A change having taken place in the cabinet about the end of the year, the administration was now intrusted only to papists, chiefly to Perth the chancellor, and his brother Melford, who had gained the king’s entire confidence by embracing his religion, and the Earl of Murray, another proselyte, who was appointed Commissioner to open the parliament, from which was expected a repeal of those penal statutes his ancestor, “the good regent,” had procured to be enacted against papists.
Preparatory to the sitting of parliament, the synod of Edinburgh met, when its usual tranquil submissiveness was interrupted by a contrariety of sentiment respecting the test; some contending for it, and others urging toleration to all who differed in judgment, insinuating a charitable accommodation with the papists. Paterson, bishop of Edinburgh, who had lately returned from London, gratified by a pension of £200 sterling, told them that the king would defend their religion, and only craved the exercise of his own for those of his persuasion in private, which he said could not be denied him, because he might take it by his prerogative of church supremacy, asserted by parliament 1669. He further told them that the Archbishop of St Andrews (Ross) and himself had got ample power to suspend and deprive any that preached sedition, i. e. impugned the king’s religion, even though they should be bishops. Mr George Shiels, minister at Prestonhaugh, was sharply reproved “for that he declaimed rudely against popery in the Abbey church on the preceding Sunday, having said the Pope was as little infallible as the Bishop of the Isles”—who was one of the silliest in the world—“and that he would believe the moon to be made of green cheese, and swallow it, as soon as he would believe in transubstantiation.”
Parliament met, April 29th. In his letter, the king was perfectly explicit. After hanging out the lure of a free trade with England, and an indemnity for his greatest enemies themselves, i. e. the consistent Presbyterians, he came to the point:—“Whilst we show these acts of mercy to the enemies of our person, crown, and royal dignity, We cannot be unmindful of others, our innocent subjects, those of the Roman Catholic religion, who have, with the hazard of their lives and fortunes, been always assistant to the crown in the worst of rebellions and usurpations, though they lay under discouragements hardly to be named: Them we do heartily recommend to your care, that they may have the protection of our laws, and that security under our government, which others of our subjects have, not suffering them to lie under obligations which their religion cannot admit of.”
The Commissioner enforced this communication by what he must have thought an irresistible argument. He informed the house that he was instructed to give the royal assent to any acts prohibiting the importation of Irish cattle, horses, and victual, or any measures which might prevent smuggling these articles into Scotland to the prejudice of the landholders of the country! and likewise promised to authorise such regulations as should secure exact payment to the tenantry from all his officers and soldiers in their quarters, both local and transient, for the future. In return, he expected that they would show themselves the best and most affectionate subjects, to the best, the most incomparable, and most heroic prince in the world!
The dutiful parliament humbly thanked the king for his care of the trade of his ancient kingdom, and expressed their astonishment at his clemency, testified in the offer of an indemnity to these desperate rebels, who could have expected pardon from no monarch on earth but his sacred majesty! and sincerely and heartily offered their lives and fortunes for suppressing all such as should, upon any account or pretext whatsoever, attempt either by private contrivance or open rebellion, to disquiet his glorious reign. As to that part of the royal letter relating to his subjects of the Roman Catholic religion, they promised, in obedience to his majesty’s commands, to go as great lengths as their consciences would allow, not doubting that his majesty would be careful to secure the Protestant religion established by law. “This,” says honest Wodrow, “is the first time since the Restoration I remember that the parliament speak of their conscience.”
Their answer, however, was so little satisfactory at court, that although the custom always had been to print these official documents, it was not allowed to be printed; and within a few days the royal displeasure was expressed against such as had opposed the Commissioner in this affair. Sir George Mackenzie, lord advocate—who with rat-like sagacity, when he perceived the vessel was sinking, had already shown a disposition to leave her—was laid aside from an office he might curse the day he ever was appointed to fill. Lord Pitmedden was removed from the bench, and the Earl of Glencairn and Sir William Bruce from the privy council. Glencairn was besides deprived of his pension, as was also the Bishop of Dunkeld.—“Thir warning shots,” observes Sir John Lauder, “were to terrify and divert other members of parliament from their opposition.”
Could any inconsistency or tergiversation in unprincipled politicians astonish us, we might well be amazed at the shamelessness of the parties on this occasion. When a bill for repealing the penal statutes was brought in, the papists—or Roman Catholics, as they were styled by their foster-brethren the Scottish bishops, in compliment to the king—were now strong advocates for liberty of conscience, contending that nothing can bind the conscience as a divine law, which neither directly nor by clear consequence is founded on the doctrine or practice of Christ or his apostles, or of the primitive church; that no oath whatsoever can bind or oblige to that which is sinful or unlawful to be done; and that for a Christian magistrate to take away the life or estate of a subject who is not guilty of sedition or rebellion, nor of injuring his neighbour, but is quiet, and peaceable, and contents himself in the private exercise of his own religion, merely for difference of opinion, is neither founded on the doctrine or practice of our Saviour or his apostles, nor of the church in the following ages, who never urged their kings or emperors, when the empire became Christian, to take away the lives and fortunes of open infidels and heathens who did worship stocks and stones, although these idolatrous heathen, when they had power, did execute all manner of cruelty against the Christians.
The Episcopalians, taking up the arguments of some of the first reformers, asserted “that by the doctrine of the New as well as of the Old Testament, the magistrate beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Idolaters are ranked among the very chief of evil-doers; and John foretells it as that which God requires of, and approves in, the king’s of the earth, in times of reformation, that they shall hate the Babylonish whore, and make her desolate and naked, and shall burn her with fire—a just punishment upon her who made and cruelly executed laws for burning to death the innocent saints of God! But the penal laws were enacted merely for the safety of the religion of the country against papists, who are not the meek lambs they pretend to be—as witness the Irish massacre and the murderous conduct at present in France, towards persons who were guilty of no rebellion, and who only sought to worship God according to their conscience!”—It is impossible not to pause here and ask, whether those who urged these reasons for keeping papists out of power, had no sense of shame, or no memory—whether they did not recollect, that, for more than twenty-five years, they had been pursuing exactly the same course towards their own Protestant brethren in Scotland?
During the first month of the session, the Commissioner was incessant in his attention to the nobles and leading men, and liberal both of his promises and threatenings, but all he could prevail upon them to consent to, was a bill for allowing Roman Catholics “the exercise of their religion in private houses—all public worship being excluded—without the danger of incurring sanguinary or other punishments contained in any laws or acts of parliament against the same.” But as such a restricted liberty would not satisfy the king, it was dropped; and an act in favour of the heir of Argyle, who had been prevailed upon to profess the royal religion, closed the session.
Several of the bishops had strenuously opposed the repeal, clearly perceiving that their craft was in danger, because, had the papists obtained power, they would not long have retained their livings without apostatizing from their religion; others were prepared to go every length to please the king and keep their places. Nor is it perhaps judging too harshly, to say, that if the alternative of allowing liberty to Presbyterians, or themselves turning papists, had been offered them, they would have chosen the latter, such appeared to be their hatred at what they called the fanatical rigidity of the former.[[167]]