Nor was the committee idle; Mr Patrick Gillespie, principal of Glasgow College, was brought prisoner to Edinburgh Castle, and Mr Robert Row, minister of Abercorn, and W. Wiseheart of Kinniel, were confined to their chambers in the town. Having forbid any meetings for petitioning, they proceeded to display their antipathy to those principles of freedom, for which their fathers had contended, by emitting a proclamation against Rutherford’s Lex Rex—a work which was held in high estimation by the covenanters, as it advocated the cause of liberty and the legitimate limitations on power, with an energy and clearness the enemies of freedom could not bear; and another work, supposed to be written by Mr James Guthrie, entitled “The Causes of God’s Wrath against Scotland,” which enumerated the sins of the land, princes, priests, and people, with a faithfulness that was intolerable. They declared these two books to be full of seditious and treasonable matter, animating his majesty’s good subjects to rise up in rebellion against their lawful prince and sovereign, and poisoning their hearts with many seditious and rebellious principles, prejudicial to his royal person and authority, and to the peace of the kingdom. All, therefore, possessed of copies of the obnoxious publications were required to deliver them up to the king’s solicitor within a certain time, under pain of being considered enemies to his majesty’s authority, and liable to be punished accordingly. They were both burnt at the cross—a favourite, if not a very convincing, mode of answering such like productions. With revolting meanness, they at the same time caused the inscriptions to be effaced from the tombs of Alexander Henderson in Edinburgh, and George Gillespie at Kirkaldy—men who needed not the frail remembrance of a monumental stone to make their memories live in the recollection of their country, and whose services have more lasting record than a graving-iron could bestow.
Some few days after, they made a still more explicit disclosure of their aversion to the “good old cause”—a sneering form of expression become fashionable among the courtiers—by another proclamation directed against the remonstrants and their adherents, not only forbidding meetings for consultation, which were still legal, but likewise any adverting, in their sermons or otherwise, to the state of the church, or the danger to be apprehended from the introduction of the exploded and hated prelatical offices and forms; and, as they knew the effect of popular preaching, they appear to have been most anxious at once to suppress all pulpit opposition to the course they were about to pursue.
Of the watchmen upon the Scottish Zion, the remonstrants had been the most wakeful and most jealous of encroachments upon the established covenanted constitution of the church and state, and the committee were assured, that when they apprehended danger, they would not be silent; they therefore expressly commanded that none, in sermons, preachings, declamations, or speeches, should presume to reflect on the conduct of his majesty or his progenitors, misconstrue his proceedings, or meddle in his affairs or estate, present, bygone, or in time coming, under the highest penalties; and if any who heard what could be construed into slander against the king did not reveal it, they were to be liable to the same punishment as principals. This proclamation, the anti-type of so many furious attacks upon the liberty of the lieges, was calculated to ensnare those who, being accustomed openly to speak their sentiments, were not prepared at once to renounce all mention of public affairs in common conversation or public discourses, whether ministers, elders, or private gentlemen; and numbers of each description were immediately made to feel its oppressive weight.
Had a free election been allowed, notwithstanding the loyal phrenzy of many, and the hypocritical pretensions of more, there might some troublesome members have procured admission to the estates; but those whose influence and opposition were most dreaded, being by this proclamation placed in very delicate circumstances—as evidence of unguarded expressions might easily have been procured—were happy to escape censure, and did not stand forward at the only time when they could have done so with some probability of success, in support of the constitution, freedom, and religion of their country. The committee, however, did not rest here: with the most unblushing effrontery, although conscious themselves of having to a man complied with the English, they hung out a threat of prosecution for this common and inevitable fault, which damped all who seemed inclined to assert the independence of a Scottish parliament, or the privileges they had obtained from the crown during the late struggle.[[9]]
[9]. Of the nature of these prosecutions, the reader may form some idea from the following:—“Mr James Nasmyth, minister of the gospel at Hamilton, was sisted before the committee for words alleged to have been spoken by him many years ago. About the year 1650, when Lambert was in the church, it was alleged he pressed his hearers to employ their power for God, and not in opposition to the gospel, otherwise they might expect to be brought down by the judgement of God as those who went before were!” Wodrow, vol. i. p. 12.
Besides to pinion the country gentlemen more effectually, they tendered a bond to all of whom they were suspicious, which they obliged them to sign, with a sufficient cautioner, each binding themselves—besides disowning the remonstrance—that they should not in any way or manner, directly or indirectly, plot, contrive, speak, or do any thing tending, or what might tend, to the hurt, prejudice, or derogation of his majesty’s royal person or any of that royal family—that they should not do any thing, directly or indirectly, tending, or that might tend, to the breach or disturbance of the public peace, nor connive or concur with any person whatsoever who should contrive any such thing; but, to the utmost of their power, stop and let any such plot and doing, and appear personally before the committee, sub-committee, or parliament, upon a lawful citation; and, in case of failure, the parties bound themselves to pay a high fine, besides whatever other punishment might be inflicted.
For a justification of proceedings so unwarrantable, we must look to the sequel; it was not because the parties accused were inimical either to kingly government or to the person or right of Charles, but because the plan was already formed for sweeping from the face of the country, had it been possible, whatever was lovely or of good report—whatever in the institutions of the state or the polity of the church was calculated to present any obstruction to the tide of obscene licentiousness and faithless despotism that was now fast flowing upon them. Their stretches of power against the liberties of the country, do not, however, seem to have occasioned any remonstrance; and the synod of Lothian was amused with a proclamation for calling a General Assembly, which Mr William Sharpe had submitted for their amendment; but the last acts of the committee, levying a cess, excited some remark as to the legality of the tax or their power to exact it.
On the 1st of November, a proclamation announced the meeting of parliament; and the same day another, that the king had committed to them the consideration and judging of the conduct of all his subjects during the late troubles, from whom alone he would receive any applications, and promising, after his honour and ancient royal prerogative were vindicated, he would grant a free, full pardon and indemnity—a promise which, although conveyed in very specious language, and accompanied by an assurance that there was nothing his royal bosom was more desirous of than that his people should be blessed with abundance of happiness, peace, and plenty, was received with suspicion, and, like almost all the other acts of grace, afforded little relief to the unfortunate, while it secured the persons and plunder of those who had pillaged and oppressed them.