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

by Church of Scotland. General Assembly

Having communicated with the King, whose fortunes were then at the lowest ebb in England, and urged him to draw near the northern border, so as to form a junction of their respective forces, Montrose received, by the hands of Sir Robert Spottiswood, a commission, under the Great Seal, appointing him Captain-General and Lieutenant-Governor of Scotland. Thus fortified, and animated by the sanguine spirit which had already achieved such wonders under the most disadvantageous circumstances, Montrose began his March towards the Border, and, early in the month of September, took up his cantonments at Selkirk; one portion of his little army (the cavalry) being quartered in that hamlet, and the other division of it being encamped at Philiphaugh, on the opposite bank of the Yarrow. Meanwhile the tidings of the disasters and despair of the Covenanters at home had reached the army in England. The chief men of that party were skulking in Berwick and other places near the Border, which were occupied by the Covenanting forces—and David Leslie was detached with five or six thousand of the Scottish auxiliary army, composed chiefly of cavalry, to check the progress of Montrose in Scotland. He crossed the Border at Berwick, and proceeded on the route towards Edinburgh, with the view apparently of intercepting the return of Montrose’s adherents from the north and the Highlands. But he was too good a general either to disclose his real intention, or to overlook any advantage which offered itself in the course of his operations.

When Leslie had advanced so far as Musselburgh, and was within two hours’ march of Edinburgh, he suddenly changed his route, and started across the country by Middleton to Melrose, within four miles of Montrose’s cantonments. Leslie’s troops were quartered at Melrose on the 12th of September, and reposed there and in its vicinity during the night; and early next morning, covered by a thick mist, approached Montrose’s encampment on Philiphaugh. All the chief gentry on the Border being at the time in the interest of the Covenanters, and their vassals and tenantry being, of course, like-minded according to the feudal feelings which then prevailed; and Montrose being lulled to a fatal security by past success, and a belief that Leslie was in or near Edinburgh, had not his scouts on the outlook. Leslie, favoured by these circumstances, suddenly and unexpectedly attacked the camp of Montrose, when unprepared for the contest, on the morning of the 13th of September. Dividing his force into two portions, they respectively attacked Montrose’s infantry on either flank; and the first tidings which their chief heard that an enemy was near, were the sounds of battle from the opposite bank of the Yarrow. Mustering his cavalry in all haste, he rushed to the battle field, but too late for his presence being available. Although his gallant followers fought with their wonted enthusiasm, many of them were already either slaughtered or taken prisoners ere he reached the scene of conflict; and although he and his companions did all that skill or valour could accomplish in such circumstances, it was in vain. Montrose continued the desperate combat until all that remained of his force was only thirty of his cavalry, the greater number being either killed, taken prisoners, or sheltered from the rout in an adjoining wood. With this wreck of his band, he retreated up the Yarrow and crossed over to Peebles, where a few of his followers who had escaped joined him. After this disastrous affair, Montrose once more retreated to the Highlands, where for the present we must leave him.

We cannot pass on from this narrative of the Battle of Philiphaugh, without recording that the successful commander, David Leslie, tarnished his laurels by a cold-blooded massacre of the prisoners he had captured, at the instigation, it has been confidently affirmed, of the Covenanting clergy. Many of the prisoners were taken to Newark Castle; and, while several persons of rank and better condition were reserved for future vengeance, those of an inferior class were butchered in scores in the court-yard of the Castle, like cattle in the shambles: one hundred persons, at least, were put to death on this occasion. A more atrocious outrage against all the usages of civilized warfare never was committed, save in the modern times of Spanish barbarity; and these hapless men, it most be remembered, were taken prisoners while bearing arms under the commission and in the cause of their lawful Sovereign, whose title and authority the Covenanters at that time did not impugn, but, on the contrary, affected to vindicate and uphold. If in future turns of fortune, the Covenanters became the victims of bloody persecution, let it not be forgotten, that this system of wholesale murder originated in the massacre at Newark Castle. It must be stated, however, in palliation of this act of revenge by the Covenanters, that Montrose and his followers, during the progress of their victories, had ravaged, with unsparing severity, every district which they visited; plundering, burning, and desolating, and not unfrequently sacrificing life without mercy or remorse at every stage of their progress.[333]

The picture which Scotland exhibited at the time referred to, would be incomplete were we to omit mention of the executions in form of Law which soon after followed the massacre of Newark. Douglas, Crawford, Erskine, Fleming, and Napier, escaped along with Montrose from the field of Philiphaugh; but among the prisoners reserved for more deliberate proceedings, were Hartfield, Drummond, Ogilvy, Sir Robert Spottiswood, (a son of the Archbishop and President of the Session,) Sir Alexander Leslie of Auchintool, Sir William Rollock, Sir Philip Nisbet, William Murray, brother of Tullibardine, Alexander Ogilvy of Innerquarity, Nathaniel Gordon, Andrew Guthrie, son of the Bishop of Moray, Stewart the Adjutant, and two Irish Colonels, O’Kyan and Leighton. David Leslie, after his victory at Philiphaugh, fell back on Lothian, where the two Irish officers were tried by martial law and executed. Soon after, at a meeting of the Estates in Glasgow, Sir William Rollock, Sir Philip Nisbet, and Alexander Ogilvy, were found guilty of “rebellion against the State”, and executed there on the 29th of October. On the 26th of November, the Parliament met at St Andrew’s, when Sir Robert Spottiswood, (whose sole crime was carrying the King’s commission to Montrose,) Mr William Murray, Colonel Gordon, and Mr Andrew Guthrie, were tried, condemned, and executed. Lord Ogilvy and Adjutant Stewart made their escape; and Hartfield alone, through the intercession of Argyle, was pardoned. And thus commenced the bloody war of party revenge, which for nearly forty years afterwards polluted and dishonoured the annals of Scotland.

In our last introductory sketch, we had brought down the narrative of events in England to the Treaty at Uxbridge, which commenced in January, 1646. The discussions embraced three great points—religion, the militia, and Irish affairs. On the first of these, the Parliamentary and Scottish Commissioners strenuously insisted on the uniformity of religion, in terms of the League and Covenant; Presbyterianism to be the form of Church Government, and that form, with all its formalities and doctrines, (still unsettled even in the Ecclesiastical Assemblies of both kingdoms,) was sought to be sanctioned and adopted by the King, and enforced coercively on all his subjects of Scotland, England, and Ireland. The other two subjects presented also debatable points; but these are foreign to our purpose; and the King having been required to sanction a bill for the abolition of Prelacy—to confirm the proceedings of the Westminster Assembly, with all the particulars subordinate to such a requisition—the treaty terminated on the 22d of February, without leading to any auspicious results, by the King rejecting overtures so inconsistent with all his principles. Nor although the insurgents were still in the ascendant in the affairs of arms, had the Presbyterian party any good ground of confidence in their ultimate triumph; for henceforward the Independent party became more bold and energetic, and, ere long, acquired a decided preponderance in the councils which ruled the land; and, finally, abolished and tyrannized over both the Episcopalian and Presbyterian establishments; these being completely overborne by a potent combination of wild and mystic sects, whose tenets were too variegated to admit of any adequate description in a sketch of this kind, but who always inculcated the doctrine of unlimited toleration, although in their conduct, as was the fashion of the age, they practically outraged its principles.[334]

The Acts of the Assembly 1645, contain abundant evidence of the spirit by which it was animated; and we forbear adverting to particulars. We go on, therefore, to remark that the English Parliament, by their self-denying ordinance and new modelling of the army, having invested the leading Independents with the highest power on their side, obtained, on the 14th of June, 1645, the victory at Naseby. The fate of Charles was thereby irretrievably sealed, and his fortunes hopelessly overcast. In this state of affairs, the conflicts betwixt the Presbyterian and Independent parties waxed fiercer in consequence of continued efforts, on the part of the former, to obtain uncontrolled spiritual domination, which was, of course, resisted by the other party; and the English Parliament and leaders having, with the assistance of the Scottish armies, triumphed over the Royalists, in all quarters, were now anxious to get quit of their allies, whose presence in England operated as a check on the predominant English adventurers. Imputations against the Scottish army for rapacity, inactivity, and other real or imaginary backslidings, led to recrimination and heartburning; and the Scotch had a plausible ground of complaint, inasmuch as the pay and allowances which had been promised them by the English Parliament were greatly in arrear. Besides all these causes of discord, the Scottish party was disappointed by the qualified adoption of Presbytery as the Church of England. The conclusions of the Westminster Assembly, after being sanctioned by the Scottish General Assembly and Estates, were adopted indeed as an experiment by the English Parliament, but to be reversed or altered according to circumstances; and during all the sittings of the Westminster Assembly, the English Parliament sturdily refused to render the Church independent of the State, and retained to itself the ultimate power of control in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil. This sort of erastianism was very unpalatable to the Scotch, who had set the Church above the State, and wished this dominancy to be extended to England as well as Scotland.

While these misunderstandings were at a height, and the King’s power almost annihilated, he endeavoured to avail himself of these distractions by a diplomacy not, perhaps, altogether free of intrigue, with both the parties concerned; and, towards the close of the year 1645, he made overtures for an agreement with the English Parliament; but although quarrelling among themselves, the victorious parties concurred in rejecting those overtures, which, had they been acceded to, might eventually have frustrated the designs of Cromwell and his associates. They resolutely resisted the King’s offers to disband all his forces and go to London, attended only by a royal escort, to pass an act of oblivion, and to do whatever the Parliament should advise for the good and peace of the kingdom, on the single condition of obtaining security for the personal safety of himself and his followers. The absolute rejection of such propositions was a sufficient indication to the unfortunate Charles that he had nothing to expect even from the most humiliating concessions to the ruling party in England; and in this sad extremity of his fortunes, he adopted, perhaps, the only other alternative that remained to him—that of casting himself unreservedly upon the loyalty, the generosity, the gratitude of his Scottish subjects; for assuredly the ample concessions which he had made to them in 1641, by which he had confirmed their favourite ecclesiastical polity, given omnipotence to the Estates, and vested the executive authority entirely in the hands of the ruling party in Scotland—and which he had not, in a single instance, infringed during the space of five years, (unless his commission to Montrose may be so construed,)—gave him reasonable grounds to expect that they would welcome and protect their native King, who had thus lavished his regal prerogatives upon them, and extended their national liberties. We shall soon see the result of this resolution.

The King had been induced to adopt the course now alluded to by the representations of Montreville, a French agent, who assured him he would be safe and welcome in the Scottish camp, then pitched before Newark. On the 27th of April, 1646, Charles left Oxford in disguise, and on horseback, as the lackey of one of his attendants, of whom there were only two, Ashburnham, groom of his bed-chamber, and Hudson, a clergyman; and, after traversing the country by many by-ways and circuits, he at length, on the ninth day after leaving Oxford, reached the camp at Newark. The King’s departure from Oxford, which was soon discovered, and communicated to the Parliament, spread a panic among the factions of which it was composed. They dreaded his appearance in London, as calculated to excite some reaction inimical to their designs; and to harbour or conceal his person was denounced, under all the penalties of treason against the Commonwealth. This dastardly alarm was only quieted by intelligence of his Majesty’s arrival at the Scottish camp, of which the Lord Leven had sent notice to both the Scottish and English Parliaments; and the latter passed a resolution on the sixth day of May, that the Scottish general and commissioners should be required to consent that his Majesty’s person might be at the disposal of the two Houses of Parliament in England, and sent to Warwick Castle. They were also desired to render up the persons of his two companions; a demand to which the Scottish authorities in the camp demurred, on grounds which were honourable to their feelings.[335]

The Scottish general had received his sovereign, on his arrival at the camp, with all becoming courtesy and respect; but he soon found himself in truth a captive, and reduced to the condition of a mere make-weight in the scale of sordid political negotiations which speedily ensued betwixt the Parliaments of England and Scotland. Leslie, with small difficulty, induced the King, who was now powerless, to issue his orders to the Commander of Newark, for the surrender of that town, which took place on the 6th of May. This was followed by similar orders to other loyalists in various other strengths, which still held out for the King, and by his instructions were rendered up to the Parliamentary forces; and thus the last visible sparks of loyalty, and of regal authority in the person of Charles I. were extinguished in England. Having effected these objects, and having the royal person in his custody, the Scottish general led his army northward, and on the 13th of May 1646, took up his cantonments at Newcastle-upon-Tyne.[336]

The cessation of arms was succeeded by a vast variety of complicated negotiations, which it is not within our province to detail. The Committee of the Scottish Estates was sitting when the King’s arrival at the camp was made known to it, on which it sent a deputation with a message of seeming loyalty, and an intimation of the lively interest which it took in the safety of his person, and the preservation of his honour; but very speedily he learned that it had given instructions to its Commissioners to act in concert with the two Houses of Parliament in England, and that the Scottish Estates would not agree to anything by which the “unity and uniformity” in religious matters, which was contemplated by the League and Covenant, in the three kingdoms might be affected. Untaught by the lessons of experience—shutting their eyes to the fact that, instead of the “unity and uniformity” which they fondly anticipated from it, that celebrated monument of extraordinary zeal had been productive only of an increase of schisms, divisions, and theological sects, on all hands, and in high places—and forgetful too that by the very terms of that deed, as well as by the Covenant of 1637, they were bound “to defend the Kings Majesties person and authority,” and “the honour of the King”—they allowed themselves to get bewildered in a maze of metaphysical theology and polemics, which set at nought the most obvious dictates of common sense and sound morality, and still persisted in the inforcement of a uniformity which no earthly power ever can command, without an exercise of unmitigated despotism. In this state, and in this mood, were the affairs and the authorities of Scotland when the General Assembly met on the 3d of June, 1646. The political events of the time will become the subject of further review, after exhibiting the proceedings of that Assembly.