the government. Thus arose the religious meetings, called by the authorities "conventicles," which parliament had already attempted to extinguish by compelling the people to attend the parish churches. In June, 1663, the archbishops of St. Andrews and of Glasgow were appointed privy councillors. On the 13th of August, the council passed an act, by which all the ministers appointed before 1649, who had not received presentation and collation, were commanded to remove from their parishes, with their families, within three weeks, and not to reside within twenty miles of them, or within six miles of Edinburgh, or any cathedral church, or three miles of any royal borough, under the penalty of sedition. All landholders and householders in the kingdom were strictly forbidden to give any countenance to these ministers. On the 17th of September, the Privy Council issued a proclamation against persons who presumed to withdraw from the ordinary meetings of public worship, in parishes where curates were already planted; and not only commanded all the nobles, the sheriffs, the magistrates, and justices of peace, but also all the officers in the standing army, to assist the curates in compelling the people to attend their parish churches. The officers of the army were empowered to exact fines from all who absented themselves from the churches on Sunday; so the course of persecution was begun, and vigorously continued.22

In October, 1663, different detachments of troops were sent to the south; but it was in the west and in the south-west that the greatest suffering was inflicted, and to this region Sir James Turner was despatched. He had served in foreign wars, and was a fit instrument for the work assigned to him. He was ordered to carry the law into execution against all who withdrew from hearing the curates; and to impose a fine of twenty shillings Scots for every time that a person was absent. The process of fining was very summary: the curate accused whom he pleased to any one of the officers of the army, who acted as

22 Wodrow's Hist., Vol. I., pp. 340-346.

judge, no witnesses being required; the soldier also executed his own sentence, while very often the sum extorted far exceeded what the law allowed, and frequently went into the officers' own pockets.23 These proceedings were extremely galling to the people of the west, who were mostly all firmly attached to presbyterian principles.

But some of the new curates adopted the mode of calling a roll of the parishioners at the close of the service, and then handed the list of the absentees to the officer commanding in the district. If a tenant or the head of a family was unwilling or unable to pay the fines, the soldiers were sent to quarter upon him; in this way many poor families were ruined, and saw their goods distrained and sold. In executing these proceedings, the soldiers were often insolent and rude and cruel; they mocked at family worship, and disturbed and annoyed the people when engaged in it; many of them were cruelly beaten, and driven to church and to prison with equal violence. Thus all the humble ranks of the people were treated; but the names of defaulting landed proprietors were directly forwarded to the Privy Council, who speedily disposed of their cases. The military executed another form of oppression at the churches of the old presbyterian ministers, some of whom had remained in their churches and had large congregations, which seems to have greatly offended the bishops; and so the soldiers were ordered to go to these churches and inspect the congregations. The mode of proceeding in such instances was this: A party of soldiers came to the church door and guarded it, then caused the people to pass out one by one, and interrogated them upon oath, if they belonged to the parish: if they could not answer that they were parishioners, the soldiers immediately fined them, and any money which they might have was taken from them; but if they had no money, or not so much as was required, then their bibles, the men's coats, and the women's plaids would be taken from them. Instances are recorded where companies of soldiers entered the

23 Kirkton's Hist., p. 99; Wodrow's Hist., Vol. I., pp. 373-374.

presbyterian churches and interrupted the worship; then while some were placed at each door, others drove the people out, and forced them to swear whether they belonged to this church or not, and sometimes conveyed a number of them to prison. There were yet other modes of compelling the people to attend the new curates; some of the bishops even employed spies, who went to conventicles in disguise, and then informed upon those who were present.24

The party at the head of affairs still deemed the means of coercion insufficient; and the King on the 16th of January, 1664, authorised and ordered the erection of a Court of High Commission, to attend especially to ecclesiastical matters. This court was solely constituted by the royal prerogative. Its members consisted of the two archbishops, seven other bishops, and thirtyfive laymen, including the chief officers of State; and any five of them, one being a bishop, were to form a quorum. The court was invested with plenary powers, and no one was exempted from its jurisdiction. The least suspicion that a person was disaffected to the established episcopacy might be construed into a crime; it could cite ministers, censure, fine, depose, imprison, or banish them, and fine and imprison all who transgressed the acts which commanded uniformity and submission to episcopacy. All the officers of the army, the sheriffs, the bailies of regalities, justices of peace, and the magistrates, were ordered to apprehend all such offenders and place them in the hands of the court; and the commanders of the King's castles, and the keepers of prisons were commanded to receive and to detain in close custody all such persons as the commissioners of the court committed to them. Then the fines imposed by this court were enforced by letters of horning, and altogether it was calculated to be an effective engine of oppression and persecution. The record of its proceedings is lost, but contemporary accounts describe it in terms of unmitigated condemnation. Before the end of two years its powers were withdrawn, probably because the Privy

24 Wodrow's Hist., Vol. I., p. 375; Kirkton's Hist., pp. 200-201.

Council thought that it encroached upon its own power and authority.25

The persecution continued and rather increased in severity. On the 7th of December, 1665, the Privy Council passed an act against the nonconforming ministers, and ordered that the former acts should be rigorously enforced. At the same time the council issued a proclamation against conventicles, and again commanded all in authority and in office to execute the law against every one attending these meetings. The soldiers in Galloway and in the west oppressed the inhabitants by quartering upon them; they were authorised by the government to collect the fines from those excluded from the King's indemnity, as well as the fines for nonconformity; and many acts of gross injustice and cruelty were perpetrated. The people manifested a determination to meet occasionally and hear their favourite preachers, in spite of all the efforts of the government to prevent them. At last, driven past the limits of human endurance and goaded to desperation, they turned upon their oppressors. Their first act of open resistance occurred in the vicinity of the small village of Dalry, in Galloway, in November, 1666, when four countrymen rescued an old man whom the soldiers were maltreating in order to extort his church fines. Being soon joined by others, they disarmed the small detachment of soldiers quartered in the district. Finding that they had committed themselves, they resolved to surprise Sir James Turner, and marched on Dumfries, where he had his headquarters. Entering the town on the morning of the 15th of November, they took Sir James a prisoner, and disarmed all his men, without any bloodshed, save one soldier slightly wounded. The party then proceeded to the market cross and publicly drank the King's health, and prosperity to his government. The rising was ill-concerted, however, and the insurgents hardly knew what next to attempt.26

25 Kirkton's Hist., pp. 201-203, 205-207; Wodrow's Hist., Vol. I., pp. 384-395. 26 Wodrow's Hist., Vol. I., pp. 428-430; Vol. II, pp. 8-18; Kirkton's Hist., pp. 229-232.

They passed into Ayrshire, where they expected many persons would join them. But they found that some of the leading men of the county were already in prison, the enterprise seemed hopeless, and few joined their standard. They then marched to Lanark, and in that county their numbers reached about two thousand; but they had no organisation or discipline. There they renewed the covenant, and issued a manifesto. Meanwhile the Privy Council had ordered Dalziel to march against the insurgents, who had advanced to the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, but, being unable to take it, had retired southwards to the Pentland Hills. On the 28th of November, Dalziel with the royal army came upon them; and after a slight encounter, completely defeated them. About fifty of the insurgents were killed and a hundred taken prisoners.27

The prisoners were brought to Edinburgh to await their trial. Much care had been taken to magnify the rising as the result of some great conspiracy against the government; and the authorities resolved to try if torture would bring out a confession. Hugh McKail, a preacher, and John Neilson, of Corsack, were both tortured, their legs being encased in that fearful instrument, the boot, and crushed unmercifully; but they confessed nothing, for they had nothing to confess. Yet it never seems to have struck the authorities that their own oppressive treatment of these poor people was an all-sufficient explanation of the rising. McKail was executed, and the dismal work proceeded; nineteen were hanged in Edinburgh, and about the same number in Glasgow, Ayr, Irvine, and Dumfries; altogether forty persons were executed.28

Military execution directly followed; Dalziel and Drummond were despatched westward to crush out the spirit of rebellion, and compel the people to embrace episcopacy. The army acted with more rapacity than if they had been in an enemy's country. Wherever they went they took free quarters. On

27 Learmont's Chronicle; Blackadder's Memoirs.

28 Kirkton's Hist., pp. 247-255; Wodrow's Hist., Vol. II., pp. 39-55.