"OF ALL FOOLS THE WORST."

421

also omitted. Bruce's averment that the preachers had quelled the tumult (as they did, according to Melville) was also left out. As all these changes intensified the nature of the invitation, they can hardly be attributed to mere haste and inadvertence in the copyist employed by Hamilton. Later (December 27), Bruce wrote a letter of remonstrance to Hamilton. "I am assured that your sister's son, the Earl of Huntly, would not have done the like that ye have done, and if I failed in anything in that letter, I failed only in this, in framing my pen over far to your lordship's humour, which I knew to be ambitious." Knowing this, Bruce had called in Hamilton, and had said that God called him! And then Bruce, having knowingly invited an ambitious man, and attributed the invitation to the Deity; having summoned a prince who, failing James and his issue, was nearest the crown, expressed surprise that "the king takes it, as I hear, as if I had pressed to set you in a chair foreanent him. Surely it came never in my mind; and of all fools I had been the worst, if so I had done." 48

Mr Bruce's excuses are inconsistent: we shall see other examples of his logic and his conduct, in the affair of the Gowrie conspiracy. It did not need much intelligence to see that, in summoning as a leader a man notoriously ambitious, and by birth so near the throne, Bruce laid himself open to the king's construction of his action. It was the natural, and probably the correct construction, and, as Bruce saw, was replete with "inconveniences" to himself "and the good cause." Spottiswoode cites, but not quite verbally, Hamilton's copy of Bruce's letter. But the sense of that letter itself is sufficiently patent.49 Spottiswoode may be condemned, as he is by Dr M'Crie, for disloyalty as a historian, and for displaying Presbyterian zeal during the troubles in December, and turning his coat in January.50 All the accounts of the tumult are naturally coloured by the partisanship of the narrators. Spottiswoode did not invent Welsh's seditious sermon, of which Calderwood says nothing (Sunday, December 19), though he cites at length Bruce's sermon. Dr M'Crie also omits the inconvenient eloquence of Mr Welsh, though it is embalmed in the 'Register of the Privy Council.' "I am heartily sorry," said Bruce, later, "that our holy and gracious cause should be so obscured by this late tumult," which, according to Dr M'Crie, "scarcely deserves the name of a riot." "I had rather," Bruce said, “have been banished Scotland for ever, ere one drop of their blood had been shed that day." Bruce insisted now on the

422 JAMES RE-ENTERS EDINBURGH (JANUARY 1, 1597).

virtue of patience: he was careful to discriminate between James and his advisers: he mourned the defection of many preachers and others, whence we may gather that the Brethren had not been unanimous during the troubles of the last two months.

All this was very well, but it came after the reading to an excited populace of the story of Haman, and it came after Bruce's invitation to Hamilton. If the ministers were all for peace and patience, why did one of them read inflammatory scriptures about hanging a statesman and massacring malignants? Was the leadership of the godly by an ambitious prince such as Hamilton likely to lead to public tranquillity? Bruce's pacific sermon came two days too late, and was not reinforced by the sermon of Welsh on a devil-possessed king, who ought to be tied hand and foot. The tumult was caused by the exciting sermons, the "indignation meeting," the inflammatory lessons from the Book of Esther, the exaggerated rumours, and the panic (whether wilfully stirred or not) of a popish massacre. The armed townsmen, like the mob of Ephesus, knew not wherefore they were come together. Some were intent on rescuing the king, others on hanging a few Octavians. Last came the preachers' dealing with Hamilton, which wore an ill face. James was first alarmed, then angry, finally he saw his chance, and the tumult, a confused brawl, gave him his opportunity. On the 20th four ministers, including Bruce, were ordered into Edinburgh Castle, then held by Mar; these men, with Cranstoun, were to appear at Linlithgow on December 25. Among them was Andrew Hart, the publisher, described as "bookbinder." Bruce and Balcanquhel fled to England, James Melville concealed the other prophets in Fife.51 The town heard with terror tales that the Borderers were to sack the town. "They offered to put all in the king's will, both concerning Kirk and policy, to save their goods." 52 On January 1, 1597, the Provost, Hume of North Berwick, who pacified the riot, and the bailies made proffers "to appoint neither magistrates nor ministers in future without the king's approval," disavowing the tumult as provoked by the preachers.53 The king entered his capital on January 1, 1597He forbade assemblies of the Kirk in Edinburgh. He forbade the ministers to live together as they had done, "in the circuit of a close." He asserted the power to make ministers preach, or desist, whenever he thought fit.54 Threats hung over the town: the meeting of the judges was summoned to Perth. Welsh, whose sermon of December 18 Calderwood does not notice, was denounced a rebel :

DEATH OF ARRAN.

423 it is clear that Spottiswoode took the words of the sermon from the 'Privy Council Register' (v. 359).

James had grasped his nettle, and it had crumpled harmless in his hand. All the proud preachers and prophets, the bold barons and burgesses, who had so long threatened and controlled him, they to whom he had truckled, "an irresolute ass," had ceased to be terrible. And thus was avenged the old Hammer of the Preachers, the bane of Morton, the discourted Arran. He did not live to see the day of triumph. In the height of the war of the Kirk (November 1596) he appears to have ridden to offer James his services. Returning to Kyle, he was warned to shun the feud of Douglas of Parkhead, nephew of Morton. Arran said that he would not leave his way for him nor for all of the name of Douglas! Parkhead armed a company and mounted: he overtook Arran at a glen called Catslack (there is a Catslack burn on Yarrow) and ran the famous Chancellor through the body with a spear (December 1, 1596).55

So in the notable year '96 perished Arran, "Captain James Stewart," the stately, the brave, the kinglike, the accomplished, but avaricious, cruel, and untrustworthy glory of the House of Ochiltree. He "died in his enemy's day," and did not behold the triumph which would have gladdened his heart, perhaps restored his power.

NOTES TO CHAPTER XV.

1 Calderwood, v. 420, 421.

2 Forbes-Leith, Narratives of Scottish Catholics, pp. 226-229.

3 See the scheme in Calderwood, v. 421-433.

4 See 'Register of Privy Council,' v., Dr Masson's Introduction.

5 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 711; Tytler, ix. 212. Major Hume in 'Treason and Plot' may be consulted.

6 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 706.

8 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 708.

10 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 723, 724.

7 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 706, 707.

9 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 720-723. 11 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 710.

12 M Crie, Life of Andrew Melville, pp. 483-485; ii. 524-528 (1819).

13 Privy Council Register, v. 172.

14 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 715, 716.

15 See Mr T. G. Law's essay, with copies of the documents, in 'Miscellany of

the Scottish History Society,' vol. i. No. 2.

16 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 715.

18 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 720-723.

20 James Melville, pp. 368, 369.

17 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 718.

19 Privy Council Register, v. 310, 311.

21 Melville, pp. 370, 371.

424

22 Calderwood, v. 443-448.

NOTES.

23 Tytler, ix. 231.

24 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 723; Calderwood, v. 450-453. 25 Calderwood, v. 163.

26 Thorpe, Calendar, ii. 723.

27 See Dr M'Crie's Andrew Melville,' i. 295-302 (1819).

28 Life of Andrew Melville, i. 295-298.

30 M'Crie, Andrew Melville, loc cit.

32 Privy Council Register, v. 326.

34 Privy Council Register, v. 332-334, 336.

35 Calderwood, v. 469.

37 Calderwood, v. 486.

39 Calderwood, v. 496, note.

41 Calderwood, v. 501.

29 Calderwood, v. 458.

31 Calderwood, v. 458.

36 Calderwood, v. 482.

33 Calderwood, v. 463.

38 Privy Council Register, v. 340-342. 40 Privy Council Register, v. 348.

42 Calderwood, v. 512.

43 Nicolson to R. Cecil, December 21, State Papers, Scot., Eliz., MS., vol. lix. No. 90. Bowes to Robert Cecil, December 21, 1596, State Papers, Scot., Eliz., MS., vol. lix. No. 88.

v. 362, 363.

44 Melville, p. 517.

For James's version see 'Privy Council Register,'

45 Calderwood, v. 510-514; Spottiswoode, iii. 27-32.

46 Privy Council Register, v. 349-352.

47 See Appendix B., "Logan of Restalrig and the Gowrie Conspiracy."

48 Calderwood, v. 515, 534, 535.

49 Mr Tytler, ix. 250, 251, also cites this copy from a Warrender manuscript. 50 M'Crie's Andrew Melville, pp. 194, 195, and notes; ii. 94, 95 notes (1819).

51 Calderwood, v. 520, 521; Privy Council Register, v. 353.

52 Calderwood, v. 531.

53 Privy Council Register, v. 356.

54 Privy Council Register, v. 357; Act. Parl. Scot., iv. 107. 55 Privy Council Register, v. 360, 361, and note 1.

CHAPTER XVI.

JAMES ON ILL TERMS WITH ENGLAND.

1597-1600.

THE preachers never recovered their supremacy in James's lifetime, but they never were thoroughly subdued. There survived a remnant, holding tenaciously to the old, impossible, theocratic ideals; and in a later generation they too had their hour of triumph. To us who see the past in a perspective unattainable in the sixteenth century, it is plain enough that two ideas were destined to prevail-toleration in religion, and democracy in politics. But under James the democratic idea, and the idea of toleration, occupied opposite camps. The preachers, and their representatives in the universities, at least in St Andrews, taught the Radical opinions of George Buchanan. They also upheld (except when an opposite theory suited their purposes) that the ministers should be chosen by their flocks,—a process which, following their line of argument, put the supreme power of the State into the hands of inspired persons elected by the votes of popular constituencies. A theocratic democracy was thus arranged for, but we should greatly misjudge the Brethren if we thought that they were mere believers in majorities. As against the greater number of votes, the votes of "the best" ought to prevail, and "the best" were the minority who would go all lengths with the preachers. This rather confused theologico-political theory and practice obtained its opportunity from the absence of a really representative and constitutional Parliament in Scotland. In place of such a body, the Kirk had her kirk-sessions, presbyteries, synods, and General Assemblies. Their power was enormous, and touched on military affairs as well as on politics and jurisdiction. But the power reposed on the belief in "prophets," and in direct inspiration.