of the religious malcontents "the country
resembled war as much as peace." But an Act of Council of 1677 bidding
landowners sign a bond for the peaceable behaviour of all on their lands
was refused obedience by many western lairds. They could not enforce
order, they said: hence it seemed to follow that there was much disorder.
Those who refused were, by a stretch of the law of "law-burrows," bound
over to keep the peace of the Government. Lauderdale, having nothing
that we would call a police, little money, and a small insufficient force
of regulars, called in "the Highland Host," the retainers of Atholl,
Glenorchy, Mar, Moray, and Airlie, and other northern lords, and
quartered them on the disturbed districts for a month. They were then
sent home bearing their spoils (February 1678). Atholl and Perth (later
to be the Catholic minister of James II.) now went over to "the Party,"
the opposition, Hamilton's party; Hamilton and others rode to London to
complain against Lauderdale, but he, aided by the silver tongue of
Mackenzie, who had changed sides, won over Charles, and Lauderdale's
assailants were helpless.

Great unpopularity and disgrace were achieved by the treatment of the
pious Mitchell, who, we have seen, missed Sharp and shot the Bishop of
Orkney in 1668. In 1674 he was taken, and confessed before the Council,
after receiving from Rothes, then Chancellor, assurance of his life: this
with Lauderdale's consent. But when brought before the judges, he
retracted his confession. He was kept a prisoner on the Bass Rock; in
1676 was tortured; in January 1678 was again tried. Haltoun (who in a
letter of 1674 had mentioned the assurance of life), Rothes, Sharp, and
Lauderdale, all swore that, to their memory, no assurance had been given
in 1674. Mitchell's counsel asked to be allowed to examine the Register
of the Council, but, for some invisible technical reasons, the Lords of
the Justiciary refused; the request, they said, came too late. Mackenzie
prosecuted; he had been Mitchell's counsel in 1674, and it is impossible
to follow the reasoning by which he justifies the condemnation and
hanging of Mitchell in January 1678. Sharp was supposed to have urged
Mitchell's trial, and to have perjured himself, which is far from
certain. Though Mitchell was guilty, the manner of his taking off was
flagrantly unjust and most discreditable to all concerned.

Huge armed conventicles, and others led by Welsh, a preacher,