One of the first tastes they had of the sweetness of the new administration, was in the care the Duke showed to prevent the public mind from being contaminated by seditious publications. The committee for public affairs were desired to consider what books imported from Holland should be condemned by authority; and the clerks of council were ordered to search the shop of John Calderwood, stationer, and secure such prohibited books as should be found therein. Accordingly, he having confessed that he had “Naphtali; Jus Regni apud Scotos,” in English; “Jus Populi Vindicatum;” “The Reformed Bishop;” and “Calderwood’s Church History,” he was committed to prison and his shop shut; and all stationers were ordered in future to show their invoices to one of the officers of state or the Bishop of Edinburgh, for their approbation, under pain of forfeiting the books, and being fined if they should fail. A ship belonging to Borrowstounness, which had been seized on suspicion of having some of the dangerous works on board, though none were got, was not released till the owners found surety to the council for their good behaviour in time to come.
Whenever any unprincipled set of men, who have obtained and abused power, become conscious that they are hated, and deserve to be hurled from their eminence, they commonly pretend to discover some plot for overturning their government. Accordingly, a plot against the Duke’s life was fabricated; and John Spreul, apothecary in Glasgow, and Robert Hamilton, were accused of being accessary to it. The council ordered them to be examined by torture, and appointed a committee to conduct the examination, among whom it is painful to observe the name of the Earl of Argyle. Of Hamilton’s examination I have seen no account, but Spreul was put to the question; and the Duke of York chose to be a spectator, viewing it “with the calmness of a person looking upon a curious experiment,” or perhaps more truly, as has been observed, “with all the infernal gratification of a popish inquisitor.”
This excellent man, early initiated in suffering, was the son of a merchant in Paisley, who had been ruined and forced to abscond (1667) merely for hearing the gospel preached in the open air. When he was seized, he was examined by Dalziel, who according to custom, threatened to roast him alive if he would not discover his father’s retreat; but finding he could make nothing of the boy, he was let go upon a short confinement. Ten years after, just when he had settled in life, he was intercommuned merely for non-conformity, and forced to travel as a merchant through Holland, France, and Ireland, occasionally and by stealth visiting his wife who had retained the shop; but after Bothwell, although he was not there, he was again denounced, his shop seized, and wife and children turned to the door. He then came back to Scotland to carry them with him to Holland, but was apprehended in bed by the notorious Major Johnstoun at Edinburgh, his goods seized, and himself sent to prison.
His examination shows the spirit of the times; and a short quotation will exhibit better than any remarks, the nature of popish unconstitutional interference in the management of a protestant country. “Were you at the killing of the archbishop? I was in Ireland at that time. Was it a murder? I know not but by hearsay that he is dead, and cannot judge other men’s actions upon hearsay. I am no judge; but in my discretive judgment I would not have done it, and cannot approve it.” He was again urged:—“But do you not think it was a murder?” His answer exhibits the principles of the majority of the sufferers. “Excuse me from going any farther, I scruple to condemn what I cannot approve; there may be a righteous judgment of God when there is a sinful hand of man; and I may admire and adore the one, when I tremble at the other.” As he was personally engaged in none of the risings, he was asked whether resisting Claverhouse at Drumclog was rebellion? He answered, “I think not; for I own the freedom of preaching the gospel, and I hear what they did was only in self-defence.” “Was the rising at Bothwell rebellion?” “I will not call it rebellion; I think it was a providential necessity put on them for their own safety after Drumclog.” Twice was he put to the torture; and at the second time, the old ruffian Dalziel said the hangman did not strike strongly enough. The fellow replied, that he had struck with all his strength, and offered the General the maul to try it himself.
Our common nature recoils from such scenes. The votaries of a false religion delight in the torment of those they deem heretics; and had we no other proof of relationship, this would be sufficient to establish the identity of the then Scottish Episcopalian church and the church of Rome, the same cruelty being used by both towards those who differed from the state religion. The intrepid victim was carried back to prison, but denied either the assistance of a surgeon, or the attendance of his wife!
The Duke of York showed the reality of his religion by being voluntarily present during the double infliction. No information was obtained by the tyrant. The sufferer knew nothing about any plot to blow up his Grace, nor did he know where Mr Cargill was to be found.
Mr James Skene, brother to the Laird of Skene was the next. This gentleman’s case deserves peculiar notice. He was guilty of no treason. His only accusation was his having heard Mr Cargill preach. He had been a youth of irregular habits, and had associated, as from his birth and rank he had a right to do, with the first people of the country; but while wandering among the mountains, he unwittingly came where this minister of the gospel was tending his small flock in the wilderness, and was himself caught in the gospel net. Henceforth, instead of indulging in every youthful folly, he became sober and exemplary in his conduct—sins of no common magnitude in the estimation of the rulers of the day; and immediately he came under the cognizance of the government; and being apprehended, was brought to trial for treason.
Being a young convert, and animated with all the warmth of a new zeal, he unfortunately, by his unguarded answers, gave currency to the reports so assiduously circulated against the wanderers, of their pleading for or extenuating the practice of private assassination, and a contempt for all constituted authority, or indeed any authority but their own. He thus detailed it in a letter to his brother:—“Rothes asked, did I own the king’s authority? I said, in so far as it was against the covenant and interest of Christ, I disowned it. He asked me if I thought it was not a sinful murder the killing of the arch-prelate? I said I thought it was their duty to kill him when God gave them opportunity, for he had been the author of much bloodshed. They asked me why I carried arms? I told them it was for self-defence, and the defence of the gospel. They asked me why I poisoned my ball? I told them I wished none of them to recover whom I shot. They asked, would I kill the soldiers, being the king’s? I said it was my duty if I could, when they persecuted God’s people. They asked if I would kill any of them? I said they were all stated enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the declaration at Sanquhar, I counted them my enemies. They asked if I would think it my duty to kill the king? I said he had stated himself an enemy to God’s interest, and there was war declared against him. I said the covenant made with God was the glory of Scotland, though they had unthankfully counted it their shame; and in direct terms, I said to the Chancellor, I have a parchment at home wherein your father’s name is, and you are bound by that as well as I. A little after, the Chancellor said, why did I not call him lord? I told him, were he for Christ’s interest I would honour him. Then he said he cared not for my honour; but he would have me to know he was Chancellor. I said I knew that. He said I was not a Scots man, but a Scots beast.” The above is a specimen of the treatment that even prisoners of rank experienced at the hands of the privy council. The process before the justiciary was more brief. His declaration was the only evidence brought against him; and he having acknowledged it, he was sent to the scaffold to atone for his sentiments.
The Students of Edin.r burning the Pope in effigy, Anno. 1680
Vide page [473]
Edinr. Hugh Paton. Carver & Gilder to the Queen 1842.