be deprived of their benefices. Another clause of the act prohibited meetings or conventicles for religious exercises, because they were "the nurseries of sedition," even though held in private families; and therefore all private meetings under the pretence of religious exercises, which tended to damage the public worship in the churches, to alienate the people from their lawful pastors, and their obedience to the Church and to the State, were henceforth forbidden. In future no one should be permitted to preach in public or in private in the kingdom, or to teach in any public school, or among the children of the nobles, without a licence from the ordinary of the diocese.13

Another act touching the declaration to be signed by all persons in public employment was passed. As this declaration was made the ground of much of the oppression which ensued, it may be quoted here:-"I, do sincerely affirm and declare, that I judge it unlawful to subjects upon any pretext of reformation, or other pretext whatever, to enter into leagues and covenants, or to take up arms against the King, or those commissioned by him; and that all those gatherings, convocations, petitions, protestations, and erecting or keeping of council tables that was used in the beginning, and for carrying on of the late troubles, were unlawful and seditious; and particularly, that those oaths, the one called the National Covenant, as it was sworn and explained in the year 1638, and thereafter, and the other, entitled a Solemn League and Covenant, were and are in themselves unlawful oaths, and were taken by, and imposed upon the subjects of this kingdom, against the fundamental laws and liberties of the same; and that there lies no obligation upon me or any of the subjects, from the said oaths or either of them, to endeavour any change or alteration of the government, either in Church or State, as it is now established by the laws of the kingdom." 14 Besides this declaration, which

13 Acts Parl. Scot., Vol. VII., p. 379. 14 Ibid., pp. 405-406.

might be tendered to anyone, there were the oath of allegiance, and the act declaratory of the royal prerogative and supremacy. And as it was easy to entangle the people with legal documents. of this description, these acts and oaths became the instruments of oppression and persecution.

The new hierarchy thus thrust upon the nation was a remarkable establishment. It had no liturgy; the whole discipline of the Church was placed in the hands of the bishops; and the bishops themselves were made entirely dependent upon the King. Charles himself was created pope by the parliament of Scotland; and if the results proved to be unsatisfactory, it should not have surprised anyone.

Towards the end of the session, parliament entered on the consideration of the long-delayed indemnity. A list of names was framed, containing upwards of eight hundred persons, who were commanded to pay fines before they could receive such protection as the law then afforded. Middleton, the royal commissioner, also obtained the King's warrant for excluding from posts of public trust any twelve persons whom parliament might name by ballot; but this balloting act, though carried by Middleton, was shortly afterwards annulled, and the royal commissioner himself stripped of his position and power.1

15

Parliament adjourned on the 9th of September, 1662; and the next day the Privy Council met, and ordered the diocesan synods to be held in October. These synods accordingly met as commanded. In the north they were pretty well attended, but in the south and in the west many of the ministers absented themselves; in the diocese of Glasgow, out of two hundred and forty ministers, only thirty-two were present at the synod; 16 and in the diocese of

15 Acts Parl. Scot., Vol. VII., pp. 415-416, 420-429; Wodrow's Hist., Vol. I., pp. 270-279.

16 Wodrow's Hist., Vol. I., pp. 280-281; Dr. Grub's Eccles. Hist. Ch. Scot., Vol. III., p. 201.

Galloway and Argyle none attended, except the newly appointed deans.

About the end of September, the royal commissioner and other members of the Privy Council went on a tour to the west, with the object of enforcing more obedience to the bishops and to the new laws. At Glasgow, the archbishop complained to them that though the time appointed by the law was past, very few of the ministers of his diocese had presented themselves for institution; and it is reported that he urged them to enforce the provisions of the act. On the 1st of October, 1662, the Privy Council met in Glasgow, and passed an act announcing that all the ministers who had not complied with the law should forfeit their livings; also interdicting them from preaching, and ordering them to remove from their manses and parishes before the 1st of November, and not to reside within the bounds of their respective presbyteries. The council had imagined that only a few of the ministers would stand out and refuse to comply; but when the date came, about three hundred of the ministers left their manses and their parishes, rather than subject themselves to episcopacy and to political thraldom. In the northern and eastern parts of the kingdom many of the ministers submitted to the bishops, but in the west and in the south only one here and there. This was a serious blow to the new polity, and the Privy Council became alarmed at the result of its own proceedings. Sharp, the primate, disclaimed all responsibility in connection with the Glasgow act; and Middleton, incapable of understanding the sentiments of the refractory ministers, raged at the obstinacy of the men who persisted in ruining themselves for the sake of presbyterianism. Many of the people encouraged their ministers to resist the bishops, and were glad to see them manifest their honesty and constancy. The council saw their mistake, and passed another act on the 23rd of December, allowing the ministers ejected under the Glasgow act liberty to apply for presentation and collation before the 1st of February, 1663. This, however, induced only a

few to resume their functions; and when the 1st of February came, many of the ministers relinquished their livings and left their parishes.17

Meanwhile a number of ministers were under legal process on various grounds; the presbyterian ministers and all who openly adhered to them were severely treated. In September, 1662, the Privy Council announced that many persons disaffected to the King had resorted to Edinburgh; and, therefore, commanded the magistrates to furnish reports of the numbers of such persons in the city every evening. The ministers of the capital, who refused to conform to the new order of the Church, were commanded to depart, while several were banished out of the King's dominions, not to return, some under the penalty of death, and others under less penalties.18

In the winter of 1663, a contest arose between Middleton and the Earl of Lauderdale, then secretary, for the chief place in the management of the government of Scotland. In spite of all that Middleton had done for the King in the Scotch parliament, Lauderdale prevailed on the King to dismiss him; and in March his commission was recalled, and shortly after he was deprived of all his other offices. The Earl of Rothes was appointed royal commissioner; but Lauderdale obtained, and long held the ascendancy in the government of Scotland, mainly by his pandering to the King.19

Rothes and Lauderdale arrived in Edinburgh in June, 1663; and parliament reassembled on the 18th of the month. The lords of the articles were changed, and rechosen in the following mode:-The bishops chose eight of the nobles, the nobles then chose eight of the bishops; and these together chose eight from the county members, and eight from the borough members. Thus the committee of the articles was certain to be on the side of the court. The acts of the two last sessions of parlia

17 Kirkton, pp. 148-154, 1817; Wodrow's Hist., Vol. I., pp. 281-286. 18 Wodrow's Hist., Vol. I., pp. 297-318.

19 Sir George Mackenzie's Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, pp. 78-114, 1821.

ment were explicit on the powers of the King, and on the functions of the bishops in the Church; but to suppress and subdue the opposition to the new clergy which had been manifesting itself, another oppressive act was passed, and its end was to prevent separation from the established worship, and disobedience to the episcopal authorities. It again asserted that the King had determined to maintain the government of the Church by archbishops and bishops, "and not to endure nor give into any variation therein in the least". The ejected ministers were prohibited from preaching or assuming any of their functions, under the penalty of sedition. All persons were commanded to attend the ordinary meetings of public worship in their own parish churches on Sunday; and if they absented themselves, they incurred the following fines: each noble, gentleman, or proprietor of land, the sum of one-fourth of his yearly rental-each tenant, a fourth part of his moveable goods -each burgess, a fourth of his moveable goods, with the forfeiture of his freedom of trading and all privileges within the borough. The Privy Council were ordered to be vigorous in enforcing this act, and having called all persons before them, whom the curates and two witnesses might have reported, to inflict on them the above penalties, and any corporal punishment which they thought fit.20 This act was excessively oppressive, and the people called it in derision "the bishops' drag-net".

This parliament generously offered the King a force of twenty thousand foot and two thousand horsemen, who might serve him in any part of Scotland, of England, and of Ireland. The Estates adjourned on the 9th of October, and no more parliaments were assembled in Scotland for six years.2

21

Some of the ejected ministers still resided in their parishes, and naturally continued to preach. The people in many places flocked to hear them, while the new incumbents often found their churches deserted, which was extremely displeasing to

20 Acts Parl. Scot., Vol. VII., pp. 446-449, 455-456.

21 Ibid., p. 480; Mackenzie's Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, pp. 132-133.