Protestant allies. The malcontents should find, he de clared, that the only effect of the resistance offered to his will was to make him more and more resolute.* He sent orders to the Scottish council to punish the guilty with the utmost severity, and to make unsparing use of the boot, a machine of which he seems to have retained a most pleasing recollection.† He pretended to be fully convinced of the treasurer's innocence, and wrote to that minister in gracious words; but the gracious words were accompanied by ungracious acts. The Scottish treasury was put into commission in spite of the earnest remon strances of Rochester, who probably saw his own fate prefigured in that of his kinsman. Queensberry was, indeed, named first commissioner, and was made president of the Privy Council; but his fall, though thus broken, was still à fall. He was also removed from the government of the Castle of Edinburgh, and was succeeded in that confidential post by the Duke of Gordon, a Roman Catholic.§ And now a letter arrived from London fully explaining to the Privy Council the intentions of the king. What he wanted was that the Roman Catholics should be exempted from all laws imposing penalties and disabilities on account of nonconformity, but that the persecution of the Covenanters should go on without mitigation. This scheme encountered strenuous opposition in the council. Some members were unwilling to see the existing laws relaxed. Others, who were by no means averse to some relaxation, yet felt that it would be monstrous to admit Roman Catholics to the highest honors of the state, and yet to leave unrepealed the act which made it death to attend a Presbyterian conventiele. The answer of the board was, therefore, less obsequious than usual. The king, in "We re ↑ Fountainhall, Feb. 16; Wodrow, book iii., chap. x., sec. 3. quire," his majesty graciously wrote, "that you spare no legal trial by torture ‡ Bonrepaux, Feb. 1, 1686. Fountainhall, March 11, 1686; Adda, March This letter is dated March 4, 1686. or otherwise." reply, sharply reprimanded his undutiful counselors, and ordered three of them, the Duke of Hamilton, Sir George Lockhart, and General Drummond, to attend him at Westminster. Hamilton's abilities and knowledge, though by no means such as would have sufficed to raise an obscure man to eminence, appeared highly respectable in one who was premier peer of Scotland and head of the princely house of Douglas. Lockhart had long been regarded as one of the first jurists, logicians, and orators that his country had produced, and enjoyed, also, that sort of consideration which is derived from large possessions, for his estate was such as at that time very few Scottish nobles possessed.* He had been lately appointed President of the Court of Session. Drummond, a younger brother of Perth and Melfort, was commander of the forces. in Scotland. He was a loose and profane man; but a sense of honor which his two kinsmen wanted restrained him from a public apostasy. He lived and died, in the significant language of one of his countrymen, a bad Christian, but a good Protestant.† James was pleased by the dutiful language which the three counselors used when first they appeared before him. He spoke highly of them to Barillon, and particularly extolled Lockhart as the ablest and most eloquent Scotchman living. They soon proved, however, less tractable than had been expected; and it was rumored at court that they had been perverted by the company which they had kept in London. Hamilton lived much with zealous churchmen; and it might be feared that Lockhart, who was related to the Wharton family, had fallen into still worse society. In truth, it was natural that statesmen fresh from a country where opposition in any other form than that of insurrection and assassination had long been almost unknown, and where all that was not lawless fury was abject submission, should have been struck by the earnest. and stubborn, yet sober discontent which pervaded En* Barillon, April 12, 1686; Burnet, i., 370. The words are in a letter of Johnstone of Waristoun. gland, and should have been emboldened to try the exper inent of constitutional resistance to the royal will. They indeed declared themselves willing to grant large relief to the Roman Catholics, but on two conditions: first, that similar indulgence should be extended to the Calvinistic sectaries; and, secondly, that the king should bind him. self by a solemn promise not to attempt any thing to the prejudice of the Protestant religion. Both conditions were highly distasteful to James. He reluctantly agreed, however, after a dispute which lasted several days, that some indulgence should be granted to the Presbyterians, but he would by no means consent to allow them the full liberty which he demanded for mem bers of his own communion.* To the second condition proposed by the three Scottish counselors he positively refused to listen. The Protestant religion, he said, was false; and he would not give any guarantee that he would not use his power to the prejudice of a false religion. The altercation was long, and was not brought to a conclusion satisfactory to either party.f The time fixed for the meeting of the Scottish estates drew near, and it was necessary that the three counselors should leave London to attend their parliamentary duty at Edinburgh. On this occasion another affront was of fered to Queensberry. In the late session he had held the office of lord high commissioner, and had in that capacity represented the majesty of the absent king. This dignity, the greatest to which a Scottish noble could aspire, was now transferred to the renegade Murray. On the twenty-ninth of April the Parliament met at Edinburgh. A letter from the king was read. He ex * Some words of Barillou deserve to be transcribed. They would alone suffice to decide a question which ignorance and party spirit have done much "Cette liberté accordée aux Nonconformistes a fait une grande to perplex. difficulté, et a été débattue pendant plusieurs jours. Le Roy d'Angleterre avoit fort envie que les Catholiques eussent seuls la liberté de l'exercica de leur religion."--April 18, 1686. 9 + Barillon, April, 1686; Citters, April 13, 38, May 19. horted the estates to give relief to his Roman Catholic subjects, and offered, in return, a free trade with England and an amnesty for political offenses. A committee was appointed to draw up an answer. That committee, though named by Murray, and composed of privy counselors and courtiers, framed a reply, full, indeed, of dutiful and respectful expressions, yet clearly indicating a determination to refuse what the king demanded. The estates, it was said, would go as far as their consciences would allow to meet his majesty's wishes respecting his subjects of the Roman Catholic religion. These expressions were far from satisfying the chancellor; yet, such as they were, he was forced to content himself with them, and even had some difficulty in persuading the Parliament to adopt them. Objection was taken by some zealous Protestants to the mention made of the Roman Catholic religion. There was no such religion. There was an idolatrous apostasy, which the laws punished with the halter, and to which it did not become Christian men to give flattering titles. To call such a superstition Catholic was to give up the whole question which was at issue between Rome and the reformed churches. The offer of a free trade with England was treated as an insult. "Our fathers," said one orator, "sold their king for southern gold, and we still lie under the reproach of that foul bargain. Let it not be said of us that we have sold our God!" Sir John Lauder, of Fountainhall, one of the senators of the College of Justice, suggested the words, "the persons commonly called Roman Catholics." "Would you nickname his majesty?" exclaimed the chancellor. The answer drawn by the committee was carried, but a large and respectable minority voted against the proposed words as too courtly.* It was remarked that the representatives of the towns were, almost to a man, against the government. Hitherto those members had been of small account in the Parliament, and had generally been considered as the retainers of powerful noblemen. They now showed, for the first * Fountainhall, May 6, 1686. time, an independence, a resolution, and a spirit of com bination which alarmed the court.* The answer was sc unpleasing to James that he did not suffer it to be printed in the Gazette. Soon he learned that a law, such as he wished to see passed, would not even be brought in. The Lords of Articles, whose busi ness was to draw up the acts on which the estates were afterward to deliberate, were virtually nominated by himself; yet even the Lords of Articles proved refractory. When they met, the three privy counselors who had lately returned from London took the lead in opposition to the royal will. Hamilton declared plainly that he could not do what was asked. He was a faithful and loyal subject; but there was a limit imposed by conscience. "Conscience!" said the chancellor; "conscience is a vague word, which signifies any thing or nothing." Lockhart, who sat in Parliament as representative of the great county of Lanark, struck in. "If conscience," he said, "be a word without meaning, we will change it for another phrase which, I hope, means something. For conscience let us put the fundamental laws of Scotland." These words raised a fierce debate. General Drummond, who represented Perthshire, declared that he agreed with Hamilton and Lockhart. Most of the bishops present took the same side.† * Fountainhall, June 15, 1686. Citters, May, 1686. Citters informed the States that he had his intel ligence from a sure hand. I will transcribe part of his narrative. It is an amusing specimen of the piebald dialect in which the Dutch diplomatists of that age corresponded. "Des konigs missive, boven en behalven den Hoog Commissaris aensprake, aen het Parlement afgesonden, gelyck dat altoos gebruyckelyck is, waerby Syne Majesteyt nu in genere versocht hieft de mitigatie der rigoureuse ofte sanglante wetten van het Ryck jegens het Pausdom, in het Generale Comitée des Articles (soo men het daer naemt) na ordre gestelt en gelesen synde, in 't voteren, den Hertog van Hamilton onder anderen klaer uyt seyde dat hy daertoe niet soude verstaen, dat hy anders genegen was den konig in allen voorval getrouw te dienen volgens het dictamen syner conscientie: 't gene reden gaf aen de Lord Cancelier de Grave Perts te seggen dat het woort conscientie niets en beduyde, en alleen een individuum vagum was, waerop |