'crimes, which no sex should defend' (p. 20.). It is generally understood that Mackenzie here refers to Isabel Alison and Marion Harvey, who were hanged at Edinburgh in January, 1681, and the most heinous crimes' for which they were executed was simply confessing their Cameronian principles in presence of the court, though they were also accused of having given shelter to some of their outlawed co-religionists; and, strange to say, Mr. Napier thinks they well deserved to be hanged. But it is necessary we should know something more of Sir George Mackenzie and his pamphlet.

Sir George Mackenzie was Advocate for Scotland during the latter part of the reign of Charles II. and the earlier part of the reign of James II. He was a highly accomplished and scholarly man, a friend of Dryden's, and regarded as one of the wits of the day; but he was a man of ungovernable temper and extreme royalist principles, and conducted the public prosecutions during the bloodiest part of the two reigns to which we have referred with such violence, that of all the public men in Scotland next to Claverhouse himself, he was most hated and feared. After the Revolution he retired to Oxford, but even there he felt he could not hide himself from the finger of detestation and scorn which was pointed at all who had taken a part in the hideous misgovernment of Scotland for the last twenty years. In these circumstances he resorted to the somewhat desperate expedient of attempting a vindication of his Government and himself; but dying suddenly, his pamphlet was not published till three months after his death. It is written with all the address of a consummate special pleader; but we think we may repeat of it now what was said of it at the time: -- Were 'this gentleman's paper strictly canvassed, it might be justly ' questioned whether there were more lies or sentences in ' it.'* No man in Scotland,' says he, 'ever suffered for ' his religion,' —a startling statement! but no doubt justified by the Advocate on the ground that to attend a field preaching was a state crime; even to think that it was allowable in certain circumstances to take up arms against the Government (an article in both our religious and political creed now) was a state crime, and therefore those who suffered for these things did not suffer for their faith. No man,' he proceeds to say,' was executed in his reign [that of Charles II.], who 'would say "God bless the King," or acknowledge his authority.' What! would this simple prayer have saved the thirty-five men

* A Vindication of the Presbyterians in Scotland, &c. London: 1692.

who were hanged immediately after the rout of Rullion Green? - would it have saved the six men who were hanged immediately after the rout of Bothwell?-is there the shadow of a proof that it would have saved one of the hundreds who died under the hands of the executioner?* Nor did there die upon any public account,' he proceeds, 'twelve in all that reign so 'exclaimed against as bloody.' If Mackenzie here refers to the reign of James II. he may not be egregiously far from the truth; for very soon after that monarch ascended the throne, he began to tolerate the Presbyterians, that he might have some plea for tolerating the Roman Catholics; but if he refers to the far more bloody reign of Charles II., in which he played a far more conspicuous part, he is best answered by this statement in a paper attached to his pamphlet, and in fact forming a part of it. But to show the clemency of the Government, strangers would 'be pleased to consider that though above two thousand had been guilty of public rebellion, yet two hundred died not by the crim'inal court' [of course this excludes all who perished by the military lynch-law of those melancholy times], and above one hundred and fifty of these might have saved their lives by "saying "God bless the King." Two hundred is a very different figure from twelve, and besides it is here acknowledged that at least fifty of these could not have saved their lives by introducing royalty into their devotions. The recantation extorted from Margaret Lauchlison and embodied in her petition, is something very different from merely saying 'God bless the King.' After these specimens of the Advocate's accuracy, and we might quote many others, we will not put much stress upon his allegation that only two women suffered death during the reigns of Charles and James. After all, amid the two hundred executions which are acknowledged to have taken place, Sir George may have forgotten the two Wigton women, more especially as they were not tried by the Supreme Court, where

We are quite aware there are several instances mentioned by Fountainhall and other writers of persons being offered their lives if they would say 'God save the King.' But we are also aware that when this was complied with, as it was in some cases, other tests were used, in the form of such questions as this, 'Do you renounce 'the Covenant?''Do you promise never to rise in arms against the 'Government?' 'Will you take the Abjuration Oath?' And the scrupulous Covenanter, who had prayed for the King, but could not give satisfactory answers to these interrogatories, found he had 'sold him'self for nought.' But do not such facts only make matters worse? to hang poor people for their scruples! to make their lives depend on their praying for the King!

he acted as prosecutor, and were executed in a remote district of the country. If he did remember the case, we think he would be slow to confess and vindicate it in London, where his pamphlet was published. It is not many years since the Austrian General Haynau was mobbed and hooted and half-murdered by the brewers of London because it was said he had caused some women to be whipped; surely there would have been men in London, even in 1691, who would at least have cried shame! upon the Advocate of the Scottish Government by which women had been drowned.

But

So much for Sir George Mackenzie. But Mr. Napier has yet another negative proof. The records of the burgh of Wigton have been searched, and no mention of the execution has been found. This will appear astonishing only if it be certain that the magistrates of Wigton were the proper parties to carry out the sentence of the royal commission. But this is by no means certain, more especially as the commissioners were appointed to punish as well as to try, and the sheriff of the county was one of them. It is true the commission expired on the 20th of April; but though the commission expired, its sentence would live, and the sheriff would be the proper party to see it carried into effect. Moreover, on the very day following, a similar commission was granted to General Drummond. Why is Mr. Napier so silent about this commission and its powers? It was simply a continuation of the previous one, with General Drummond put in the place of Colonel Douglas, and would undoubtedly take care that its sentences were executed. though the magistrates of Wigton do not appear to have had any jurisdiction in the matter, it is very significant that on the 15th of April-just two days after the trial-they called the hangman before them and 'posed' him as to why he had absented himself, when there was employment for him.' It is evident that the fellow had some feelings of honour and humanity, and felt that he could not drown women, though he could hang men, and so had taken himself out of the way when he knew the sentence of the royal commissioners. In the presence of his superiors, however, he acknowledged he had done wrong, said he had been seduced to it, and 'promised to bide by his service.' To make sure that he would not bolt again the bailies locked him up in the prison, and gave him an allowance of four shillings a day. Who can doubt that he was kept there till he could be placed at the service of the commissioners to carry out their barbarous sentence?

6

This closes Mr. Napier's proof. We acknowledge he has raised difficulties which we have not been able entirely to lay;

but as it often happens that we cannot explain every circumstance connected with events not a week old, we must not expect to be able to explain every circumstance connected with events which happened nearly two centuries ago, and in a period of violence and lawlessness. With no unprejudiced person will such difficulties weigh a feather against the immense amount of positive evidence which we shall now produce to show that the two women were really drowned in the Bay of Wigton. We know no historical fact better established—not excepting the existence of Napoleon Buonaparte, upon which Archbishop Whately has cast far more plausible doubts than Mr. Mark Napier has cast upon the Wigton martyrs.

It is certain the women were sentenced to death certain they were reprieved—and almost as certain they were never pardoned. If they were pardoned the pardon would have been recorded in some way or other-let it be produced. Mr. Napier has been praised for his industry in searching the public registers: in all his searches has he found this pardon? The truth is, no pardon has been found, just because no pardon was ever granted, and therefore the sentence may have been carried into effect. We have evidence that it was.

The first notice which we have of the martyrdom is in Shield's Hind Let Loose,' a work published in 1687, just two years after the event. In this book it is said:

Neither were women spared; but some were hanged,― some drowned, tied to stakes within the sea-mark, to be devoured gradually with the growing waves; and some of them very young ; some of an old age.'

Here the reference to the Wigton martyrs is obvious enough, but it is made more certain by a rude woodcut attached to the first edition, in one of the compartments of which we have two women suspended on a gibbet, and other two bound to a stake and the tide rising round them. These are the four women who suffered death for their religion.

The next reference to the fact which we have found is in the Prince of Orange's Declaration for Scotland, which was widely circulated, especially in the western counties, notwithstanding the efforts of the Scottish Privy Council to suppress it, immediately after his landing in 1688. In that document it is said, in reference to the sufferings to which the people had been exposed:

Empowering officers and soldiers to act upon the subjects living in quiet and full peace the greatest barbarities, in destroying them by hanging, shooting, and drowning, without any form of law, or respect had to age or sex.'

Mr. Napier does not seem to have been aware of this evidence against him; nor are we aware of its having been previously pointed out in what may be called the Wigton Martyr controversy. Who will believe that in such a state paper there would have been such a reference unless the fact alluded to had been well known?

The next link in our chain of evidence is furnished by a very rare pamphlet, entitled A Short Memorial of the Sufferings ' and Grievances, past and present, of the Presbyterians in Scotland, particularly of those of them called by nick-name "Cameronians,' printed in 1690.* This pamphlet was drawn up by authority of the Cameronian Societies, and was originally

* This pamphlet is rare, but not so very rare as has been supposed. There are other copies in existence besides the mouldy ones in the Advocate's Library; and we happen to have one before us while we write. Mr. Napier pretends to be very learned about it; but he is in truth profoundly ignorant both of its contents and of its history. He has learned from Patrick Walker's 'Life of Peden' that Alexander Shields was the reputed author of it; and from the preface that it was originally designed to be laid before the Prince of Orange in the form of a memorial of grievances; and he asserts positively but erroneously that it was subsequently laid before the General Assembly of 1690. Had he read 'Faithful Contendings Displayed,' he might have traced the history of this Memorial from its origin to its end. We shall venture to instruct him; and, as we shall speak from book,' we hope he will not be tempted to utter his favourite ejaculation,— a falsehood! a lie! At a general meeting of the societies, held at Douglas, on the 3rd of January, 1689, 'It was moved by some that 'the meeting might consider upon the drawing up and sending an 'address, with an account of our grievances sustained by us under 'the late tyranny, to the Prince of Orange, which the circumstances seemed to call for at our hands; whereupon it was resolved that the same should be written and brought to the next meeting, who were 'to consider upon the time and method of sending them' (p. 369.). At the meeting at Sanquhar, on the 24th of January, among the matters deferred to next meeting, there was 'likewise our address to 'the Prince, with our grievances, to be drawn up, and then and there 'to be deliberated upon and condescended unto.' Accordingly, at the meeting at Crawford John, on the 13th of February, 'the paper 'containing a memorial of our grievances to the Prince of Orange, 'agreed upon at the last meeting to be drawn up, was presented to 'the meeting and read (which because of its length, and the same 'being to be seen in a paper by itself, I here omit). When it was 'read they were inquired at what they would do with it, who unani'mously resolved that the same should be sent with an address to the 'Prince, with all diligence, and some fit persons chosen to go with the 'same. They appointed Kersland and Mr. Alexander Shields to go