195.—Commission to Mr John Pringill and Mr John Strachen to examine Witnesses in that matter. Ib.
196.—Recom. to the Commissioners of the Presbyterie of Glasgow for sending to the Clerk an exact report of the condition of their Kirks, with their provisions, the extent of Paroches, and number of Parochiners. Ib.
197.—Act for intimating the Visitation of Dunce and Chirnside. Ib.
198.—Recommendation Master William Dowglas to the Committee of Estates. Ib.
FINIS.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents,
RELATIVE TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL AND POLITICAL EVENTS IN SCOTLAND—1648.
Excerpts from Principal Baillie’s Letters.
To Mr William Spang. [Glasgow,] March 27, 1648.
Reverend and Dear Cousin,—He is wiser than a man who can inform what course our affairs here will take. This is the seventh week that I have been forced to attend in Edinburgh; and yet we see small appearance of any good conclusion; but as they are I make you this account of them. After the King found himself disappointed of all the fair hopes made to him by Cromwell and his party, whether on their repentance, or their fear from Lilburn, Rainsborough, and their levelling friends, our commissioners made more serious applications, and were more acceptable than before. At the Isle of Wight, his Majesty did live with them very lovingly, and upon great hopes on all hands. Traquair, Sir John Cheesly, Callendar, and all that came home before them, gave it out confidently in the general, that the King had given to our commissioners full satisfaction. This caused great joy, and a readiness in all to rise in arms quickly for his deliverance. But when I found all bound up by oath, not to reveal any of the particular concessions till the commissioners returned, I feared the satisfaction should not be found so agreeable as was spoken. The too strict secrecy bred prejudices in the minds of the wisest. And when we heard the report from the Chancellor and Lauderdale at their return, our suspicions were turned into grief: for we found the concessions no ways satisfactory, and the engagements of some to the King upon them so great, as did much blemish their reputation with many of their intimate friends. Our debates for more than a fortnight were to come to the bottom of these offers, and to find a way how we might be free of them. We were malecontent with our commissioners: their scurvy usage by the parliament of England, their compassion of the King’s condition, Lanerk’s power with Lauderdale, and both their workings on the Chancellor, made them to accept of less, and promise more to the King, than we would stand to. They were content we should declare our dissatisfaction with the King’s offers as we thought fit, both by the church and the state, on condition we would consent to a levy against the faction of sectaries. To this we were not unwilling, providing we might be satisfied in the state of the question, and might be assured, that the army should be put in such hands as we might confide in. Both these were promised to us in private; but when we found no performance, the business is retarded to this day. Betwixt the Chancellor, Duke Argyle, Treasurer, Lauderdale, Lanerk, Balmerino, Wariston, Mr Robert Douglas, Mr George Gillespie, Mr David Calderwood, Mr Robert Blair, Mr David Dickson, Mr Samuel Rutherford, many meetings have been had, night and day, private and publick; but as yet our discords increase, and are ready to break out in a fearful rupture both of church and state. Our meetings were long in private for a state of a question. We required peremptorily to stand to our former principles and covenant; “to have religion settled first; and the King not restored till he had given security, by his oath, to consent to an act of parliament for injoining the covenant in all his dominions, and settling religion according to the covenant.” We stuck many days on that negative expression, “The King not to be restored till he had sworn the covenant.” This much had both our parliament and assembly pressed upon him at Newcastle; yet at last we were content of affirmative expressions: “Religion and the covenant to be settled, and thereupon the King to be restored.” The next difficulty in the question was about the malignants. We were peremptory to have none of them in our army who should not take the covenant, and to have all of them declared enemies who should rise in arms by themselves for any end contrary to our cause. Here we had great struggling. In the writ which we called an agreement and engagement, the King’s offers therein, too great favour was shown to malignants. We resolved to beware of them so much the more. The greatest stop of all was upon the oath. We resolved to have these things put in a formal oath, to be taken solemnly by all the members of parliament and officers of our army. They declined an oath by all means. While we are like to come to no agreement about these things, the pulpits sounded loud against the dangers of malignants, but more softly against sectaries. We prepare also a declaration of dangers and duties, wherein we press to the full our dissatisfaction with the King’s concessions in matters of religion. This gave great offence to our commissioners. We had put them to it to give us in writ the report what passed between them and the King concerning religion; for his Majesty in his letter to us had said, he had offered to them what he was confident would give us satisfaction, which they are necessitated to give us in writ these private concessions, and be content to have them, and our reasons against them, published to the world. They were not a little offended; but there was no remedy. To our sense, they had passed the bounds of their duty, though both the committee of estates, and parliament itself, had, in a fair general, without examination, approved all they had done. We thought it destructive to our cause and covenant, and ourselves absolutely impeded from all motion for the King till these grounds of motion were publickly disclaimed. It increased our offence, that so many noblemen did vex us with debates and votes openly in face of the commission, after we had changed in private, for the satisfaction of the Chancellor and Lauderdale, many passages of our writ; also that they had laboured to their power to make a party among the ministers to oppose us, Mr Andrew Ramsay, Mr Andrew Fairfoul, Mr Robert Laurie, Mr Andrew Afflect, and divers others; but especially Mr William Colvil, who had in private objected against one passage, inferring the necessity upon conscience to restore the King presently to the exercise of his full regal power in all his dominions, notwithstanding of all he had done, without any condition, either of covenant, religion, or propositions; that we were obliged to do this duty unto him, and never more to oppose till we found him abuse this power; and then we might resist, albeit no more but the abuse of this power. I did think it enough in our subcommittee to bring him to acknowledge so shameful a tenet, all of us thinking he would not have the boldness any more in publick to speak to such a purpose; yet in the face of the commission, in a very jeering insolent way, being a little provoked by the indiscreet challenge of Mr Rutherford; he offered to reason for such a conclusion. We had not failed to have called him to an account for his malapertness, had not the intervention of other greater affairs diverted us.