter¬ ference on the part of English Councillors with Scottish affairs — a resentment which he never lost — Lauderdale replied that his business was with the Prince alone, but that if it were the Prince’s pleasure that he should attend the meeting, he would do so. He gives us an interesting account of the proceedings of the Council, and the scrupulosity of his own attitude as the representative of an independent nation. He found the Prince on one side of the table, and on the other side, Rupert, Brandford, Willoughby, Hopton, and Colepeper, “ and the Secretary standing.” The Prince com¬ manded Lauderdale to sit down next to Rupert, which, “ after some ceremonie,” he did. He then pressed Charles as earnestly as he could, and asked JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 151 for a written answer, submitting his own request in writing. The desire of the Prince to meet his wishes is shown by the fact that Charles submitted to him the draft of his reply, and actually amended it to accord with Lauderdale’s suggestions. The main difficulty having been overcome, the minor points were successively settled. At the Prince’s desire, and on his undertaking to 44 satisfy ” Lauderdale on his compliance, Rupert’s name was omitted from the list of excepted persons. Lauderdale states that Rupert, 44 caryed himself very handsomely in this business”; that he pro¬ fessed 44 very good affection to our nation ” ; and that he was 44 very much troubled they should have any prejudice at him.” Lauderdale’s main¬ stay on the Council was Lord Willoughby, the commander of the fleet. Lauderdale tells 11s that Willoughby was 44 most honest and wholly Scots.” So we are not surprised to learn that he was solely engaged 44 on our interests.” Apparently the common bond between Willoughby and the Scots was Presbyterianism. He 44 will employ,” states Lauderdale, 44 non but Presbiterians.” There was a great friendship between Willoughby and Prince Rupert ; and the former told Lauderdale that it would be 44 infinite advantage ” to have the ban removed from Rupert ; in which view Lauder¬ dale concurred. It is interesting to learn that Sir Marmaduke Langdale, the hope of the English Cavaliers in the North, was 44 not at all valued heer,” and it was proposed to give him only a subordinate command. It is characteristic of Lauderdale’s determination to keep English and Scottish affairs completely separate, that when asked for his opinion about the Langdale proposal, J52 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF he refused to give it, leaving the decision wholly to the Prince. “ Lord bless our army, for all depends on that under God.” So writes Lauderdale to Lanark. And again : “ The Lord send me a good account of our army, for I must confess at this distance they goe very neer my heart.” And once again, when sending copies of the Prince’s replies to the Committee of Estates, he prays for good news from the Army, “ which is the thing on earth most earnestly desired and passionately long’d for.” No one knew better than Lauderdale that the success of the Scottish Army meant that the English Royalists would be delivered into the hands of the Scottish Engagers, and conversely, that with its failure, the whole of the Engagers’ plans would topple over like a house of cards. By the Prince and his entour¬ age the Engagers were treated with respect, solely because they were in possession of the big battalions. And what were these battalions doing while Lauderdale and the Prince were engaged in negotia¬ tions on points of form and policy ? Lauderdale winds up his correspondence with I ,anark by telling him that he intends sailing on the following day for Holland. “ God send us,” he writes, “ a good meeting, which is heartily longed for by me, for truely I am aweary of wagging at sea. I had farre rather be at cuffes with you.”1 That letter was written on 21st August. At the very time he was writing it, the Scottish Army on which his hopes rested was in the hollow of Cromwell’s hand. Recruited in large measure from unwilling levies of raw peasants ; destitute alike of patriotic enthusiasm, adequate training, essential equipment, 1 Hamilton Papers, pp. 244-253. Owing to the news of Hamilton’s defeat having become known,, the subsequent negotiations at the Hague were abortive (Clarendon’s History, B. XI. 86-91). JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 153 and competent leadership, this unfortunate army of the Engagers, when it marched into England, marched to its doom. Under all the circumstances it could hardly have been otherwise. The King’s friends in England and Scotland required both a man and a plan ; and they lacked both. Of co¬ ordination between the Royalists in both countries, there had hardly been a trace. A preliminary move was made by the Scottish Engagers in April, when Carlisle and Berwick were seized by a small party ; but not until three months later, was it found possible to place an army in the field. A manifesto was sent in May to the English Parlia¬ ment, demanding acceptance of the Covenant and Presbyterianism, liberty for the King to come to London to negotiate, and the disbanding of the Parliament’s Army. Brave words, which the pos¬ session of adequate means for their immediate enforcement could alone justify. Had the means been actually available (and it was well known that they did not exist), the Parliament, with the prospect in view of shaking off the tyranny of the New Model, might have entered into negotiations with alacrity. But how could the Parliament disband an army that refused to be disbanded, except by a stronger army ? An understanding between the Parliament and the Scots was, at bottom, a more feasible plan than a fusion of interests between the Scots and the English Royalists. ^ There was only one bond in common between all three parties : and that was fear of the New Model and hatred of the Sectaries. But in the sphere of religion there was a tie between the Parliament and the Scots, which was wanting in the relations between the Scots and the Royalists. The merciless Act against heresy was passed at 154 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF this time : an Act breathing a spirit of intolerance, and providing for a severity of punishment that for intensity, has never been excelled by any statute of Presbyterian Scotland. It showed, indeed, that the Presbyterianism of a majority in the English Parliament, if judged by this Act, was of a grimmer kind than the Presbyterianism of the Scottish Estates, or even of the Scottish Kirk. But in the main, the ecclesiastical views and theological dogmas of the majority in the English Parliament, as well as their political ideals, were in accord with those of the majority in the Scottish Estates ; and in an age when religion and politics were inextric¬ ably blended, the Presbyterianism common to both Parliaments was a cementing factor of prime importance. That the representative bodies of the two nations should have allowed themselves to drift asunder, and become estranged on questions other than those of principle, was a misfortune for both. At a time when, for the common good, they should have composed their differences and closed up their ranks, they placed themselves in such impos¬ sible situations that they were easily and successively overcome by Cromwell and his stalwarts. Rightly employed, the links of sympathy forged by Presby¬ tery were as steel, whereas the links woven for the Scots by their alliance with the Royalists were frail as silk. What wonder was it that, when the trial came, these silken links snapped with ludicrous ease? Their Royalist allies in England did not take the trouble to conceal their distrust of the Scots. Gladly would they have dispensed with their services if they could. They waited with growing im¬ patience for the march of the Scottish Army ; and they made scant allowance for the serious difficulties which had to be overcome. The Engagers tried JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 155 vainly to dissuade them from moving prematurely until the Scots were ready, 44 so that there might be a universal rising.” 1 But some of the English Royalists believed, or affected to believe, that a successful Scottish invasion 44 meant only the masters changed.” And Sir William Bellenden writing (from Amsterdam) to the Earl of Lanark on 9th July, tells him that there was on the part of the 44 King’s men in Holland, such a jealousy of the Scots that no relief can be so unwelcome as their assistance, and there was great joy when Kent and Essex rose that the busines could be done without the Scots.” 1 2 The joy, like the rising, was premature. But the 44 business ” nevertheless was not done, and under all the circumstances, could not have been done, by the Scots. Had the Scottish Army been commanded by an energetic Montrose instead of an indolent Hamilton, it might have been done even with such unpromising material as the Duke had at his disposal. Plainly, the first object to be attained was the relief of Pembroke and Colchester, where the Royalists still in arms were cooped up, respectively, by Cromwell and Fairfax. But if Hamilton had any definite strategical plan at all, it is not easy to follow it. He dawdled in Lancashire for a month, waiting apparently for English reinforcements. But with the exception of the useful help of Sir Marmaduke Langdale, whose gallant stand is one of the bright spots in a futile and disastrous campaign, the Northern Royalists held aloof.3 Hamilton’s inertia ruined 1 Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, pp. 430-7- 2 Hist. MSS. Com. Rep., XI. Ft. VI. p. 127- 3 In a letter from Lauderdale to Langdale of April 18/28, 1649, lie congratulates him 011 his escape from “ these bloody rogues who have murthered our King and our friends” ( Harford MSS., p. 349). THE LIFE AND TIMES OF 156 whatever chance there might have been of success. Pembroke fell ; and its fall enabled Cromwell to bestow his undivided attention on the Scots. He struck hard at the Scottish Hank, splitting Hamilton’s forces into two parts. Successively at Preston and at Winwick, near Warrington, the sledge-hammer descended with crushing blows on the Scots. With the exception of a body of resolute horsemen who escaped to Scotland, the remnant of Hamilton’s army, rounded up by Lambert, capitulated with their General on 25th August at Uttoxeter in Staffordshire. Never was disaster more clearly attributable to military ineptitude than the Scottish debacle at Preston. It was the misfortune of the Engagers not to have found available for their services a competent General. Alexander Leslie, who was a “ Kirkman,” would have nothing to do with the enterprise,1 and though Baillie and Middleton (Middleton’s troopers fought at Preston with dis¬ tinction), were capable soldiers, the efficiency of the subordinate officers could not supply the deficiencies of the Higher Command. So badly co-ordinated were the movements of Hamilton’s units, that Monro’s veteran soldiers from Ireland who, as stiffening material for the raw levies, would have been of inestimable value, were never engaged at all ; they reached Scotland after the fighting was over, without even seeing the enemy. The Engagement was tragical in its results. The high hopes that were formed of its success and their dismal dissipation ; the futile attempts to arouse the enthusiasm of Scotland in its cause ; the army raised finally by compulsion to fight for a King who, in the eyes of many of the conscripts, 1 David Leslie is said by Clarendon ( History , B. XI. 72) to have been Hamilton’s Lieutenant-General. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 157 was himself the chief Malignant ; the unstable alliance with English Royalists who distrusted and disliked their allies ; the mission of Lauderdale to the Prince of Wales and the serious problem of the Prayer-Book, which, during its discussion, was already being solved by Cromwell at Preston : there would be an element of comedy in it all were it not for its grave reaction alike on the King and on Scotland. And the last scene in the last Act of the tragedy of the Engagement, was the execution of the unfortunate nobleman who was excellently equipped for gracing a Court, but lamentably ill-fitted for vanquishing Oliver Cromwell. Himself a possible candidate for the Scottish Crown, Hamilton found the King whose cause he had embraced, a “ dear master ” indeed, as Charles, with bitter point, remarked when they met. The King’s friends had been finally and hopelessly beaten in the Second Civil War ; in England the more radical elements of the Parliament were henceforth to dominate their country, until their master in his own good time dominated them ; while across the Border, Argyll, “ the most subtill among the Scots,” was now supreme in the State, and was basking in the warm sunshine of the Kirk’s favour. The Dictator of Scotland, “ subtill ” though he was, met his match in subtilty when he entertained Cromwell at supper in Moray House, Edinburgh, after the destruction of Hamilton’s army. The “ greeting deevil,” the “ egregious dissembler ” and the “ great liar ” (as the Reverend Mr Blair called Cromwell), was ready either to shed tears or chop off* heads, according to the efficacy of the argument and the necessity for its enforcement. At Moray House he may have wept, and it is probable he may have threatened. He was well aware that at 158 the life and times of Preston he had defeated, not a national, but a sectional army. The Whiggamores Raid,1 repre¬ senting a reaction in favour of the deadliest opponents of the Engagement, had placed virile Covenanters in possession of Edinburgh and the springs of national influence. Argyll, compelled to lean upon them for support, was nominally at the head of this extreme faction, distasteful though some of their tenets were to his more enlightened intelli¬ gence.2 The eye of Cromwell was quick to discern the clashing animosities, political as well as religious, by which Scotland was cursed ; and his mind was quick to grasp the opportunities they afforded for turning them to good account. His policy was to foment, to accentuate, to perpetuate, these differences. A divided Scotland he could easily keep in subjection : a united Scotland might easily prove beyond his control. Meantime the “ brethren ” were in possession of the political machinery, and it was the 4 4 brethren whom Cromwell persuaded Argyll to protect from the machinations of the wicked Engagers, by per¬ manently excluding the most dangerous of the latter from participation in public life. By concurring in the views of Cromwell, and setting in motion legislation that took the form of the Act of Classes (which discriminated in the heinousness of the Engagers' offence, and punished it accordingly), Argyll did a great disservice to his country. After Preston, his manifest duty as a statesman was to heal national discords, and to secure national unity. With these objects achieved, 1 The “ Whiggamores” who gave their name to the later Whigs, were so called from the word “ Whiggam,” by which the West Country waggoners urged on their horses. That is Burnet’s explana¬ tion of the word, and it seems the most plausible of the various etymologies. 2 Argyll regarded his more extreme associates as “madmen.” JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 159 he could view with equanimity Scotland’s ability to resist aggression, from whatever side it might come. The course he actually followed widened the chasm that divided the Engagers from the anti- Engagers ; deprived the country of the services of some of its ablest sons,1 in the field as in the Council-chamber ; let loose the forces of intolerance in Church and State ; and embittered for a genera¬ tion the feelings between sections of the community that might otherwise have been working in harmony for the good of the nation. Poor Scotland seemed to be ever fated to become the prey of the forces of disunion, which, in turn, were mainly responsible for her greatest national disasters. Meantime, Cromwell, having done his work in Scotland, hurried home to complete it in England by Pride’s Purge and the arraignment of the King. 1 Lauderdale, who was thanked by Parliament in 1648 for his services as a Commissioner to England, was in 1650 ordered to leave the country “ as being not well affected to the cause ” {Acts of Par. of Scotland, VI. (II.), p. 594 b). CHAPTER X The execution of the King awakened Scotland to a sense of realities. It shattered at one blow the schemes alike of her Royalists and her anti- Royalists. The Royalists were left without a head ; the anti- Royalists were left without a plan. During the proceedings against the King which culminated at the Whitehall scaffold, Scottish representatives had lodged a national protest under cover of the Solemn League and Covenant. Both countries were bound by that treaty, they urged, to “ pre¬ serve and defend the King’s majesty, person, and authority.” That argument carried no weight with Cromwell. He reminded them that, in terms of the treaty, the preservation and defence of the King became obligatory, only if consonant with the preservation and defence of “ the true religion and liberties of the kingdoms.” The sanctity of monarchical rights had no meaning for the master of the Model Army. Dexterously enough, he quoted against the Scots the opinions of their own great democrat and scholar, George Buchanan, on the limitations that should be placed upon regal authority. He had all the best of the argument, for he had all the best of the power. Behind the legal paraphernalia of the King’s trial it was the muskets that were now to speak, with a shrillness that drowned the modulated tones of remonstrance. In the Scottish mind, the divinity that hedges a throne was still an influential belief, not with stand- JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 161 ing the democratic tendencies of the General Assemblies. To see the hedge ruthlessly broken down by English Levellers was disturbing. To see a king of Scottish blood and birth tried like a male¬ factor by low-born English sectaries, was shocking. To see the same sectaries firmly installed in power in the sister country was exasperating. For the moment, the destinies of Scotland seemed to lie in Argyll’s capable hands. Now that the Engagers were hopelessly discredited, he was without a rival in the political field. But if Argyll was the master of the politicians, the Kirk was still the master of Argyll. His hands were tied by the General Assembly, whose authority, unavowed but none the less real, was supreme. Had he been a free agent ; had he felt strong enough to shake himself free from his ecclesiastical bonds ; the policy to which he was now about to give his adherence might have been of a different complexion. From this time onwards, there is little in the career of Argyll to add lustre to his reputation as a statesman. On the contrary, his record is little else than a series of political blunders and a policy of drift. These, one ventures to think, were due not to lack of insight, but mainly to lack of firmness. Instead of leading popular opinion, as he was competent to do, and instead of facing up squarely to the Kirk, when its political excesses conflicted with the national interests, he followed the easy path of acquiescence in acts of which, as a statesman, he must have dis¬ approved. His influence, now reaching its climax, gradually and deservedly disappeared ; and unfortun¬ ately for Scotland, there was no statesman of equal calibre to take his place. Argyll’s infirmity stands self-confessed : “ Dubiety plays on me like a flute.” THE LIFE AND TIMES OF 162 After the news of the execution of Charles the First reached Edinburgh, Charles the Second was proclaimed King, not of Scotland only, but of Great Britain and Ireland and France. This, as Argyll must have known, was a direct challenge to Cromwell and the regicides, who had threatened death to any who should proclaim Charles as King. When, after the tragedy at Whitehall, the Scottish envoys in London protested against toleration, or any other changes in the fundamental laws of the Kingdom, and demanded that Charles the Second should, with necessary safeguards, be placed upon his father’s throne, the Long Parliament dismissed them contemptuously ; their protest, the Parlia¬ ment declared, laid the “ grounds of a new and bloody war.” The course taken in Edinburgh was complementary to the protest in London. Had Charles the Second been proclaimed King of Scotland only, Argyll and his countrymen would have stood on firm ground. They were at liberty to proclaim and to crown whatever King of Scotland they chose, and Cromwell could have found no justification for protest, much less for active interference. Scotland was an independent nation whose sovereign rights Cromwell would have been the last man to challenge, and whose religious policy he would have been the last man to oppose.1 But Scotland choosing a king for England and Ireland, as well as for herself, created an entirely different situation. It was clear that those who were now in control of English affairs had no intention of placing on the English throne, a second Charles to replace the first. And they had certainly no intention of accepting any dictation from Scotland 1 By Cromwell and his party, Charles was consistently called “ King of Scots.” JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 163 in their choice, whether of a king or an ecclesiastical system. From his conferences with Cromwell, Argyll must have been aware of his views on the international relations between the two countries. He must have known on what a slender thread the friendship of the two countries was hanging. By thus breaking loose from the web spun around him in Moray House, Argyll gave the impression of strength. But the impression was erroneous ; for the apparent strength concealed real weakness ; and the bold assertion of Scotland’s right to proclaim a king for England and Ireland was out of harmony with the facts. For the complete disappearance in English councils of Scotland’s weight, either for military assistance or for political co-operation, could no longer be concealed. A situation of extreme delicacy had now arisen between the two countries. Scotland could justly claim that she had acted within her constitutional rights. She had never disowned her allegiance to Charles I. Even when resisting his authority, she had protested her loyalty : it was all a question of interpretation. Her allegiance was now automatic¬ ally transferred to his heir ; and the heir was de jure King of Great Britain, and not of Scotland alone. Consequently the terms of the Scottish proclamation were “ correct ” from a constitutional standpoint. Moreover — and in Scotland this was the decisive factor — the retention of the Covenant implied the retention of monarchy ; and the retention of monarchy implied the defence of Charles the Second and his rights. Thus, for Scotland, the choice lay on the one hand between a logical, if pedantic, assertion of constitutional rights, and war with the English Commonwealth as the inevitable outcome of her assertion ; or, on 164 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF the other hand, an agreement with the Common¬ wealth based upon the logic of facts. In view of the sacrifices which both countries had jointly made in the common cause of political and religious liberty, it was surely a time for seeking common ground in essentials, and striving for unity in common ideals. Emphatically it was not a time for widening breaches by pressing against them the lumber of lawyers. Why then was the opportunity missed by Argyll and the Scottish Parliament of agreeing quickly with the grim soldier who had become the virtual Dictator of England ? That a basis of agreement could have been found is certain. That it would have been to the advantage of both countries, and particularly to Scotland, is equally certain. It is true that the Scots as a nation were incensed by the execution of the King. It is true that national feeling on both sides had become embittered by the events of the Civil War. It is true that the political and religious ideals of the new masters of England were more advanced than those of the new rulers of Scotland. But the lines of divergence between the English Republicans and the Scottish Covenanters were not fundamental ; whereas the English Royalists and the Kirk party in Scotland were separated by an unbridgeable chasm. For Argyll and the Scottish Parliament, the statesmanlike and the patriotic course to pursue was so to shape their policy as to preserve the in¬ dependence of the Scottish nation ; and to make all dynastic or constitutional considerations com¬ pletely subservient to the interests of their country. Their failure to work on these lines was proclaimed by the needless irritant which was applied to the powerful Republicans in England. It was pro- JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 165 claimed, too, by the series of negotiations, the result of which was to link the welfare of Scotland with the fortunes of a King who gibed at his allies, and whose allies would not trust him out of their sight. W ere it not for their tragic consequences, the relations between Charles and the Scots in the years 1050 and 1651 would form a fitting subject for a comedy. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the real dictators of Scottish policy in this national crisis were the clergy. And the clergy had become intoxicated by success. They lacked the modera¬ tion of men like Alexander Henderson. They were infuriated with the English Sectaries for defeating their design of riveting Presbyterianism on the English neck. Their eyes were blinded by prejudice ; their minds were warped by ecclesi- asticism. They were frankly intolerant ; and they gloried in their intolerance. The direction in which their influence was exerted was fatally wrong. It was wholly inconsistent with the clerical attitude on the Engagement 1 ; it was plainly dis¬ honest ; it led to a gamble with the national interests for an unworthy stake ; and ultimately it resulted in plunging the country into a morass from which it took over a generation to emerge. The Kirk had to accept Charles or the Sectaries. The question to be resolved was, which was the less bitter of the pills. In deciding for Charles, the Kirk decided for the uprooting of heretical sectaries through the medium of an unregenerate king. It was the Jesuit doctrine of the end justifying the means, put into practice by avowed anti- Jesuits. 1 If the agreement of 1648 for the restoration of Charles I. was an “ unlawful engagement against our neighbour nation of England,” as the Scottish clergy asserted, surely the Scottish agreement with Charles II. was open to the same charge. THE LIFE AND TIMES OF 1 66 No excuse about the claims of the Solemn League and Covenant can obscure the fact, of which contemporary evidence furnishes ample evidence, namely, that Argyll committed his country to a wrong course because his masters, the ministers, yearned to destroy the Sectaries. The Scottish draughtsmen of the Solemn League and Covenant (which must be very carefully distinguished from the purely Scottish National Covenant, a document framed for a wholly different purpose), were under no illusions about its object and its scope. By employing, in deference to Scottish contemporary taste,1 the Biblical word “Covenant” to signify an agreement between two nations on political and religious questions, they had no real intention of endowing the treaty with the characteristics of a Jewish Covenant. Certainly, the other contracting party viewed the alliance and the agreement from what might be called, not inaptly, a “ business ” standpoint. They required the military assistance of the Scots, and were prepared to pay for it. They obtained the assistance ; they paid for it, grudgingly and then only partially, but the debt was considered to be discharged. And now their successors regarded both the alliance and the sacred Covenant as “ a last vear’s almanac.” %/ With the exception of the Presbyterian party, still a powerful but temporarily a helpless factor in the community, no one in England was sorry to see the last of a document “ made in Scotland,” which their Presbyterian Parliament had tried to thrust down English throats. The Covenant was thus in 1 “Bands” (or bonds) had long- been favourite instruments in Scotland for embodying undertakings in the joint interests of the contractors. The word “ Covenant ” in these pages, except when pre¬ fixed by the adjective “ National,” means the Solemn League and Covenant. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 167 the anomalous position of being disowned, prac¬ tically, if not formally, by the representatives of one of the two contracting States. It had never been abrogated by the English Parliament. But it was moribund, and as a vital force, past revival. All that remained, from the English point of view, was to give it decent burial. Instead of burying, the Scots tried to rejuvenate, the Covenant. Plainly, the situation was too unreal for the Covenant to be anything more than a pre¬ text for the espousal of the King’s cause, and for interference in the domestic affairs of another nation. The Covenant was the sole sanction for their policy. Therefore they clung to it with a tenacity that would otherwise be inexplicable. It formed the basis at once of their attitude towards England and their bargaining with the King. A course of negotiations was now set on foot by the Scottish Estates (actively assisted by the Kirk), of which the main feature was the amazing insincerity on both sides. The Scots Commissioners on the one side, and Charles and his advisers on the other, took indeed scarcely any pains to conceal from one another the hollowness of their mutual professions of esteem. Each side needed the other side for its own ends ; and each side was vividly conscious of the fact. The Scots who had thrown out a challenge to the English Parliament that was needlessly provocative, clogged their adherence to the King with conditions that stripped it of all grace. They wanted a “ tame ” king, and they were prepared to pay the price for him. Charles on his part was willing to humour them until he got firmly seated in the saddle. And then ? But he had many a weary mile to trudge before that question need be answered. THE LIFE AND TIMES OF 1 68 Early in 1650, The Hague was the rallying- ground of the Royalists, and the refuge of the Scottish Engagers like Lauderdale and Lanark, the latter being now Duke of Hamilton. Like his brother who had suffered the death penalty after Lis defeat at Preston, Hamilton was an amiable and physically brave man, but weak in character. At The Hague, as elsewhere, he was dominated by his masterful colleague, and his advice to Charles on Scottish affairs was singularly nebulous and unhelpful. Not so the counsel of Lauderdale, who always knew his own mind, and never failed to express his views with subtlety or vigour, as the occasion required. Lauderdale's relations towards the Royalists, on the one hand, and towards the Argyll faction on the other, were of such a nature as demanded extreme circum¬ spection on his part. To Edward Hyde, the later Clarendon, whose special province it was to guard with jealous care, the prerogatives of the Stewart Throne and the privileges of the Anglican Church, Lauderdale as a Scot, a Covenanter, a politician, and a man, was an object of ineradicable dislike. Also, he distrusted Cottington as a Catholic ; hated Buckingham as a rake ; and despised Jermyn as a “vain, shallow, false man.” Even the great Montrose, whose single-minded loyalty (with Hyde’s honesty) alone redeemed the pinchbeck Court of Charles from contempt, was not immune from the criticism of the immaculate Chancellor, who doubted the solidity of his character. Yet Montrose was an out-and-out Royalist, who based his hopes on a Scottish national reaction, untrammelled by the Covenant— the “damnable Covenant” as the choleric Hyde called it. No enemy was held in such abhorrence by the Kirk as Montrose. He ffl WILLIAM, 2nd DUKE OF HAMILTON {From an enyrariny by W. T. Fry , after MytenF) [face p. 168 JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 169 was a “ cursed man ” ; he was “ the most bloody in our nation ” ; he was “ that fugatious man and most justly excommunicate rebell James Graham.” In the course of time these maledictions have re¬ bounded against their authors, who stand self- convicted of being blinded by bigotry against any recognition of Montrose’s nobility of character. Towards Lauderdale, the attitude of the Kirk was that of a sorrowful parent who admonishes an erring child. He had gone astray over the Engage¬ ment, and must make amends for his folly, but the path of forgiveness would be made easy for him. “ There will be a penitential speech expected of yourself before your reconcilement to the Kirk.” So wrote Balmerino to Lauderdale in December 1648. It was an easy way out of a difficulty ; and when the proper time came, after a period of pro¬ bation, the repentant Lauderdale did not fail to purge himself in the prescribed form from the taint of disobedience to the Kirk.1 But meantime, at The Hague, distrusted by the Royalists by whom he was surrounded, and estranged from the ruling party in Scotland, his path was a thorny one. He picked his way through it with prudence and courage. His most valuable asset was the personal friendship of Charles, who placed implicit reliance in the soundness of his judgment. Lauder¬ dale was still a Covenanter. His personal ease at The Hague would have been sensibly increased had he disowned the Covenant, like Montrose, or sworn at it, like Hyde. But he recognized hard facts. He knew that the Covenant had outworn its usefulness as an international treaty ; but he knew 1 Clarendon says that while Lauderdale was admitted ” to penance, Hamilton’s petition to be admitted was rejected {Cal. of Clar. State Papers, II. p. 77). He was sent to Arran, “ a place for the most part inhabited with wild beasts ” ! 170 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF that it remained as a symbol of a politieal and religious frame of mind. He knew, also, that if Charles followed Montrose’s advice, and threw himself upon the tender mercies of the Scottish opponents of the Covenant, he would be following a will-o’-the-wisp that would lead him into a Scottish bog. He knew further that to those Scots who temporarily held political power, and to the ministers who were the real leaders of the nation, the King was merely a pendant of the Covenant, as the Covenant was an excuse for their ambitions. Unless Charles consented to take the Covenant, Lauderdale was perfectly well aware that all hope of Scottish assistance must be abandoned. When the Commissioners from the Scottish Parliament and Kirk came over to Holland to place their proposals before the King, they found in Lauderdale a useful coadjutor.1 The Com¬ missioners’ demands were three in number: (1) Establishment of the Solemn League and Covenant ; (2) confirmation of all Acts of the Scottish Parlia¬ ment establishing Presbyterian Government and worship ; and (3) reference to the Parliament in all civil, and to the General Assembly of the Church in all ecclesiastical, affairs. Charles con¬ sulted both Montrose and Lauderdale on these demands, and their replies were characteristic of the men. Montrose advised him to refuse to ratify the Solemn League and Covenant.2 That meant, 1 One of the Commissioners was Lauderdale’s old admirer, the Reverend Robert Baillie, who as we have already seen, fell under the spell of the personal charm of Charles. Another member of the Com¬ mission, Alexander Jaffray, expresses his disgust with the duplicity on both sides, of which he was keenly conscious. (See Hist., MSS. Com. App. 1st Rep. p. 122.) Still another delegate, John Livingston, bears testimony to his distaste for the chaffering with the King. 2 To the last Montrose was a supporter of the National Covenant, hut he had always refused to subscribe the Solemn League and Covenant. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 171 in effect, the adoption of Montrose’s plan of relying entirely upon genuine Royalists in Scotland, like himself. Of these, as events proved, there were few, and the few were of small value as Royalist assets. Lauderdale, knowing that it was the Covenant or nothing, advised Charles to agree to its ratification. Rut Montrose and Lauderdale, while advising the confirmation of Presbyterianism in Scotland, concurred in recommending that the settlement of all matters concerning religion in England should be referred to a free Parliament there. In the end, Charles accepted Montrose’s advice, which was more palatable than that of Lauderdale. And the negotiations with the Com¬ missioners were broken off.1 Broken off, yes ; but only to be resumed at a later date, as Lauderdale’s sagacity foresaw. Charles detested the idea of ratifying the Covenant. Rather than submit to that hateful necessity, he looked around elsewhere for assistance. He had not, indeed, waited for the rupture of the negotia¬ tions before trading in other markets. At the very time that he was amusing himself with the Scots, he was flirting with the Pope.2 By means of Hyde and Cottington he tried the Spaniards, whom Hyde describes in his usual sledgehammer style, as a “ wretched, miserable, proud, senseless people ” ; he tried, in fact, every quarter from which there was the least chance of obtaining money, sufficient even to feed and clothe himself and his threadbare Court. Perhaps it may be said 1 Cal. of Clarendon State Papers, II. pp. 10-12. In spite of the efforts of Hyde and other Royalists to effect a reconciliation between Montrose and Lauderdale, the two men continued in a state of complete antagonism. Their political standpoint differed in some fundamental respects. Lauderdale averred that Scotland would never forgive Montrose for his “ barbarities” in the field. 2 Cal. of Clarendon State Papers, II. p. 13. 172 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF that the first of the Stewarts who went begging on the Continent “ spoiled the market ” for the later Stewarts, after James the Second had been sent on his travels. From all the foreign Courts Charles received sympathy in abundance, but the cash was in driblets : they feared Cromwell ; and they were doubtful of the security for their loans. Ireland remained as the last hope before capitu¬ lating to the Scots. For a time, it looked as if Irish Papists, and not Scottish Presbyterians, were to be the mainstay of the King’s cause. It would have been a lucky escape for the Scots had he thrown in his lot with the Irish. But at Jersey, whither he went from The Hague to wait for the Irish fruit to ripen, he had the mortification of seeing it wither in a night before the Cromwellian blight. He had now the choice of two courses, and two only : signing the Covenant, or going out of business as a King. It did not take Charles long to come to a decision : to have a crown on his head, he would put his conscience in his pocket. The situation was pithily and prophetically put thus : “If the King join not with the Scots, he is undone ; and if he doe, they are.” At Breda, in March 1650, negotiations with the Scottish Commissioners were re-opened. The Commissioners knew that Charles was now their prey ; and two at least of their number had the grace to acknowledge in private, the unfairness of the pressure which they were applying to the young man’s conscience. But their attitude was inflexible ; it was Charles who had to bend. The influence of Lauderdale, whose “ very affectionate friend ” Charles had already declared himself to be, may have quickened his decision, if indeed acceleration were required. The capitulation to JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 173 the Scots was complete. Complete, too, was the disappointment of Hyde’s hopes, which had rested on Ormonde’s management of Ireland. Hyde was virulently anti-Scottish. Also, he was violently anti-Machiavellian in his diplomacy. The King’s acceptance of the Scottish demands filled him with dismay, and kindled his fierce indignation against his advisers. Had he been at Breda, instead of Madrid, where he was sent on a begging mission to get him out of the way, he would have opposed the treaty with his whole strength. “To think,” so he writes Secretary Nicholas, “ to think either that he will be excused from the Covenant, or that he and all may take it and break it afterwards, is such folly and atheism that they (the advisers) should be ashamed to avow or think it.” As for himself, he would “ rather fly to the Indies than be involved in such counsels.” He scorned “to descend to any little vile arts or tricks to gain the favour of any one.” His only thought was to serve the King. He “ would not do that which he thought ought not to be done, to restore him to his own and the dominion of the world.” As for the Scots, the treaty would “ greatly puff up that insolent people.” To Sir John Berkeley, he declared that “ the Scots attempt to cozen, and the King intends to perjure himself . . . God Almighty does not favour combinations entered into with such perjury and resolution of perjury at the time of taking the othes.” 1 We are listening here to a passionate outburst by an honest man, wrho foresaw that the treaty would be thrown into the Royal wastepaper basket, and who saw, too, that both sides knew it to be a sham, and consented to the sham, each to gain 1 Cal. of Clarendon State Papers , II. pp. 47-49. 174 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF its own ends. The hypocrisy was on both sides, and it was tacitly and mutually condoned. The warning words of the wise Chancellor might well have been remembered, less than two years later, when Charles was again a homeless fugitive, and when Scotland, deprived of her independence, lay under the heel of her conqueror at Dunbar and Worcester. Nor was the hypocrisy confined to the contracting parties to the agreement. Montrose had been assured by Charles that the treaty with the Scots, was not intended to be “ in any way an impediment ” to the arrangements in progress for an expedition to Scotland under the Marquis. He would not consent, said Charles, to anything con¬ trary to, or in diminution of, the authority of Montrose’s commission.1 The proposed adventure of Montrose (in the success of which he was pro- babty the sole believer), was, in the eyes of Charles, a sort of reserve fund, of little apparent value, but containing certain possibilities. If these possibilities fructified, he could always draw upon the fund. Oil and water mix as easily as did Montrose’s ideals with those of the Covenanters. Ultimately, one or other of the incompatible elements of which Scottish support was composed, must be eliminated; but there was no need to abandon either prematurely. Montrose’s hope was a forlorn hope ; but forlorn hopes do sometimes succeed. Should Montrose succeed, then Covenant and Covenanters alike would be thrown overboard with a sigh of relief. Such, apparently, were the views of Charles ; but the Scottish Commissioners had other views. They demanded his abandonment both of Montrose and Ormonde ; and certain compromising letters from the King to Montrose which fell into the 1 Cal. of Clarendon State Papers , II. p. 39. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 175 hands of Argyll, gave point to the demand. Charles yielded ; his assurances to Montrose were nullified : and he threw his faithful servant to the wolves. Montrose, who had already landed in Scotland, was ordered to disband his forces ; a few days later, Charles formally disowned his actions ; and when the ill-fated expedition came to an abrupt end, with Montrose’s defeat at Carbisdale, the King told the Scottish Parliament that he did not regret the result. The historian does not look for warmth of gratitude, for services rendered, from mature men who have spent their lives in a sordid atmosphere, which chills generosity and deadens the feeling of honour. But they do expect to find a lad of twenty, a golfer and a tennis player, behave like a sportsman towards his most devoted and his most unselfish friends. Throughout his career, Charles was generous to his friends so long as they were useful to him. When they were no longer serviceable, or when they cut athwart his plans, they were thrown aside like a discarded mistress. Had the Scots been wise, they would have taken the measure of Charles by his desertion of Montrose. What was Montrose’s lot to-day would be theirs to-morrow, if they placed Charles firmly in the saddle. But the Kirk party were blinded by their prejudices, and refused to see what was plain enough to cool observers of events. Their rancorous hatred of Montrose obscured their vision, and destroyed their sense of fairness. They refused to regard him as a political offender who, it is true, had plunged his country into a devastating civil war. They insisted upon treating him as a rutjiless assassin, who had drenched his country in blood. From that standpoint, the pathway led straight to the gibbet, where Montrose showed a greatness of soul that put to shame equally the J76 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF littleness of his enemies and the paltriness of his King. The tragedy of Montrose’s execution was a sorry business for all concerned : for the Parlia¬ ment that condemned him : for the Kirk that reviled him : and, perhaps most of all, for the King who deserted him. When Charles visited Edinburgh in 1650, Montrose’s hand was still exhibited on the Tolbooth. It was an accusing hand.1 The Scottish terms stiffened with the elimina¬ tion of Montrose as a factor of disturbance. They demanded the complete suppression of Popery, not only in Great Britain but in Ireland as well ; and they required guarantees from the Engagers at Charles’s Court, before allowing them to land in Scotland. These guarantees do not appear to have been given, nor, apparently, was the demand pressed. Lauderdale and Hamilton were both in the entourage of Charles when he sailed for Scotland. Lauderdale, particularly, was indispensable to the King, for no one in the immediate following of Charles possessed his knowledge of the Scottish temperament, combined with his capacity for the business of diplomacy. He was quite ready to pacify the Kirk by making the “ penitential speech ” expected from him.2 There is nothing to show that at this stage of his career his zeal for the Covenant had evaporated. Yet its meshes were entangling the honour of Queens and Princes, and were making 1 Louis XIV. wrote to the Parliament of Scotland begging that Montrose should be set at liberty as he had only “ generously performed his duty to his sovereign.” Montrose was executed before the letter (which is dated Compiegne, 10th June 1650) reached Edinburgh (Hist. MSS. Com., Appen. Rep. II. p. 177). 2 Lauderdale was one of those who on 24th May 1650, were forbidden to enter Scotland under heavy penalties unless they reconciled them¬ selves to the Estates (Nicoll’s Diary, p. 14). He made public repentance in Largo Church on 26th December 1650 for his participation in the Engagement. A farce ! JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 177 bad Jesuits of good Protestants. To those who, like Queen Christina of Sweden,1 the Prince of Orange, and the Duke of Lorraine, had advised Charles (to the great indignation of Hyde) to make any promises asked of him and break them when convenient, the Covenant was an absurd document which should not be treated seriously, and its upholders an absurd people who should be humoured as lunatics are humoured. Perhaps the thought may have occurred to Lauderdale when he saw Charles being compelled at Speymouth (before he was allowed to land on Scottish soil),2 to take the oaths to observe the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant, that Scotland had created a Frankenstein machine which was destined in time to strangle her liberties. But he may have reflected, too, that a king who is a deliberate perjurer divests himself of his kingliness, and discovers him¬ self to his servants as an untrustworthy master. If Lauderdale was aware of the intention of Charles to go back on his treaty with the Scots, and to repudiate his oaths whenever the opportunity arrived, he was a partner in his duplicity. If he was unaware of the intention, he betrayed less insight than one believes him to have possessed. It seems probable that he played a more con¬ siderable part than has been made public, in bringing about the negotiations, as the result of which, Charles landed in the old country of the 1 Queen Christina of Sweden was a daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, and her character betrays its stamping in a heroic mould. Anyone who reads the accounts of her interviews with Whitelock, Cromwell's Ambassador (1653) cannot fail to he impressed by the acuteness of her judgement, which rivalled that of her celebrated Chancellor, Oxenstierne. Queen Christina admired Cromwell as a man, hut not as a politician ; and Cromwell reciprocated her feelings. Charles courted her, but found small favour in the disconcertingly frank eyes of the Swedish Queen. 2 This was one of the conditions of the draft treaty signed oil Heligoland. The original draft was signed at Breda on 1st May. M THE LIFE AND TIMES OF 178 Stewarts. In the winter of 1649 (so he tells 11s) Charles wanted him to go to Scotland to see what he could do to further his interests. On the pretence of seeking to attend to his private affairs, Lauderdale obtained a pass from Scotland. At Christmas he sailed from Holland in a warship provided by the Prince of Orange, who was the only person, besides Charles and himself, that knew with what instructions he had been charged. The precise nature and scope of these instructions were never disclosed, but their general tenor may be readily surmised. When he arrived in Scotland, he found that the Duke of Hamilton was a prisoner in his own house; and that Hamilton, he himself (Lauder¬ dale), and “many other persons of quality” had been turned out of their employments and declared incapable of all public trust. He found, too, that he had been fined and his tenants ruined. Fortified by his pass, he went to Edinburgh, where he consulted his friends on the situation. But Scotland got too hot for him. News had reached London of the arrival of the Dutch war¬ ship, and one John Roe was sent to Edinburgh to demand the delivery of Lauderdale and Hamilton. To this demand, the Committee of the Estates proposed to yield, notwithstanding the protests of Lauderdale’s friends, Balmerino and Cassillis, who warned him of the Committee’s intention. There¬ upon, accompanied by Hamilton, he fled, and the Dutch warship carried them safely back to Holland.1 1 Somers’ Tracts, VIII., pp. 509-10. The fact that so stout a Covenanter as the Earl of Cassillis reposed, at this time and later, such entire confidence in Lauderdale’s faithfulness to the “good old cause,” seems to afford presumptive evidence that he was regarded by the Covenanting noblemen, as a counterpoise to the anti-Covenanting JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 179 These statements, made by Lauderdale at a time when his earlier career was undergoing close scrutiny by his enemies, with the object of achieving his ruin, show the activity of his efforts in promot¬ ing the Royal interests in Scotland. Unfortunately for Scotland, his efforts were successful. Royalists like Montrose. His attitude towards Montrose appears to confirm that view. The feeling of “ caste” was strong in the Scottish aristocracy, and even those of its members who were Covenanters felt the irksomeness of their bondage to the Kirk. CHAPTER XI Charles had now secured Scottish support; but the full price had to be paid. The Scots would allow him to play at being King ; but they would not allow him to be King. They would allow him to play golf ; but they would not allow him to play cards. If sermons were infallible aids to virtue, the wicked Court of the Merry Monarch would never have come into being. Six a day : such is Burnet’s testimony to the number of discourses which the Scottish divines thought necessary for the good of Charles’s soul. The clergy thoroughly enjoyed them¬ selves, one may suppose, but the next generation of Scottish ministers had to suffer for their enjoyment. Some excuse may be found for the attitude of Charles towards the Kirk, when it is remembered that, as a crowning affront, he was forced to sign a declaration lamenting his own sins, his father's opposition to the Covenant, and his mother’s “ idol¬ atry.” Even Argyll, powerful though he was, courtier though he was, prospective father-in-law of Charles though he was, could not protect the King against clerical bigotry. But he did what he could, perhaps, by making his son, Lord Lome, Captain of Charles’s guard. One of the strangest figures in this atmosphere of ecclesiastic rigour was that of Buckingham, whom Argyll considered useful in forwarding his designs, and whom Charles found useful in discovering them. One ventures to think that a diary of Buckingham’s experiences in Scot- 180 JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 181 land would be one of the most lively books of the time. For contrast could hardly go further than that which existed between the sober men of the Covenant by whom he was surrounded, and this vicious popinjay, who mimicked everything and everybody, who believed in nothing and nobody, and who is accused by contemporaries of having been the prime agent in debauching the morals of Charles. Men like Buckingham had admirable material for the play of their wit, in the suicidal steps that were taken for the defence of Scotland against Cromwell. His bloody work in Ireland finished to his satisfaction, Oliver lost no time in grappling with the Scottish menace to the security of his triumph. Fairfax having declined the responsi¬ bility of appearing as an aggressor against a nominally friendly nation of fellow- Presbyterians, the way was paved for Cromwell to assume the supreme command of the Army. He entered Scotland in July 1650 ; but for weeks was baffled by the wary strategy of David Leslie, who, with the intention of wearing out his opponent, avoided a pitched battle. The Scottish Army had been sadly weakened by the purgation of its Royalist and semi-Royalist elements. It was a hopeless attempt to produce military efficiency by cohesion of faith. When a similar purgation of his Ironsides was proposed to Cromwell (by one of his Scottish officers), he rejected the proposal with scorn. Leslie must have seen with dismay many of his best soldiers replaced by “ minister’s sons, clerks, and other such sanctified creatures, who hardly ever saw or heard of any other sword than that of the Spirit ” ; so a contemporary Royalist maliciously describes them. W e know now that “ minister’s sons ” and “ clerks ” 182 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF can fight in a good cause just as well as professional soldiers, provided they have the necessary training and patriotic stimulus. But it was precisely the necessary military training that Leslie’s recruits lacked. The rejected ‘ Malignants ’ may have been indifferent Covenanters, but many of them were probably excellent fighting men. The calamitous interference with the material of the army extended to its strategy and tactics. When Leslie’s patient strategy was about to reap its reward, by inflicting what must have been a decisive defeat upon the English forces, the Scots, on the fatal 3rd of September 1650, were delivered at Dunbar into Crom well’s hands by the folly of the clerically- controlled Parliamentary Committee (composed of men like Johnstone of Warriston) that supervised Leslie’s dispositions. Lusting to destroy the Sectaries, they destroyed their country’s Army. When Leslie, weakly yielding to their impor¬ tunity, descended from the high ground to attack the Ironsides, the lack of discipline of his raw recruits was quickly exposed ; and the Scots suffered a crushing defeat. “ Surely it’s probable the Kirk has done their do.” So wrote Cromwell in his rough but penetrat¬ ing way. His correspondence with the Kirk before and after the battle of Dunbar, was marked by characteristic vigour of expression. The note of irony in his remonstrance with the General Assembly is delicious. The phrase : “I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken ” is paralleled by others in his letter to the Governor of Edinburgh Castle(9th September 1650), in which he says : “ When ministers pretend to a glorious Reformation and lay the foundations there¬ of in getting to themselves worldly power ; and can JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 183 make worldly mixtures to accomplish the same, such as their late agreement with the king, and hope by him to carry on their design ; they may know that the Sion promised will not be built with such untempered mortar.” 1 In 44 redding the marches ” between civil and ecclesiastical authority, Oliver lectured the Scottish clergy in plain and forcible language. 44 We look on ministers,” he says 44 as helpers, not lords over God’s people.” The English 44 brethren,” he tells them, 44 meddle not with civil affairs further than to hold forth the rule of the Word by which the straightness and crookedness of men’s actions are made evident.” They had liberty 44 to preach the Gospel, though not to rail, nor under pretence thereof, to overtop the Civil Power or debase it as they please.” 2 44 Are you troubled,” he asks them, 44 that Christ is preached ? Is preaching so ex¬ clusively your function ? Doth it scandalize the Reformed Kirks and Scotland in particular ? Is it against the Covenant? Away with the Covenant if this be so. ” Prohibiting dissent in order to prevent heresy, was like keeping all wine out of the country 44 lest men should be drunk.” This protest against clericalism lost none of its force from Oliver’s avowal, that 44 our bowels do in Jesus Christ yearn after the godly in Scotland.”3 There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of Cromwell’s declaration that his object in invad¬ ing Scotland was 44 not to impose upon you in Religious or Civil interests, not dominion nor any worldly advantage, but the obtaining of a just security to ourselves.”4 After his victory at 1 Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches (1902) II. p. 229. 2 Ibid. II. p. 229. 3 Ibid. II. p. 234. 4 Ibid., II. p. 252. Obviously a hostile Scotland was a menace to England in many ways. 184 the life and times of Dunbar, he had to consolidate his position. But the Scottish spirit, always at its stubbornest in adversity, was in no mood to make terms with the victor. The lesson of Dunbar had not been lost upon the Estates, and there were signs of a national revulsion of feeling against the fatal purge. The elimination of the Royalist element from public service was recognized as a gross blunder, which was repaired by a Resolution of Parliament ; not, how¬ ever, without a protest from the tierce Covenanters of the West. This conflict of views divided the Covenanters into two parties : the Resol utioners, or those in favour of the Resolution, and the Protesters, or those who protested against it. The split in the party permanently affected its fortunes. The Resolutioners and the Protesters stood for principles or prejudices which, in various forms, have survived to the present day ; for the Resolu¬ tioners and the Protesters are still in Scotland under other names. But the indemnity granted to the 64 Malignants ” had the effect on the country, of unifying national sentiment, and hardening the spirit of resistance against the English foe. By his victory at Dunbar, Oliver had crushed the Scottish Army : but he had roused the Scottish nation to stand fast, and to stand together. Secretly rejoicing over the result of Dunbar Drove, (so Clarendon assures us,) Charles spoke through his nose to conceal his satisfaction. An anomalous position, forsooth, that the man for whom (nominally) the Scots were fighting should welcome their defeat ! Their policy had committed the Scots irrevocably to a series of* false steps. When, on the 1st of January 1651, Argyll, at Scone, had placed the crown on the head of Charles, and the King had perjured himself afresh ; when “ King JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 185 and Covenant ” were inscribed on the Scottish banners as the Scottish war-cry ; the national self- deception was complete. Plainly an unsuccessful war with Cromwell would destroy the indepen¬ dence of Scotland. W as it fully considered what a successful war would imply ? It would secure the downfall of the Sectaries. But what security was there that it would not imply also the destruction of the whole system of Presbyterianism in Great Britain ? For no oaths taken by Charles in the day of his need, would guarantee their fulfil¬ ment in the day of his triumph. Meantime the King might well have been treated with more generosity than his jailers were willing to bestow upon him. His life in Scotland was becoming intolerable to him, and it is not surprising that he decided at length to make an attempt to throw off his shackles. A plot concocted for his escape seemed to hold out a fair prospect of success. Charles, who was then in Perth, was to meet his friends at Bridge of Earn : Perth was to be captured ; and the Committee of the Estates secured. But some of his friends could not keep a secret ; Buckingham talked too freely ; and the Committee was forewarned. That Lauderdale was concerned in this escapade (known in Scottish history as “ The Start ”) is shown by the fact that he met Charles near Dundee, whence the King went to the house of the Earl of Airlie, proceeding- next morning to Clova, where he hoped to meet Huntly. It was in this glen (South Esk) that he was overtaken by Colonel Montgomery (with 600 horse), who had been ordered to bring him back to Perth. Charles explained his adventure to the Committee with his usual assurance ; and the Committee accepted his explanation with a 1 86 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF good grace. But the lesson was not lost upon them, and the King thenceforward was treated with a greater degree of consideration than he had previously received. He had the happiness before long of showing that he had the stuff of kings in him. Scotland was far from being a conquered nation, though further successes had fallen to Oliver’s arms after Dunbar. Winter was approaching, and Cromwell confessed that the Scots were 44 too hard ” for the English soldiers in winter. Suddenly a change occurred which, without abuse of language, may be called dramatic. At the head of a Scottish Army, with David Leslie as his Commander-in-chief — a position for which Buckingham had the impu¬ dence to apply — Charles crossed the Border, forcing Cromwell to follow him. It was the Montrose strategical touch, without (unfortunately for Charles) the complementary presence of Montrose to inspire his men by his personality, and to bewilder his foes by his celerity. The statement that Cromwell shepherded Charles into England is refuted by Oliver himself. 44 This present movement,” he writes, 44 is not out of choice on our part, but by some kind of necessity.”1 It was a “kind of necessity ” that might well have overturned the Commonwealth ; and would probably have done so had the King received English support. But the Royalists in England were so cowed by Cromwell, or so bitter against the Scots, that the King was unable to collect more than 2000 Englishmen to aid his 10,000 Scots.2 And the Scots were 44 neither excellently armed, nor plentifully stored with am- 1 Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, II. p. 820. 2 The difficulty of finding arms ( see letter from Lauderdale) must have also proved a serious barrier to recruiting. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 187 munition.” At Worcester a decision was reached which, for a short space of time, lay in the balance. It was a brief but sharp struggle : a “ stiff fight ” as Oliver himself acknowledged. Cromwell faced military material greatly superior to that which he cut down at Dunbar in swathes. The Royalists were not “ as stubble to his sword.” Outnumbered though they were by more than two to one, and much inferior in equipment, the Scots, with their English allies, fought grimly, courageously, and at some points, successfully. What they lacked was not courage in their hearts, but powder in their flasks. Charles showed considerable personal bravery, the courage of his race, and animated his followers by his example. His courage, we are told by Fuller, was “imitated in the greatest measure by the Highlanders, fighting with the Rut-ends of their muskets when their ammunition was spent.”1 A contemporary Royalist writer explains the aloofness of Englishmen from Charles’s effort by the suggestion that it mattered little “ whether on the one side, they submitted to a cruel servitude under the tyranny of their own countrymen ; or on the other, whether they became obnoxious to the pride of the insulting Scot.” Also, he explains, the cruel treatment by the English peasantry of the Scottish refugees from Worcester, by “ the memory of the Scottish injuries which that nation not many years before had brought upon them.” 2 Statements such as these, and others of a similar nature in contemporary publications, throw a strong light on the state of international feeling, and particularly on the state of the Royalist feeling in England against the Scots. 1 The Royal Miracle , p. 24. 2 Ibicl., pp. 111-112. 1 88 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF Among those who accompanied Charles to England were Lauderdale and Hamilton.1 On his way, Lauderdale wrote from Carlton near Penrith to his wife (whom he addressed as 44 my dear Heart”), telling her of the arrangements he had made for providing her with some money ; 4 4 all that a ruined plundered man without an estate can do.” He states that Charles was proclaimed at Penrith on the previous day (7th August). 44 As soon as we came into England, his Majesty was by an Englishman (whom he made King-at-Arms for that day) proclaimed King of England on the head of the Army, with great acclamation of the army and shooting off all the cannon of the army.” 44 I dare say,” he goes on to say (referring to the disci¬ pline of the Army) 44 we have not taken the worth of a sixpence.” He writes with great enthusiasm about the troops. 44 The best Scots army that ever I saw,” so he describes it. 44 All who were unwilling to hazard have left : a natural purge.” 2 Apparently the relations between Lauderdale and his wife, the second daughter of Alexander, first Earl of Home, were at this time all that they ought to have been. The disturbing influence which subsequently ruined his wife’s happiness, and sensibly affected his own character and career, had not yet entered his life. He was happy, not only in his married life but in his friends, among whom he had none more consistently faithful than Lord Balcarres. It was to Balcarres, then in Scotland, that he wrote confidentially on the state of the Scottish Army and its requirements. On the 7th August he says : 44 For Gods sake 1 Hamilton fought bravely at W orcester. He was shot in the leg and died from the effects of amputation. He was buried in Worcester Cathedral. 2 Cary’s Memorials of the Great Civil War, II. pp. 807-8. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 189 send to us ; and above all things, haste the levies in all Scotland and make an army to follow us. Send for powder, and let it come to the Isle of Man which must be our magazine.” 1 On the following day, he tells Balcarres that “ we might have men enough if we could get arms ” ; and he relates a brush with the enemy in which he took part. He repeats to Balcarres the phrase in his letter to his wife : “ a natural purge is healthy.” 2 The obvious allusion was to the “ unnatural ” purge that preceded Dunbar. Purged “ unnaturally ” and purged “ naturally,” the Scots Armies suffered on “Oliver’s day” (3rd September) both in 1650 and in 1651, severe defeats, which shattered the prospects alike of Charles and the Scots. Dunbar demolished the hopes of the Scottish clericals; Worcester destroyed the independence of Scotland. Argyll and the Protesting element of the Covenanters who held aloof from the English campaign3 (Lauderdale’s “ natural ” purge), were at Cromwell’s mercy like the rest of the Scots : their aloofness did not ultimately save their protesting skins, though they were favoured more than the llesolutioners. Nor did the General Assembly 4 of the Kirk, which had gambled with Scotland’s liberties, escape. Its meetings were proscribed : an arbitrary act which was wholly of political significance. Similarly, the 1 Cary’s Memorials, II. p. 800. 3 Ibid. II. p. 809. 3 It cannot be denied that in spite of the initial blunder in challeng¬ ing Cromwell, Argyll and the Protesters acted with greater consistency than the Remonstrant party. They fought Cromwell because he invaded Scotland, but they refused their adhesion to the Scottish invasion of England. 4 In Montrose’s key to ciphers (1648), the General Assembly is called “The good wife that wears the breeches”; and the Synod “ Apes or Munkies” ; Argyll is “ the Ruling Elder” or “ the Merchant of Middleburgh ” : Hamilton is “ Captain Lucklesse ” ; Lanark “ Peter a Packs ” ; Lindsay “ Judas ” ; and Montrose himself “ Venture Faire.” Lauderdale is not mentioned. THE LIFE AND TIMES OF 190 members of the Committee of the Estates, which attempted to sit at Alyth, were seized by one of Monk’s Colonels and sent to the Tower. Scotland was placed under the heel of the Commonwealth, and, until the Restoration, was governed by capable Englishmen, fairly, efficiently, and justly, but with a total disregard for national sentiment. Scotland gained by the change in an impartial administra¬ tion of justice which she had never known before ; and in a freedom from internal strife that was totally new in her experience. But she lost her national self-respect. Let those who will, strike a balance in this Profit and Loss account of the nation. Meanwhile what had become of Lauderdale ? After his defeat at Worcester, Charles fled for his life, accompanied by about sixty horse. Lauderdale was of the party. The King having found a hiding- place with the Penderels, the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Derby, Lauderdale, and about fifty others, set out for the North, but were overtaken by the enemy “ and routed, and several of them taken and executed, grounded on a bloody Rump Act of the 12th of August.” 1 Their captor was a Captain Edge, who afterwards received £50 for his services. Lauderdale was lodged in Chester Castle, whence he was removed to the Tower in charge of Colonel Lilburne with a body of horse. He passed through London in company with the Earl of Cleveland ; and apparently he was an object of interest to the citizens. In Cornhill his coach stopped near the Conduit. A carman poked his 1 The Royal Miracle , p. 77. The author of Miraculum-Basilicon (printed in 16G4) says that “for signing his Faith with the Seal of Loyalty,” Lauderdale was “ confined to a noysome prison until the happy Restauration of his Sacred Majesty.” This is the writer who accuses the Scottish Horse of cowardice, or treachery, at Worcester, and shows a vindictive animosity towards the Scots generally. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 191 head through the door and said, “ Oh, my Lord, yo u are welcome to London. I protest off goes your head as round as a Hoop ” ; a prophecy which Lauderdale turned off with a laugh. “ His Lord¬ ship’s big red head,” comments Carlyle on this incident, “ has yet other work to do in this world.” 1 It had, indeed. But for nearly nine years, there was ample leisure, within the four walls of a prison, for Lauderdale to use his brains in thinking out theological and political problems. From the Tower of London, in September 1654, (he narrowly escaped banishment) he was sent on May 21, 1655 to Portland Castle; and about April 1656 he was removed to Windsor Castle.2 His estate had been forfeited to the Commonwealth (on 5th May 1654), but apparently it had been previously so encumbered by debt as to form an asset of doubtful value.3 His wife was compelled to petition the Protector for an allowance from the estate, her condition being “ exceedingly sad, losing all means of sub¬ sistence and the comforts of this life by her husband being sent away to Portland Castle.” By an Order in Council, she was granted a total allowance of £500, increased shortly afterwards to £600 a year for life, any balance which the estate could not meet to be paid out of public revenue. And it is noteworthy that Lauderdale himself, in 1659, was in receipt of an allowance of £5 weekly from the Council of State, “ formerly allowed him by Parlia¬ ment out of the Exchequer.” 4 How he employed his enforced leisure during 1 Oliver Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches, II. pp. 332-3. The Cornliill incident is taken from King’s Pamphlets. 2 Calendar of State Documents (Domestic series), 1655-6, pp. 273-5. 3 Ibid., p. 362. The yearly value is given as <£2161, 14s. Id. and the debts are stated as £33,892, 18s. 4d. 4 Ibid., 1659-60, p. 588. 192 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF his captivity is not conjectural.1 Burnet says that he studied theology and had impressions of religion which vanished in his post-Restoration days. It is certain that he was an assiduous student, an excellent linguist, and a sound scholar. One of his correspondents was Richard Baxter, and in a series of letters to Baxter, he shows a remarkable acquaint¬ ance with theological works.2 * The two men ex¬ changed books, and Lauderdale avers that next to the Bible, The Saints Everlasting Rest holds the highest place in his esteem. He helped Baxter by translating for him parts of French theological treatises. But there is evidence to show that, in spite of his assurance to Baillie, that he meddled no longer with politics, he found means, also, of keeping in close touch with his political friends who were scheming for the restoration of the monarchy. For Lauderdale was now a whole¬ hearted Royalist. It may be that the distracted condition of Scotland and the entangled condition of his own affairs, had decided him to nail his colours to the Royalist mast ; it may be that the personal influence of Charles was the decisive factor. But the tendency of his mind had been moving in a Royalist direction since the days of the Engagement, if not earlier, and the gradual growth of his dislike for the popular cause could have only one issue. Now that he had risked all, and lost all, in the cause of the monarchy, his future, for good or for ill, was bound up irre- 1 He seems to have been allowed to see friends and to get books when he wanted them. He was even permitted on one occasion to spend a day in Eton, looking for a book. Books were his main solace ; he had lost everything except his library and that wras safe “ beyond sea ” (see Baxter MSS. in Dr Williams5 Library of which eleven letters are printed in the Bulletin of the John By land's Library , July 1922). 2 The bearer of his first letter to Baxter was James Sharp} a Scottish minister whom we shall meet later.. JOHN MAITLAND, DUKE OF LAUDERDALE 193 vocably with the fortunes of Charles. And it was probably not without good reason, that one of Cromwells spies among the Royalists abroad, wrote, in 1655, to Secretary Thurloe : 44 Let an eye be kept on Lather.”1 It was about this time, or a little earlier, that Charles himself wrote Lauderdale, that it was amongst his “greatest troubles ” that he hears very seldom from him, and that he is totally without his advice. It is fit (he says) that he should send to him as seldom as possible, lest it might prove to his prejudice. But he cannot be altered towards Lauderdale in his 44 affection or esteem.” 44 If that for which he has waited fall not out speedily, he will try some other way of which he will give account as soon as he resolves.” 2 Lauderdale’s prison-gates were opened in March 1660 ; before the King landed in England. In a letter from Brussels, dated 12th April 1660, Charles writes to him : 4 4 you will easily believe that I am very glad you are at liberty, and in the place where you can do me most service, by disposing your frindes to that temper and sobriety which must be a principle ingredient to that happynesse we all pray for. . . I know not how in this conjuncture to give our frindes you mention any direction or advise, sinse what they are to do must depend upon what is done somewhere else. I hope wee shall shortly meete, and then you will meete with all the kindenesse you can wish from your most affectionate friend, Charles R.”3 The 44 frindes ” to whom Charles alludes must be the Scottish Royalists who, by this time, might 1 Cal. of Clarendon State Papers, III. p. 55. 2 Ibid. III. p. 39. 3 Lauderdale Papers, 1. p. 13. In September 1059, Lauderdale and bis two fellow-prisoners were to have (