Page images
PDF
EPUB

he has not read it, why does he pretend to offer "A Critical Review" of it?), he knows to be remote from the accurate. Of course I must suppose that this Critical Reviewer has not read my book!

What has Mr Wanliss read?
He says (p. 29):-

[ocr errors]

"The presence of a Scottish army at Newcastle,' he writes (page 80), would once have united England in arms. The Scots would have been driven from Tees and Tyne to the Naver, calling on their mountains to cover them.'

"So writes our latest historian of Scotland; but if this be Mr Lang's reading of the power of England and of the helplessness of Scotland, how comes it that during the Three Hundred Years' War of Independence' the Scots came successfully out of the struggle? In the end, despite many ups and downs, Eng land had to seek for a union with

Mr Lang's much - despised native land. Religious bigotry sometimes takes strange forms. In Mr Lang it extends from his religion to his nationality, and leads him to overlook and misrepresent the plain facts of history."

Plain facts of history!

-

If Mr Wanliss had printed what I wrote, the words following "calling on their mountains to cover them," his readers would have found that I said, "In a few years an England prepared, but not united, did it," drove the Scots to the mountains, even to the mountains of Sutherland. The English did it (I deeply regret to say) in 16521654. If Mr Wanliss has not read my book, or almost any book, he may be ignorant of these "plain facts of history."

THE PREACHERS ENABLE ENGLAND TO CONQUER SCOTLAND.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

"liberty of the Kirk" has

[ocr errors]

come to a fair market," says Mr Spang, by reason of the tyranny of the ecclesiastical "Rump"-the permanent Commission of the General Assembly. "The rulers of the Scots at that time were the ministers or preachers," says Mr Wanliss. In ten or twelve years a party of these rulers was reducing another party "to beggary" (says Mr Spang). The Scottish army

was beaten; the remnant was driven into the mountains; the General Assembly was turned loose into the street, and Scotland's neck lay under the heel of an English army of

1 Baillie, vol. iii. pp. 67-84, a review of the whole situation.

[blocks in formation]

"The great defect of Charles the First was his faithlessness. It was that which ultimately brought him to the block. He played fast and loose with all the political parties of the time, and was true to none except that of extreme Anglicanism. Yet in this great public sin of utter faithlessness, Charles, it would appear, did not go far enough for Mr Lang. He writes (page 180):

"In place of saying "No" heartily to the impossible propositions of Parliament, or of accepting them till changed times enabled him to break his promise' (the italics are mine), 'Charles merely drove time by handsome delaying answers.'

"It is seldom we find a British author shamelessly propounding, and in a sense advocating, a policy of utter faithlessness on the part of a monarch to his people. Yet Mr Lang seems to regard such a policy

as a mere matter of course.

The virulent condemnation of the Presbyterians which comes from a mind of this stamp may thus be regarded as a compliment by men of honourable feeling."

Do men of honourable feeling garble quotations, omitting essential clauses without mark of omission? Mr Wanliss does this thing. What I really wrote was this:

"In place of saying 'No!' heartily to the impossible propositions of Parliament, or of accepting till changed times enabled him to break his promise (the plan of the Queen and Montereul), Ĉharles merely drove time by 'handsome delaying answers.'

66

Mr Wanliss suppresses my words proving that a dishonourable plan was propounded" to Charles by the Queen and the French ambassador, and accuses me of "in a sense advocating a policy of utter faithlessness." I should reject the imputation with scorn if made by any one except Mr Wanliss. Charles had rudiments of a conscience which enabled him now and then to resist the dishonourable plans of his wife. When the queen wished him to surrender the Church of England by "a promise that could later be broken," Charles replied :

"Consider that, if I should quit my conscience, how unworthy I make myself of thy love." 1

"I could not love thee, dear, so much, Loved I not honour more."

One is obliged, in these cases, to admire the unhappy king for the moment; but we are told by Mr Wanliss that in faithlessness "Charles, it would

appear, did not go far enough for Mr Lang" (pp. 29, 30).

as

My meaning, of course, was that a manly policy and a policy of dishonour, such he had already rejected,2 were laid before Charles, and that he pursued neither the manly nor the ignoble course. He shuffled. He "neither stood nor fell."

THE GIVING UP OF CHARLES TO ENGLAND.

I now come to the surrender of the king by the Scots in exchange for part of their arrears of pay.

Mr Wanliss thus:

quotes me

"In brief,' he says, '£200,000 were paid down by the English, and the Scots marched home, leaving their king behind. . . . Some promise of the king's safety they had, but they had broken their own assurance to the same effect, and knew what words were worth. The Scots would have incurred less odium in England, and in Europe, if they had taken Charles home, and immured him . . . or beheaded him. . . . It is the £200,000 of blood-money that mark the Scots with eternal infamy. The money was due, and had been voted previously, but was not paid till they filled up the measure of their shame' (page 182).

"Then of course follow the usual partisan quotations from the English and French supporters of the Royal

cause:

""Traitor Scot. Sold his king for a groat.'

time to read the whole of what, on this point, I really wrote ?

"In brief, £200,000 were paid down by the English, and the Scots marched home, leaving their king behind, and fondly hoping for another £200,000 in instalments (February 3-11, 1647). Some promise of the king's safety they had, but they had broken their own assurance to the same effect, and knew what words were worth. They had brought themselves into the same labyrinth as Elizabeth wandered in, through her treatment of Mary. The Scots would have incurred less odium, in England and in Europe, if they had taken Charles home and immured him (as Argyll is said to have suggested) or beheaded him. Even that they could not do; the English Parliament, which claimed his person, would have avenged him. Only one thing they could do,-they could shake the dust of England off their feet, and cross Tweed without the thirtysix cart-loads of money, the £200,000.

The

The surrender of the king has added horror to the English hatred of the Scots. They cry to them that they are worse than Jews, creatures who have sold their king and their honour,' writes Montereul. women of Newcastle can scarcely be prevented by blows and threats from stoning the Scottish soldiers when they pass by' (Feb. 12, 1647). Now, can the reader find It may have been Macleod of

"And:

"L'Ecosse, parjure à sa foi,

Pour un denier vendit son Roi,"

1 History, vol. iii. p. 171.

2 Ibid.

Assynt's duty, later, to surrender Montrose to his death. But what stamps Assynt is his acceptance of the blood reward, the 400 bolls of meal. It is the £200,000 of blood money that mark the Scots with eternal infamy. The money was due, and had been voted previously, but was not paid till they filled up the measure of their shame.

Traitor Scot,

Sold his king for a groat!

L'Ecosse, parjure à sa foi,
Pour un denier vendit son Roi!

These are not pleasant rhymes.'

I find that in all this I repeated the criticism made by Sir Walter Scott in 'Tales of a Grandfather.'

The surrender of the king was a great blow to the reputation of Scotland. The country, could a plebiscite have been freely taken, would probably have voted against the surrender.

:

NEW ERROR OF MR WANLISS.

On this point Mr Wanliss writes:

"THE SURRENDER NOT THE ACT OF THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE.

"There is another point which has to be considered in connection with this much-debated question, viz., the part which the people of Scotland had in the matter of the surrender of Charles. Mr A. Bissett, in his work, The Struggle for Parliamentary Government in England, says (vol. ii. page 178):

That Charles was to lose his life at English hands, the persons who managed the bargain for the Scots could not then foresee with any certainty. from misgivings is proved by But that they were not free the fact that 66 some promise of the king's safety they had." Why should a promise be made and accepted if the king was in no danger? When the king, later, was in danger the Scots Estates represented to the English how "grievous his capital sentence "would be to this kingdom considering his delivery up at Newcastle." 1

99

"In regard to this transaction, which has been a common topic of reproach against the Scots, whose fault has in general been the other way, serving and suffering for their royal family, not wisely, but too well,

[blocks in formation]

1 Act. Parl. Scot., VI., p. 129. Balfour, vol. iii. pp. 383-385.

"If the Scots, as a nation, are guilty, as Mr Lang says, of the sale of Charles for money, there is no escape from the correlative charge, that the English, as a nation, were guilty of what Mr Lang terms his 'murder'!"

I am represented as saying that "the Scots, as a nation, are guilty of the sale of Charles for money." If Mr Wanliss has read my book, he knows that I have said the very reI wrote:

verse.

"It is not to be supposed that the desire to desert the king was universal in Scotland; even the Solemn Warning of the preachers proves that fact. Not to speak of

the Clans and the Gordons, the nobles were not all present at the meeting of the Estates which clinched the bargain; though Guthry seems to exaggerate when he says that

not a third attended. The gentry, burghs, and commonalty 'a hundred for one abhorred it, and would never have instructed their Commissioners that way,' but the constituencies 'were overawed.' Several ministers, among them Guthry himself, did their best in the Assembly for the king, but the other Guthrie, he who came to be hanged, with the more precise brethren, held sway. Guthry represents Hamilton and Lanark, though they voted against the desertion, as lukewarm, and negligent of opportunities, some of their friends

were accidentally absent, others on design, and some_downright deserted them,' says Burnet. 'All apprehended that some strange curse would overtake those who were active in this infamous business.' A curse did overtake them; for when they saw the king in danger, and repented, and would have rescued him, they were thwarted and ruined by the prophets' to whom they had enslaved themselves."

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »