The death of James, in 1625, was the inauguration of a new era in Scotland. The king, though full of arrogant pretensions, was timid, feeble, and not without a certain kind of political insight; and if he had irritated and alarmed the nation, he did not venture to outrage its feelings or to assail some of its most powerful interests. His successor, naturally a firmer man, and taught to believe the odious doctrines of passive obedience and divine right, had no scruples in overbearing opposition, however stern and national, to the line of policy he had marked out for himself; and the conscientiousness he undoubtedly possessed with respect to certain cardinal principles, made him obstinate in carrying them out in government. Besides, he seems to have really thought it was no part of the duty of a king to keep faith with ministers or subjects, that something in his office placed him outside the pale of ordinary moral obligations; and in addition, like all the Stuarts, he was especially addicted to favourites, and to lend an ear to their unwise counsels. Such a man, a bad ruler as it were on principle, was calculated to precipitate the great revolution which in England and Scotland alike had been gradually in course of development. As Mr. Burton truly observes, the teasing, fitful, and hesitating attempts of James to cross the will of his people, were as nothing to the steady and resolute efforts with which Charles endeavoured to accomplish the ends which from the first he had clearly in view. The battle in Scotland, as might have been expected, commenced upon the affairs of the Church; and the king, with singular unwisdom, contrived to unite against him most of the nobility, the Kirk, and the bulk of the people, and to stir to its depths the national sentiment. There can be little doubt that Charles intended to force the Anglican system on Scotland, and to introduce into that kingdom the well-endowed State Church, the rich courtier prelates, 'the midge-madge of doctrine,' and the gorgeous ritual which he considered divine in England. His first step was audaciously to claim the resumption of the revenues of the old Church of Scotland, which had been forfeited at the Reformation:—
'A proclamation announced the general revocation by the new king of all grants by the Crown, and all acquisitions to the prejudice of the Crown, whether before or after his father's Act of Annexation in 1587. This was virtually the proclamation of that contest of which King Charles was destined never to see the end. It proposed to sweep into the royal treasury the whole of the vast ecclesiastical estates which had passed into the hands of the territorial potentates from the Reformation downwards, since it went back to things done before King James's annexation.'—(Vol. vi. 355.)
By this wicked and insensate measure, Charles made enemies of all the powerful men, the leaders of the nobility of Scotland, who were in possession of ecclesiastical property, and he gave the whole nation a significant example of the iniquities of mere arbitrary power. But he was not satisfied with exasperating a class; he proceeded to touch to the very quick the religious and patriotic feelings of the nation. At the stroke of a pen he completely changed the ecclesiastical polity of Scotland, by proclaiming his right to make canons for the Kirk; and he not only introduced many of these ordinances, but he peremptorily enjoined the use of forms and symbols in worship for many years detested in Scotland. This was done, too, with a coarse contempt of Scottish sentiment which was especially galling; the innovations being thrust upon the country by English prelates, regarded as aliens. We quote a specimen of scenes which, doubtless, were not unfrequent at this juncture:—
'At the back of this altar, covered with tapestry, there was ane rich tapestry wherein the crucifix was curiously wrought; and as those bishops who were in service passed by this crucifix they were seen to bow their knee, and beck, which, with their habit, was noticed, and bred great fear of inbringing of Popery.... The Archibishop of St. Andrew's and four bishops did "the service" "with white rochets and white sleeves and copes of gold, having blue silk to their foot." Bishop Laud took Glasgow, and thrust him from the king with these words, "Are you a Churchman, and wants the coat of your order?"'—(Vol. vi. 376.)
In this kind of foreign innovation, Laud, now made a royal favourite, was badly and conspicuously eminent. This meddling priest, who thought that he could bind the faith of two nations within his formulas, was made an overseer of the Scottish prelates, and presented to them with insolent rudeness the ecclesiastical policy they were to adopt. There is reason to believe they disliked him heartily, while he was execrated by the Presbyterian clergy. We quote a few words from one of his dictatorial letters:—
'You are immutably to hold this rule, and that by his Majesty's strict and most special command—namely, that yourself, or the Lord Ross, or both of you together, do privately acquaint the Earl of Traquair; ... and the earl will readily do all good offices for the Church that come within his power, according to all such commands as he shall receive, either immediately from the king, or otherwise by direction of his Majesty from myself.'—(Vol. vi. 386.)
By this policy, Charles had contrived to unite the great mass of the nation against him. The descendants of the lay lords of the Reformation, the moderate men who reverenced law, the still powerful Presbyterian clergy and their congregations throughout the country were alarmed, irritated, and provoked; and signs of discontent were manifest even in the Council of National Estates. The last drop that made the cup overflow was the publication of the famous Liturgy of Laud, which, itself odious to all true Protestants, was forced on the people in a manner certain to exasperate a high-spirited country. Mr. Burton criticises at length and learnedly this celebrated attempt on the faith of Scotland: it must suffice to say that the new Liturgy was in conflict with all the forms of Scottish worship, devised, as we have seen, from the Huguenots, which had existed since the Reformation. The scenes that ensued are well known, and it is not necessary to dwell on them. The 'rabblings' of the angry mobs at Edinburgh, Jenny Geddes and her 'devout sisters,' the terror that fell on the appointed bishops, were merely symptoms of the deep indignation which had taken possession of the people of Scotland; and, in a short time, a general opposition was organized against the king and his government. How ignorant Charles and his ministers in England were of the tempest they had waked, will be seen from the following passage:—
'The truth is, there was so little curiosity either in the court or the country to know anything of Scotland, or what was done there, that when the whole nation was solicitous to know what passed weekly in Germany and Poland, and all other parts of Europe, no man ever enquired what was doing in Scotland; nor had that kingdom a place or mention of one page of any gazette.'—(Vol. vi. 451.)
Meanwhile the opposition to the king in Scotland had assumed a formidable shape, and throughout the country crowds of 'supplicants,' demanding a repeal of the obnoxious measures which had been passed during the preceding years, had formed themselves into regular assemblies, connected with a central convocation, which expressed angrily the will of the people. It has been supposed that the Council of Edinburgh connived, to say the least, with this movement; it certainly recognised the representative quality of the delegates by treating officially with them; and the institution of the celebrated 'Tables' marks the commencement of the great revolution. Charles, however, and his councillors were unrelenting; and Laud especially distinguished himself in invoking fire and sword upon the audacious 'rebels.' The 'Tables,' that is, the leading men of the nation, acknowledged as a lawful power, in direct opposition to the Sovereign, resolved to make their authority felt; and the famous compact of the 'Covenant' found the entire sympathy of all classes with them. The Covenant, in fact, was the solemn protest of Scotland against the wrong done by the king. The following, from a contemporary account, shows the deep enthusiasm with which it was welcomed:—
'Gentlemen and noblemen carried copies about in their portmanteaus or pockets, requiring subscriptions thereunto, and using their utmost endeavours with their friends in private for to subscribe. It was subscribed publicly in churches, ministers exhorting their people thereunto. It was also subscribed and sworn privately. All had power to take the oath, and were licensed and welcomed to come in; and any that pleased had power and license for to carry the Covenant about with him, and give the oath to such as were willing to subscribe and swear. And such was the zeal of many subscribers, that for a while many subscribed with tears on their cheeks; and it is constantly reported that some did draw their own blood, and used it in place of ink, to underwrite their names.'—(Vol. vi. 488.)