nounce the fatal words. The intention of appearing in person at Edinburgh was abandoned. Hamilton, too, had July 8. Hamilton no mind to expose himself again to obloquy. He resigns the commission resigned his commissionership, and Traquair was ership. appointed in his room.1

The Covenanting leaders sent for.

If the Covenanters complained of Charles for his continued support of the bishops, Charles had to complain of them that in some respects the Treaty of Berwick had not been put in execution. The Tables had not been at once dissolved. Hindrances had been placed in the way of the entrance of stores into Edinburgh Castle. A regiment was still kept on foot under Colonel Monro, and the fortifications of Leith were not demolished. Leslie still behaved as if his commission as general retained its force. Charles accordingly sent for the Covenanting leaders to confer with him at Berwick. Those for whom he sent did not all obey the summons. Argyle sent a hollow excuse. The Edinburgh citizens prevented others from setting out on what they believed to be a perilous journey. Six only of the number, Rothes and Montrose amongst them, appeared at Berwick.2

July 16. Hamilton's communica

During the days of this visit to Berwick, Hamilton had been busy. He was authorised by a special warrant to enter into communication with the Covenanters, in order that he might learn their plans. He was to gain their confidence by speaking as they spoke, and that he might do this fearlessly he was exonerated from all penalties to which he might make himself liable by traitorous or seditious expressions.3

tions with them.

Into the dark mysteries of Hamilton's intrigues, it is impossible to enter further. As matters stood, no real July 17. Altercation understanding was possible. Between the King and Rothes there was a bitter personal altercation. Rothes. Charles twice called the Earl to his face an equivocator and a liar. To the King's demand that all that could

between the King and

1 Burnet, 144, 146.

2 De Vic to Windebank, July 15; Borough to Windebank, July 21, S. P. Dom. ccccxxv. 77, ccccxxvi. 22.

3 Warrant, July 17, Hardwicke S. P. ii. 141.

1639

July 21.

A PROVISION FOR THE FUTURE.

47

be said in favour of Episcopacy should be freely urged at Edinburgh, Rothes replied that if his countrymen were not allowed to rid themselves of the bishops at home, they would be forced to open an attack upon the bishops of England and Ireland. On the 21st Rothes and his companions were sent back, with orders to return on the 25th, together with those who had been detained in Edinburgh. On the 25th Dunfermline, Loudoun, and Lindsay arrived alone. They promised to dismiss the troops and pull down the fortifications of Leith; but mutual confidence was altogether wanting, and Charles informed them that he had given up his intention of appearing at Edinburgh in person.2

July 25. Another deputation at Berwick.

July 27. Traquair's instructions.

The Covenanters believed that Charles was still hankering after the restoration of Episcopacy. They were not altogether in the wrong. In the instructions given to Traquair, on the 27th, Charles declared that he had commanded the bishops to absent themselves from the Assembly, and that he was ready to agree to the abolition of Episcopacy if it was not declared to be positively unlawful, but only 'contrary to the constitution of the Church of Scotland.' Such a reservation might appear to be no more than the satisfaction due to a scrupulous conscience. There can, however, be little doubt that it was more than this. Unless we are misinformed, Traquair told the King that in the absence of the bishops the proceedings in Parliament would be null and void, and that he would therefore be able, without violation of the law, to reintroduce Episcopacy whenever he felt himself strong enough to do so.3 The prospect thus opened before Charles was one which he Aug. 3. was sure to regard with satisfaction. On August 3 he Charles was once more at Whitehall. There he was surrounded Whitehall. by those counsellors who were most hostile to the Scots. “For the Scottish business,” Laud wrote to Roe, "'tis

returns to

1 Rothes to Murray, Aug., Ham. Papers, 98.

2 De Vic to Windebank, July 16, S. P. Dom. ccccxxvi. 50. This rests on Burnet's testimony. He had many documents before him which are now lost, and his care in giving the substance of those which have been preserved speaks in his favour,

Laud's opinion of

ings in

true I sent you the happy word of peace, but what the thing will be in future I know not. Had I liked the conditions at the very first, I would have been as ready the proceed to have given you notice of them as of the peace Scotland. itself. But I knew they would come soon enough to you, and I had no great joy to express them. 'Tis true that things were referred to a new Assembly and Parliament, but in such a way as that, whereas you write that the perfection of wisdom will consist in the conduct of them, there will certainly be no room left for either wisdom or moderation to have a voice there; but faction and ignorance will govern the Assembly, and faction, and somewhat else that I list not to name,1 the Parliament; for they will utterly cast off all episcopal government, and introduce a worse regulated parity than is anywhere else that I know. How this will stand with monarchy, future times will discover; but, for my own part, I am clear of opinion the King can have neither honour nor safety by it; and considering what a faction we have in England which leans that way, it is much to be feared this Scottish violence will make some unfitting impressions upon both this Church and State, which will much concern the King both in regard of himself and his posterity to look to.” 2

Aug. 4. The Scottish

at Berwick

to be burnt.

Aug. 6.

Charles's first act after his return was one of defiance to the Scottish leaders. He found that the report which they had issued of his conversations with them at Berwick was report of the circulating in England. He ordered that it should proceedings be burnt by the public hangman.3 His next step was to direct the Scottish bishops to draw up a protest against the legality of the approaching Assembly The bishops and to place it privately in Traquair's hands. "We to draw up a would not," wrote the King to Spottiswoode, “have it either read or argued in this meeting, when nothing but partiality is to be expected, but to be represented to us by him; which we promise to take so into consideration as becometh a prince sensible of his own interest and honour, joined "Treason" is probably meant.

secret pro

testation.

2 Laud to Roe, July 26, Works, vii. 583.

Act of State, Aug. 4, S. P. Dom. ccccxxvii. 14.

1639

THE ASSEMBLY OF EDINBURGH.

49

with the equity of your desires; and you may rest secure that, though perhaps we may give way for the present to that which will be prejudicial both to the Church and our own government, yet we shall not leave thinking in time how to remedy both." 1

Charles, in short, was to cozen the Scots by appearing to yield everything, whilst he was secretly preparing an excuse which would justify him in his own eyes in taking back all that he had yielded, whenever he was strong enough to do so. He was too conscientious to tell a direct falsehood, but he was not conscientious enough to abstain from conveying a false impression. The student of these transactions may perhaps be able to comprehend the meaning of that dark saying of Luther : "If thou sinnest, sin boldly."

Aug. 12. Opening of

the Assem

bly.

Whether the Scottish leaders were fully informed of these machinations or not, they had a clear knowledge of the spirit in which Charles was prepared to meet the proposals of the coming Assembly and Parliament. "All they that incline to the Covenanters' side," wrote a correspondent of Secretary Coke, "are very sorry such a commissioner shall be there, who is to make his protestation of his Majesty's prerogative, in case the bishops shall be excluded out of that realm." 2 Such feelings, however, were not as yet shared by the large majority of the Scottish people. They believed that they had at last attained the object of their desires. On August 12 the Assembly was opened in due form by Traquair at Edinburgh. No public notice was given of the Aug. 17. protest of the bishops. On the 17th Episcopacy and Episcopacy all its attendant ceremonies were swept away as ruthagain abolished. lessly as they had been swept away at Glasgow. Old men who had known the evil days shed tears of joy as they looked upon a beautiful day, and that under the conduct and favour of the King. "Blessed for evermore," cried one of those who were present, "be our Lord and King Jesus, and the blessing of God be upon his Majesty, and the Lord make 'The King to Spottiswoode, Aug. 6, the Bishops' Declinator, Aug. 10, 11, Burnet, 154.

6

us thankful." When Traquair signified his assent to the Act in his master's name, the enthusiasm of the Assembly knew no bounds. "We bless the Lord," said Dickson, the Moderator, "and do thank King Charles, and pray for the prosperity of his throne and constancy of it so long as the sun and the moon endure."

Before the Assembly dispersed, it showed its renewed The Cove. loyalty by adding a Royalist explanation to the Covenant, and then asked that every Scottish subject might be called on to subscribe it in this amended

nant to be

enforced.

Aug. 30. form.1

protest.

Against this unwarrantable interference with the conscience of individual Scots, Traquair raised no protest. Before the Traquair's Assembly separated, however, he protested, as Charles had directed him to do, that the King would not engage to call Assemblies annually, and that he would not accept the abolition of Episcopacy as 'unlawful within this kirk,' unless the illegality were defined as arising merely from its being contrary to the constitution thereof.' Otherwise Charles might be urged to draw the inference that what was unlawful in Scotland was unlawful in England as well.2

Aug. 31. The Lords of the

Articles to be reconstituted.

Parliament met on August 31. A constitutional question of the highest importance was immediately raised. The absence of the bishops brought with it not merely the loss of fourteen votes to the King, but it disarranged the artificial machinery by which the nomination of the Lords of the Articles had been left practically in the hands of the Crown. This Committee, having complete authority over the amendment and rejection of Bills, whilst the mere final vote of Aye or No upon the Bills in the form in which the Lords of the Articles passed them was all that was left to Parliament as a body, was of far more importance than Parliament itself. It was evident that in some way or other it must be extensively remodelled, and that on the mode in which it was remodelled the future constitutional influence of the Crown would to a great extent depend.

1 Peterkin's Records, 204. Burnet, 157.

2 Peterkin's Records, 235.