1639

May. Relations

Scotland and

FRANCE AND SCOTLAND.

91

were the result of Richelieu's intrigues. As a matter of fact, 1639. Richelieu had taken no part in them. It is true, indeed, that in May 1639 a certain William Colvill between had been instructed by the Covenanting leaders. France. to visit the Hague and Paris, in order to ask for the mediation of the States-General and the King of France, whilst another agent was to go with a similar object to the Queen of Sweden and the King of Denmark. Scruples, however, against · the propriety of asking for foreign intervention prevailed; and, though the letters which these agents were to have carried were written, they were not despatched.1

In proposing to make application to France, the Scots did. but revive the old policy of their ancestors. The memory of the ancient league had not died away. Scottish archers still guarded the person of the King of France, and Scottish visitors to Paris in need of protection were in the habit of going straight to Richelieu's Scottish chaplain Chambers, seldom troubling themselves to pay even a visit of ceremony to the English Ambassador. Even in our days it has sometimes happened that a Scotsman can procure unwonted attention in Paris by the mere mention of his nationality.

Bellievre advocates

intervention.

The policy of giving active assistance to the Covenanters had a warm advocate in Bellievre. He had long ago entered into communication with their leaders, and had sent emissaries to Scotland to watch the course of affairs. When Dunfermline and Loudoun arrived in London at the end of the year, they sent to the Ambassador to ask for French support in case of need. In return, they were ready to engage to make no further treaty with Charles in which their alliance with France was not recognised, as well as to stipulate for the admission of Scots to the Committee of Foreign Affairs,2 where they

December.

Offers of
Dunfermline

and
Loudoun.

1 Baillie, i. 190. Draft to the King of France, Hailes's Memorials, 60. The letter ultimately written is printed in Rushworth, iii. 1,119. In Mazure's Hist. de la Révolution, ii. 405, where it is also printed, it is followed by an instruction which is of a later date, and has no connection with the abortive mission of 1639.

2 This proposal was based on a suggestion made by Bellievre in the

autumn.

would be in a position to give warning of anything which might be contemplated to the prejudice of that alliance.

Bellievre would gladly have fallen in with this proposal. Richelieu would not hear of it.

Richelieu refuses to accept them.

had been warning the

All through the summer he Ambassador that it would be unwise to enter into any engagements with the Scots. The sagacious Cardinal held that Charles would ruin himself without any effort on the part of France. He now positively ordered Bellievre not to mettle in the affairs of Scotland. It was probably in consequence of this rebuff that Bellievre was recalled, at his own request. Early in January he returned to Paris.1

1640. January. Bellievre's recall.

February. Scottish Commis

sioners in London.

In the beginning of February Traquair arrived in London, bringing with him the Scottish Commissioners who had been deputed to lay the case of their countrymen before the King. By neither side could it be seriously expected that any good would result from their mission; and Charles was more especially distrustful because Traquair had come into possession 2 of the letter which the Covenanters had intended to send to France by Colvill in the preceding spring. When Charles saw it he was confirmed in all his suspicions. Now, he thought, he would be able to prove to all men that religion had been but the pretext under which the Scots had cloaked deliberate treason.

The letter to
Louis falls

into

Charles's

hands.

Feb. 18.

-of Edin

reinforced.

Nor were the Scots more hopeful of a satisfactory The garrison issue. They did not, indeed, break out into open burgh Castle resistance, and they even allowed a hundred English soldiers to enter the Castle of Edinburgh, as a reinforcement of Ettrick's scanty garrison. Yet they knew that they must be prepared for the worst, and, on the day after the soldiers entered, Colvill was despatched to

Feb 19.

Colvill despatched to France.

5

20 30,

1 Chavigny to Bellievre. Louis XIII. to Bellievre, April Dec. Dec. 30, Bibl. Nat. Fr. 15,915, fol. 302, 393, 398. Bellievre to De la

Jan. 9

Barde,

2 Balfour, iii. 76.

3 Ettrick to the King, Feb. 18, S. P. Dom. ccccxlix. 58.

1640

A LETTER TO LOUIS.

93

France with a second letter asking for the mediation of Louis in the name of the ancient league.1

To this letter Montrose's signature was appended. If he was tending towards Charles, he had not yet gone over to him Montrose's altogether. It was necessary to keep up appearances, position. and in December he had been compelled by popular clamour to refuse an invitation to Court which had reached him from Charles himself. Yet it would probably be unjust to ascribe his conduct simply to a wish to keep up appearances. It may very well be that Charles's reluctance to throw the bishops frankly overboard had its effect upon Montrose as well as upon others. How much Charles's hesitation on this point contributed to give strength to his political opponents is evident to all dispassionate inquirers. Sir Thomas Hope was one of the most fanatical of the Covenanters. "My lord," he said one day to Rothes, who had assured him that the King meant to restore the bishops, "let no reports move you, but do your duty. Put his Majesty to it, and if it be refused then you are blameless. But if on these reports ye press civil points, his Majesty will make all Protestant princes see that you have not religion for your end, but the bearing down of monarchy."3 If Charles expected to derive any strength from the monarchical sentiment which was still living in Scotland, he must agree quickly with the Presbyterians.

Hope's conversation with Rothes.

The Scottish

ers heard.

Unluckily for Charles, it was to England rather than to Scotland that he was looking for help. In his discussions with the Scottish Commissioners he showed no alacrity Commission to win the hearts of Scotsmen by any plain declaration on the subject of Episcopacy. After some preliminary fencing, he took up the position that 'the supreme magistrate must have authority to call assemblies and to dissolve them, and to have a negative voice in them as is accustomed in all supreme powers of Christendom.' 4 He

March.

1 The Covenanters to Louis XIII., Feb. 19, Bibl. Nat. Fr. 15,915, fol. 410. The instructions printed by Mazure, ii. 406, refer to this mission. 2 Montrose to the King, Dec. 26, Napier, Memoirs of Montrose, i. 228. Hope's Diary, Jan. 14, 115.

• Rushworth, iii. 1035.

felt truly that the proposed acts contained nothing less than a political revolution; but he had nothing positive to offer. Even when the Commissioners observed that, after all, the Bills had not yet passed the Articles, and were consequently still open to revision, he made no attempt to seize the opportunity by announcing his readiness to assent to the Bill for repealing the Acts by which Episcopacy had been legalised. No wonder the Commissioners were left under the impression that his reservation of the negative voice implied a purpose to restore Episcopacy on the first favourable opportunity.1

February.

These discussions, meaningless in themselves, were carried on in the midst of warlike preparations. On February 24 arrangements were made for pressing 30,000 foot Preparations from the several counties south of the Humber, the for war. northern shires being excused as having borne the burden heavily in the last campaign. At Edinburgh an appeal to arms was no less imminent. On the 25th some ill-built works which had been erected as a defence burgh. to the castle, fell down, and the population of the town refused to allow Etrick to carry in the materials needed to repair the damage. A few days later the Earl of Southesk, Sir Lewis Gordon, and other noted Royalists were seized and imprisoned.3 The struggle for sovereignty in Scotland was evidently about to recommence.

Occurrences in Edin

March.

Strafford

sets out for Ireland.

One gleam of hope shone upon Charles's path. On March 16 Strafford crossed the Irish Sea, suffering, as he was, from his March 16. old disease, the gout. "Howbeit," he gaily wrote as he was preparing to embark, "one way or other, I hope to make shift to be there and back again hither in good time, for I will make strange shift and put myself to all the pain I shall be able to endure before I be anywhere awanting to my master or his affairs in this conjuncture; and therefore, sound or lame, you shall have me with you before the beginning

1 Rushworth, iii. 994, 1018.

2 Nicholas's Minutes, Feb. 24, S. P. Dom. ccccxlv. 6.

Ettrick to the King, March 2, 11, 25, ibid. ccccxlvii. 6, 89, ccccxlviii. 81. Spalding, i. 260.

1640

STRAFFORD IN IRELAND.

95

of the Parliament. I should not fail, though Sir John Eliot were living."

" 1

Strafford kept his word. On the 18th he landed in Ireland. The Parliament had been already two days in session. A body so equally divided was always at the disposal of a strong ruler. With his little phalanx of officials well

Meeting of the Irish Parliament.

in hand, he could throw the majority in the House of Commons on which side he pleased. In 1634 he had thrown it on the side of the colonists of English birth. In 1640 he threw it on the side of the native Irish. Predisposed by their religious ties to dread the victory of the Covenanting Scots, the Irish Catholics would be ready to follow Strafford at least so long as he could convince them of his power, When he left England he had intended to ask for six subsidies, a grant which was estimated as equivalent to 270,000l. On the recommendation of the Council, however, he contented himself with asking for four, or 180,000l., on condition that the Commons would supplement it by a declaration that, if more were required, more should be given.2

March 23. Four subsidies voted.

The demand was made on the 23rd. Never was there a greater appearance of unanimity. Abhorrence of the Covenanters expressed itself in every word which was uttered, The King was thanked for not having taken what he needed by a simple act of the prerogative. He was assured that his Irish subjects would supply his needs if they left no more than hose and doublet to themselves. When the vote was taken, not a single negative was heard. Hands were stretched aloft and hats flung into the air, in a burst of enthusiasm. Those who witnessed the scene declared that if one part of the assembly was more vehement than another, it was that in which the native Irish were to be found.

Strafford to

(?), March 16, Strafford Letters, ii. 303. The editor gives this letter as written to Secretary Coke, though Coke was no longer Secretary. I suspect Conway to have been the recipient.

2 The King to Strafford, March 2, 3. The Irish Council to Windebank, March 19, 23, Strafford Letters, ii. 391, 394, 396, 397. Cromwell to Conway, March 31, S. P. Dom. ccccxlix. 47.