A DISTRICT ASSIGNED TO EACH PRIEST, AS HIS PARISH—MR. LESLIE ON HIS RETURN FROM ROME, IMPRISONED—HIS GREAT REPUTATION FOR SANCTITY— FAVOURED WITH EXTRAORDINARY WARNINGS OF DANGER—YEARLY MEETING OF THE CLERGY AND REPORT TO PROPAGANDA DECREED—FIRST MEETING IN 1686—UNIFORM STYLE DESIRED; OLD STYLE BEING STILL GENER­ALLY FOLLOWED IN GREAT BRITAIN—ACCESSION OF JAMES II. AND VII—THE HIGH HOPES OF CATHOLICS DISAPPOINTED—RIOT AT EDINBURGH—PERSECU­TION CONTINUED TILL THE ACCESSION OF WILLIAM AND MARY; MODERATED AS THEIR REIGN PROCEEDED—REMARKABLE TESTIMONY—“A DISGRACEFUL LAW” (KNIGHT) NULLIFIED BY KING WILLIAM AND THE JUDGES—A BISHOP DESIRED—REV. THOMAS NICHOLSON APPOINTED—AT FIRST MUCH, PERSE­CUTED, THIS PRELATE SURVIVED 20 YEARS, IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS LABO­RIOUS DUTIES.

When Mr. Leslie’s visitation came to an end, he repaired to Rome (1680) and reported it in person to the Cardinals of Propaganda. It led to the promulgation of several salutary regulations. Among other things it was ordained that the priests should confine themselves, each to a certain district which should be to him as his parish, and thus be more useful to the people under his spiritual charge. It is not a little extraordinary that the religious orders strenuously opposed this arrangement, claiming the right to exercise their ministry, as hitherto, in all parts of the country. Their persistence in this Peripatetic system caused great inconvenience to the secular clergy, particularly at the Easter time.

On his return to Scotland, Mr. Leslie was cast into prison, during the evil days that occurred in consequence of the Revolution of 1688. In order to escape the myrmidons of the law, he had assumed the name of “hardboots.” But it is not certain that this was not a nickname insultingly applied, He enjoyed among his contemporaries the reputation of being a very holy man. It would be too much to say that he was favoured with miraculous interventions. But the following circumstance affords ground for believing that he lived under special providential protection. During the worst times of persecution he was sometimes forewarned of danger by a preternat­ural shaking of his bed at night. This was particularly the case when he was residing in the house of Glastirum in the Enzie, Banffshire. All of a sudden his bed began to shake. He rose and struck a light. At the time there were several parties of soldiers scouring the country in search of priests. Seeing a light at Glastirum, a house which was much resorted to by the Catholic clergy, they concluded that some of their friends were already there, and so thought it unnecessary to search the house themselves. The same thing occurred to him at Fyvie in Aberdeenshire. Aroused there by the shaking of his bed, he was enabled to get away from a party of soldiers in pursuit of him. He was, however, caught at last and imprisoned for two years. He died at Banff in the beginning of last century.

The secular clergy were now in the habit of confining themselves to their respective charges. The pious Jesuits came at last, also, to accept the new and better arrangement. It was regulated, likewise, after the presentation of Mr. Leslie’s report, that the missionary priests should meet once in the year, and report on the state of the mission to the Cardinals of Propaganda. It was difficult for the poor and scattered clergy to comply with this requirement. The worthy Prefect represented accordingly, and pleaded for a mitigation of the rule. But to no purpose. Propaganda insisted, threatening even to withdraw the annual subsidy unless the meeting were held and the report presented every year. The first meeting was in 1686. Many questions of discipline were discussed and referred to Propaganda. Among these were the marriages of the people and the celebration of Easter and other Festivals according to a uniform style. Some had adopted the new style, whilst others adhered to the old, which was still generally followed, in Great Britain, for many years. The meeting, in their report, earnestly prayed the Cardinals to send more priests and to augment the yearly subsidy. They failed not also to request that their Eminences would continue their careful superintendence.

The hopes of the Catholics were greatly raised by the accession of James II. to the throne of Great Britain. What might they not expect under the rule of a Catholic King? A new era, they believed, had come. Persecution would be no more, and everything favour the growth of the Catholic Faith. How grievously were they not disappointed! It was not unreasonable, however, that relying on the good will of the well intentioned but weak Monarch, they should endeavour to have a Bishop appointed, and otherwise improve their condition. They naturally looked to the Catholic King, as well as to Rome, in petitioning for a Bishop. Their earnest endeavours, however were all frustrated by hostile intrigues. They renewed their efforts on occasion of the English Catholics obtaining Bishops. This time, 1688, they were disappointed by the overthrow of King James. They were now at the mercy of ignorant and fanatical mobs. A fearful riot occurred at Edinburgh. The chapel of Holyrood, which had been recently renewed at great cost, was attacked and defaced. The house of the Earl of Perth, Chancellor of the Kingdom, and a recent convert to the Catholic Faith, was sacked, and a general search made for priests and altar furnishings. The Prefect, who resided at Edinburgh for some months before the riot, and had won so much the general esteem, escaped arrest. The mob, once masters of the city, however, he was obliged to take refuge in the castle, which was held by the Duke of Gordon for King James. He retired afterwards to the North, on bail, and resided, once more, at Gordon Castle. One may imagine how it fared with the missionary clergy throughout the country. Some were seized and imprisoned, others were banished the Kingdom. They who remained were in constant dread and danger of arrest.

The persecution moderated as the new reign proceeded. The French Ambassador, M. Tallard, wrote to his Court in 1698, that the Catholic religion “is here tolerated more openly than it was even in the time of King Charles II., and it seems evident that the King of England has deter­mined to leave it in peace.” This important testimony regards Scotland as well as England, William III. being King of both countries. The intolerant Parliament, which, in opposition to the King’s declared wishes, passed the infamous act “for preventing the growth of Popery,” bears witness to the same effect. In the preamble to the said act, it recites “that there has been a greater resort into this Kingdom than formerly, of Popish bishops, priests and Jesuits.” It is then enacted that “any person apprehending and prosecuting to conviction, any such bishop, priest or Jesuit, for saying Mass or exercising any priestly function, is to receive a reward of a hundred pounds. The punishment for such convicted persons, or for a Papist keeping a school, is to be perpetual imprisonment. Every person educated in the Popish religion, upon attaining the age of eighteen, to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and subscribe the declaration against transubstan­tiation, and the worship of saints, and in default of such oath and subscription, is declared inca­pable of purchasing lands, or of inheriting lands under any devise or limitation, the next of kin being a Protestant, to enjoy such devised lands during life.” This atrocious act, Mr. Knight, in his “Popular History of England,” characterizes as the most disgraceful law of the reign. It aimed at the total extirpation of the Catholic inhabitants of the United Kingdom. As to the tolerant disposition of King William, who protected them hitherto, it continued still to shield them in the face of the above savage enactment. In this the Monarch was supported by the better spirit that prevailed among the people. The judges also, unlike the Jeffreys et hoc genus omne, of a former reign, by their ingenious interpretations of the statute, mercifully frustrated the designs of parties who were so malevolent as to prosecute. “The judges,” writes Mr. Hallam, “put such constructions on the clause of forfeiture, as to elude its efficacy; and I believe there were scarcely any instances of a loss of property under this law.” King William, with all his inclination to be tolerant, could not, as he was a constitutional Sovereign, place himself in oppo­sition to his Parliament. His predecessor, being an absolute Monarch, did so when he proclaimed liberty of conscience. It cost him his throne and brought a flood of evils on the people whom he wished to serve. King William often suffered the greatest anguish of mind in bowing to the will of Parliament. But he held his ground, and, by his extraordinary force of char­acter, caused his principles to be respected. He must no doubt have been influenced in this direc­tion by the friendship shown him by two Popes, Innocent the XI. and Alexander VIII. “William indeed was not their friend, but he was their enemy’s enemy as James had been, and if restored must again be their enemy’s vassal. To the heretic nephew, therefore, they gave their effective support, to the orthodox uncle only compliments and benedictions.” (Macaulay.) However, this may be, the cruel penal laws, during King William’s reign, were so far relaxed as to be almost a nullity.

The Catholics of Scotland hoped to enjoy better times under the reign of the Catholic Monarch, James II. and VII. Buoyed by this hope, they resolved to petition for the appointment of a Bishop to rule their greatly diminished Church. They applied to the King as well as to the See of Rome; and at first it was thought their application met with more favour at London than at Rome. The Prefect, the Abbot of Ratisbon, and a Superior of the Scotch College at Paris, urged their suit of Court. But the negotiations which they undertook in order to induce King James to support their petition at Rome, were opposed and finally rendered fruitless by influences similar to those which had so often been actively at work to thwart the views presented to the Roman Court by the secular priests of Scotland. The project, however, was not abandoned. Their peti­tion was renewed from time to time; and with more confidence than ever, when the English Catholics obtained the appointment of Bishops in 1688. In that year, however, the overthrow of the Catholic Monarch caused them to be once more disappointed. Meanwhile, the religious orders, who had always opposed the appointment of a bishop, deprived of the support of the Catholic King who favoured them more than their secular brethren, gradually disappeared, after having done much to keep alive the Catholic religion in Scotland. After the first shock experi­enced on the downfall of King James, a period of comparative tranquility, as has already been shown, was enjoyed; and the few Catholics that remained renewed their representations, and at last obtained the appointment of a bishop. In 1694 the choice fell on the Rev. Thomas Nicholson, who was named Bishop of Peristachium, Vicar Apostolic of all Scotland.

This prelate was not always a Catholic. Being born of Protestant parents, Thomas Nicholson, of Kemnay, and Elizabeth Abercrombie, of Birkenbog, in Banffshire, he was brought up according to their ideas. When of age, having studied to good purpose, he was appointed one of the Regents or Professors of the University of Glasgow; an office which he held for fourteen years. In 1682 he became a Catholic; and the same year went to study at Padua. He was not long there when he removed to the Scotch College at Douai, in order to complete his theological studies. In the course of three years he was promoted there to the priesthood; and in December, 1687, he returned to Scotland in order to fulfil there the duties of a missionary priest. Although possessed of a sufficient patrimony he had preferred being ordained “sub titulo missionis.” On occasion of the persecution which followed on the downfall of James II. he was seized along with many other priests of Scotland, cast into prison and then banished the kingdom. He was at Edinburgh, however, at the time of the riot above referred to, and was obliged to leave his resi­dence at midnight, making his escape through the midst of the mob, by whom he was not recog­nized. He was arrested afterwards at Stirling and imprisoned for some months there and at Edinburgh. His brother was admitted as bail for him on condition that he would leave the country and never return. Such was the price of liberty. He settled in France, which was the land of refuge for the greater number of the exiled clergy of Scotland. While in that country, he offi­ciated for three years as chaplain to a community of nuns at Dunkirk. When in 1694, the cardi­nals of Propaganda resolved that a bishop should be appointed to rule the mission of Scotland, Mr. Nicholson was; chosen in August of that fear, to fill this high dignity. The Briefs creating him Bishop of Peristachium and Vicar Apostolic of Scotland were promptly expedited, and he was consecrated at Paris, being still under sentence of exile, in the private chapel of the archie­piscopal palace. Mascaron, the celebrated preacher of the time, was the consecrating bishop; Barillon, Bishop of Lucon, and Ratabon of Ypres were the assistant bishops. For want of the necessary passports he was obliged to delay some time in Holland and Germany on his way to Scotland. On reaching London, in November, 1696, he was apprehended and detained in prison till May, 1697. As soon as he was at liberty, he proceeded on his journey, and passing through Edinburgh in the middle of July, he repaired to Gordon Castle, and there held conference with the neighbouring clergy on the state, and prospects of missionary matters. After the first shock of the revolution had come comparative peace, and the worthy bishop was blessed to continue, during twenty years, without any serious molestation, the exercise of his Episcopal functions. The field of his labours being so extensive, he could not remain any length of time in one place. He visited repeatedly almost every part of Scotland, extending his journeys to the remotest Islands, encouraging the clergy and their flocks, administering confirmation in districts where none had enjoyed the benefit of this Sacrament since the extinction of the ancient hierarchy.