as a trustworthy guide, who would criticise the books of the New Testament just as he might the dialogues of Plato, setting aside this as spurious, and that as untrue to history, while yet admiring and enjoying the whole as much as ever? We are not afraid of the most rigidly impartial and cool inquiry into these books; we ask not that they should be sheltered from the scalpel of criticism by the holiness of their authors or the preciousness of their contents, but we do ask that he who discusses them, should at least perceive and fairly face the immense difference to our faith and hope that the alternative results of such inquiry must inevitably_make. If historical

criticism proves any or all of the New Testament books to be unauthentic, we will not hesitate to reject them; and we believe that, even in that event, we could retain knowledge enough of the historical Jesus to rest our souls upon; but we can have no confidence in a guide like Dr Davidson, who is either too blind to perceive, or not honest enough to acknowledge, that this is the momentuous issue that is involved in the discussion. J. S. C.

ART. V.-The Wigton Martyrs.

1. The Case for the Crown, in re the Wigton Martyrs proved to be Myths, versus Wodrow and Lord Macaulay, Patrick the Pedlar, and Principal Tulloch. By MARK NAPIER, Sheriff of Dumfriesshire. Ex uno disce omnes. Edinburgh: Edmonstone & Douglas. 1863.

2. History Vindicated in the Case of the Wigton Martyrs. By the Rev. ARCHIBALD STEWART, Minister of Glasserton. Second Edition. Edinburgh: Edmonstone & Douglas. 1869.

2. The Drowned Women of Wigton; a Romance of the Covenant, suggested by Mr Napier's "Memoirs of Dundee," with a series of Documents relating to the Occurrence. Arranged and connected by JOSEPH IRVING, Author of the "History of Dumbartonshire," &c. Dumbarton, 1862.

TH

of men.

HE history of Scotland, political and religious, abounds in questions that still excite controversy and try the spirits The character of Knox and the Regent Murray, the guilt of Queen Mary, the principles and struggles of the Covenanters are among the chief historical subjects that have been very differently treated by different writers, and are still looked at by many people through the medium of their political or ecclesiastical prejudices. We believe, indeed, that all really intelligent and impartial readers of Scottish history have their minds made up in regard to the subjects we have named, and others of a cognate character. History may be fairly said to have pronounced its final verdict on the character

Jacobite Historians.

529

of Knox and Murray, Queen Mary and Bothwell, Argyle, Montrose, and Claverhouse. Nor has justice, on the whole, been denied to that extraordinary and devoted race of men, the Scottish Covenanters, who, with all their faults and mistakes, were among the noblest of the earth, and rendered immortal service to British liberty.

But while the Presbyterian view of Scottish post-Reformation history may be said to be essentially just in itself, and to have conclusively triumphed, there is still a party in Scotland that takes the Jacobite and Episcopalian side. This party, strong in aristocratic feeling and old-fashioned Toryism, plies its hereditary task of vilifying Knox and defending Queen Mary, abusing the Covenanters and glorifying Claverhouse. The late Professor Aytoun was its poet laureate, and now its chief champion is Mr Mark Napier. Judging from the works of these two writers and their followers, we are tempted to say that the old Jacobite leaven is not yet purged out of Scotland, and that Episcopalian prejudice is still strong enough in certain quarters to produce the most distorted views of Scottish history. That prejudice is, of course, not peculiar to Scotland, for, in an English form, it colours nearly every thing that flows from the pen of Miss Strickland, whose Life of Queen Mary is one of the most partial and inaccurate works published in modern times. Yet the cultivated mind of England, represented by Mr Froude, is beginning at length to see clearly the immense merit of Knox and his fellow-reformers, the real character of Mary, and other historical matters which Scottish Episcopal writers have always treated in a bitter partisan spirit.

But no such fresh research and philosophic criticism as Mr Froude displays can be found in the large and pretentious volumes which Mr Mark Napier has given to the world. That modern champion of men and things that have ignominiously passed away, wants nearly all the qualities that belong to the great, or even the respectable historian. His bulky biographies of Montrose and Dundee shew the spirit of the partisan throughout, and reproduce the sentiments of an exploded Jacobitism. He has no sympathy with those men and principles that have made his country great. Had his heroes triumphed, or the ideas he advocates given the direction to our politics, our constitutional liberties could have had no existence, and in place of them we might have had a continental despotism. The Stewarts attempted to secure absolute power over Church and State by the help of the Montroses, the Lauderdales, the Straffords, the Dundees, and similar powerful instruments or pliant tools. But Mr Napier, who identifies himself with some of their worst principles, actions, and agents,

must be content to be regarded by the great mass of his countrymen as an enemy to the very principles and springs of British liberty.

Such a writer cannot be expected to have any sympathy with the Scottish Covenanters. Neither the men nor their principles find any favour in his eyes, or meet with any justice at his hands. Generous opponents, like Sir Walter Scott, can allow to the Covenanters the possession of many noble qualities, can sympathise with them in their great sufferings, and condemn the atrocities from which they suffered. Scott had his strong political prejudices, as is manifest from his treatment of the Covenanters in one of his most famous novels; but in his grave historical work, "The Tales of a Grandfather," he has done something like justice to the persecuted Presbyterians. We have even heard of an English lady who was led to take a deep interest in the Scottish Disruption of 1843, and to sympathise entirely with its principles, by reading Scott's "Old Mortality." But vast is the difference in point of intellect and spirit between a Walter Scott and a Mark Napier. The biographer of Montrose and Dundee cannot speak in decent or dignified language of the Covenanters or their literary champions. Epithets and terms unknown to respectable history he lavishes on the Presbyterian martyrs, and all who praise their glorious sufferings. He is a member of the Scottish bar, and Sheriff of Dumfriesshire, but we can discover little of the impartial spirit or courteous language of the judge in his violent yet feeble pages.

In his "Memorials of Dundee," and in a bulky pamphlet called "The Case for the Crown," Mr Napier has made a deliberate attack on the covenanting martyrology of Scotland. He has singled out a notable execution, the drowning of two women at Wigton in the year 1685, and elaborately attempted to prove it a fable and a calumny. Of all the men or women who suffered in the times of the Great Persecution, which lasted, with few intervals, from the Restoration of 1660 to the Revolution of 1688, none have been more commiserated and admired than "the Wigton Martyrs." These were two women who, for refusing to take an oath which they believed to be sinful, were condemned to death and drowned in the waters of the Solway. The meek yet intrepid bearing of these noble-minded women, and above all, the touching language and dauntless spirit of the youngest in her last moments, have melted many a stout heart, and won admiration in quarters where there was little sympathy with their cause. Both Sir Walter Scott and Lord Macaulay have in fitting terms described their martyrdom, and allowed them the praise of heroism. Their case, therefore, has acquired a peculiar celebrity, and serves more

than almost any other to mark the spirit of the miserable persecuting Governments of Charles II. and his brother James. But if it can be shewn that the story of "the Wigton Martyrs" is substantially false, and that the two women, though condemned to death, were actually reprieved and liberated, it is evident that the received history of the suffering Covenanters will be seriously discredited, and many other martyrdoms at once called in question. Hence the desperate energy with which Mr Napier endeavours to invalidate the historical authorities on which the narrative of the Wigton tragedy rests. If he can destroy the basis of this leading case, he will undoubtedly shake the credit of Wodrow and other Presbyterian historians, and so far weaken the force of the charges usually brought against the Governments he defends.

The arguments which, in his "Case for the Crown," he urges against the reality of the execution of the Wigton women have been admirably and conclusively met by Mr Stewart. The lawyer has been quite foiled on his own ground by his reverend opponent, his pleadings have been shewn to be worthless, and many of his own guns have been effectively turned against him. In argument, in temper, and in style, Mr Stewart is unquestionably the victor. He displays a truly forensic skill and acuteness in testing evidence, and he brings to bear on the subject of controversy a historical knowledge of no common kind, and a vast mass of authentic materials. With a most laudable industry he has collected evidence from local records, from our national archives, and from public libraries, all pointedly bearing on the points he undertakes to establish. Looking at Mr Napier's attack and Mr Stewart's defence, apart altogether from any sympathy with the Presbyterian cause, we are bound to say that, in our opinion, the attack is an utter failure and the defence an incontestible triumph.

But before shewing what Mr Napier's pleadings are, and how they have been disposed of by his antagonist, we shall relate the story of the Wigton martyrs as recently authenticated by Mr Stewart and others. Our readers need hardly be reminded, that the great persecution in Scotland originated in an attempt made by the Government of Charles II. to impose upon the people a form of Church Government of which they conscientiously and strongly disapproved. The king and his ministers virtually claimed the right to dictate to the Scottish people what religion they should profess. They also proceeded to accomplish their purposes in the most cruel and arbitrary manner, forcing the people by means of heavy fines and other penalties to attend the parish churches, and sternly interdicting the holding of "conventicles," or meetings for public worship outside of the abhorred Establishment. What we now

call the sacred and inalienable rights of conscience were trampled under foot, and principles were acted on by the Government, that, if unresisted, would have led to utter despotism both in Church and State. It is vain for champions and apologists like Mr Napier to deny such charges brought against the Government. The acts and proceedings of the Scottish Parliament, of the Privy Council, and of that Scottish Star Chamber, the "Court of High Commission," are of themselves sufficient to bear out the sentence pronounced by impartial history upon the conduct of the execrable men who at that unhappy period administered the affairs of Scotland. A much less spirited people than the Scotch might well have been driven into rebellion by the despotism and cruelty of an unprincipled Government. We know how long and how patiently the great body of the Presbyterians bore their grievous wrongs, how at last a considerable portion of them offered armed resistance to their oppressors, and how the defeat of the insurgents by the royal armies aggravated the terrible persecution. But if these brave insurgents were defeated in the field, their cause eventually triumphed, and we reap at this day the fruit of their sufferings.

It was after the battle of Bothwell Bridge, when the persecution was at the hottest, that those proceedings took place in Galloway which led to the condemnation and execution of the Wigtonshire female martyrs. To carry the cruel laws against conventicles and the harbouring of rebels into vigorous execution, "itinerant commissions of justiciary," that is, roving criminal courts, were appointed, with large discretionary powers. Without the usual constitutional securities for the protection of innocence, these courts tried and condemned hundreds of unhappy prisoners in an altogether military fashion. No drumhead court-martial ever set about its work with less ceremony than these extraordinary engines of civil tyranny. In October 1684, a number of itinerant justiciary courts were appointed to traverse the south-west of Scotland, with a view to the summary trial and punishment of all who in any way withstood the Government. The court that was to visit Dumfriesshire and Galloway consisted of the Marquis of Queensberry, Lord Drumlanrig, and Claverhouse. These commissioners arrived at Wigton on the 14th October, and a few days after commenced their congenial work. On the first day they disposed of no less than fifty-five cases; for they were untrammelled by any jury, or even by witnesses. The accused were examined by their judges, and generally condemned or acquitted as they refused or consented to take the ensnaring oath of abjuration which even many friends of the Government severely reprobated. The crime for which nearly all of them were thus tried was,