Such a solution impossible. Startling as the question was, it was one which could not but force itself on the minds of the Scottish leaders. There was something ridiculous in the phrases of devoted loyalty with which they besprinkled a King whom they were preparing to attack with force of arms. Yet, illogical as their position was, it was not in their power to abandon it. To do so would be to introduce hesitation into the hearts of their countrymen, when hesitation would have been ruinous, and would perhaps even raise qualms of conscience in their own bosoms. They therefore fell back on a technical informality in the manner in which the King's orders were presented to them. Montrose urged obedience on the ground that as long as they had a king they could not act without him. Argyle, Balmerino, Rothes, and Johnston significantly replied, 'that to do the less was more lawful than to do the greater.'1 They held that it was better to act without their sovereign than to depose him. June 2. Session of Montrose and his friends submitted. They were prepared to support the Royal authority if Charles showed himself ready to comply with the requirements of the Scottish nation. They were not ready to desert the cause Parliament. which they had hitherto upheld in the face of a Montrose's bearing so ambiguous as that of the King. Charles had as yet given no engagement to assent to the Acts abolishing Episcopacy. Nor were other causes wanting to position. ston, immediately to be quoted, that something of the kind was in agitation. "Montrose did dispute against Argyle, Rothes, Balmerino, and myself, because some urged that, as long as we had a king, we could not sit without him; and it was answered that to do the less was more lawful than to do the greater." Napier, Memoirs of Montrose, i. 236. 1 Napier, Memoirs of Montrose, i. 236. 2 "But the members of the said Parliament," wrote Montrose in 1645, "some of them having far designs unknown to us, others of them having found the sweetness of government, were pleased to refuse the ratification of the Acts of the Assembly, with the abjuration of Episcopacy and Court of High Commission, introduced by the Prelates, unless they had the whole alleged liberty due to the subject, which was, in fact, intrenching upon authority, and the total abrogation of his Majesty's royal prerogative; whereby the King's Commissioner was constrained to rise and discharge 1640 POSITION OF MONTROSE. 151 determine Montrose's action at this juncture of affairs. Sharing, as he did, to some extent in Strafford's ideas on the place of monarchy in constitutional government, though laying more stress than Strafford did on the duty of kings to take into consideration the wishes of their subjects, he was more under the limitations of nationality than Strafford was. Monarchy was not to him an authority disposing of the forces of the three kingdoms for the coercion of any one of them which happened to resist the wisdom of the Government. It was a purely Scottish institution. Beyond Scottish territory and Scottish men Montrose's thoughts did not travel. Whether Charles was right or wrong, he was to be resisted if he attempted to enforce his views by means of an army of English foreigners. Montrose, therefore, a half-hearted Covenanter it might be, was a Covenanter still. His fellow-countrymen became Covenanters, if possible, more resolutely than ever. The Scottish the Parliament, and was urged to levy new forces to suppress their unlawful desires; and, fearing lest their unlawful desires and our flat refusal of his Majesty's offer to conform to the conference foresaid, should have moved his Majesty to recall what he had condescended unto, to the prejudice of religion and liberties of the subject; and, on the other hand, calling to mind the oath of allegiance and covenant subscribed for the maintenance of his Majesty's honour and greatness-wrestling betwixt extremities, and resolved rather to suffer with the people of God for the benefit of true religion than to give way to his Majesty in what then seemed doubtsome, and being most unwilling to divide from them we were joined with in Covenant, did still undertake with them." (Napier, Memorials of Montrose, i. 218.) Whether this is a perfectly correct account of Montrose's state of mind five years before may perhaps be doubted; but it is at all events significant that he expresses doubts whether the King might not be induced to withdraw the concessions which he had made at Berwick. In writing to Charles in 1641 Montrose distinctly admits that the cause of the mischief was not to be sought only in the conduct of the subjects. They, he tells the King, are likely to fall from him if, by removing the cause and by the application of wholesome remedies, it be not speedily prevented. "They," he goes on to say, "have no other end but to preserve their religion in purity and their liberties entire." He even speaks as if some moderate alteration in the Acts ought to satisfy the King. Any difference that may arise upon the Acts passed in the last Parliament your Majesty's presence and the advice and endeavours of your faithful servants will easily accommodate." (Ibid. i. 268.) 66 June 11. The Acts passed. Parliament made short work of the questions at issue. It speedily converted into laws, as far as it was possible to do so without the Royal assent, all the Bills which had received the approbation of the Lords of the Articles before the prorogation in November. On June 11 the new constitution-it was nothing less than that— was formally approved of, and Parliament separated, leaving behind it a numerous Committee of Estates empowered to conduct the government of the country in its End of the session. The Committee of Estates. name. Of these Acts an enthusiastic Covenanter declared that they exhibited 'the next greatest change in one blow that ever happened to this church and state these six hundred years bypast; for in effect it overturned not only the ancient state government, but fettered monarchy with chains, and set new limits and marks to the same beyond which it was not legally to proceed.' 2 May. Failure of ship-money. State of If such was the view taken of these Acts at Edinburgh it was not likely that they would be acceptable to Charles. Yet it was hard to say what he could do. His army was still to be formed. Conway's 2,000 horse at Newcastle was the only force as yet disposable against the enemy. Conway's account of their condition was most depressing. The pistols which had been sent down to them were absolutely unserviceable, and, as no money was to be had from London to meet the expense of repairing them, he had to give orders that twopence a day should be deducted from the pay of the troopers. A mutiny was the result; and Conway, who had scant time to think of the Petition of Right, ordered one of the ringleaders to be shot. The soldiers themselves were not such as to be easy of guidance. "I am teaching," wrote Conway, "cart horses to manage, and men that are fit for Bedlam and Bridewell to keep the ten commandments; so that General Leslie and I keep two schools. He hath scholars that profess to serve God, and he is instructing them how they may safely dɔ i.e. boundaries. 2 3 Balfour, ii. 379. 1640 RESISTANCE TO SHIP-MONEY. 153 injury and all impiety. Mine to the uttermost of their power never kept any law either of God or the King, and they are to be made fit to make others keep them." 1 June 9. The City ordered to pay shipmoney. Almost as soon as the news of the determination of the Scottish Parliament to continue in session reached the King, a desperate effort was made to extract ship-money from the City of London. On June 9 the Lord Mayor and sheriffs were before the Council. The Lord Mayor was asked why he had not collected the money. He replied that he had done his best. "Why," asked the King, did you not distrain ? ” The poor man pleaded that one of his predecessors was the defendant in an action brought against him in the King's Bench by the indefatigable Richard Chambers for his conduct in collecting ship-money, and that he did not wish to be in the same position. "No man," said Charles peremptorily, "shall suffer for obeying my commands." Lord Mayor Garway was hardly the man to hold out as Alderman Soames had held out in the case of the loan. He was himself June 10 one of the collectors of the new impositions, and had Failure of made good profit out of an unparliamentary levy. the attempt to collect it. The next day, accompanied by the sheriffs, he went from house to house to demand the money for the King. In the whole City only one man was found to pay it. The Lord Mayor then bade the sheriffs to distrain the goods of the refusers. They told him that this 'was his business, not theirs.' Entering a draper's shop he took hold of a piece of linen. The owner coolly asked to be allowed to measure the stuff before he parted with it. When he had ascertained its length, he named the price of the goods, and said that he should charge it to his lordship's account.2 June 11. Coat-andconduct money in the City. On the 11th the Common Council met to consider another demand which had been recently made upon them. They had been required to furnish 4,000 men for the army, and to comply with the usual requisition 1 Conway to Laud, May 20; Conway to Northumberland, May 20; Conway to the Countess of Devonshire, May 28, S. P. Dom. ccccliv. 30, 38. 2 Rossingham's News-Letter, June 16, S. P. Dom. cccclvii. 36. for coat-and-conduct money. After some discussion. the meeting separated without returning an answer, and this postponement of a resolution was almost tantamount to a refusal.1 June 12. Charles thinks of using force with the City; Such a rebuff left Charles almost as much irritated with the City as he was with the Scottish Parliament. The ease with which he had gained the mastery over the turbulent apprentices brought the notion into his head that it would be possible to use armed force to compel the City to minister of its fulness to the necessities of the State. In his eyes the refusal of ship-money and of coat-andconduct money was a distinct rejection of legal obligations, and compulsion would thus only be used to bring offenders upon their knees. Such fancies remained with Charles no more than fancies. To carry them out would take time, and it might be that, before he had effected his purpose, a Scottish army would cross the Borders to throw its sword into the scale. It would therefore be necessary to take up once more and of nego. tiating with the scheme of a negotiation with the Scots. A peace with the northern kingdom might be patched up on the best terms which could be obtained, in the expectation that sooner or later an excuse would be given for recommencing the war with better chances, and for reducing Scotland to the obedience which it owed to its rightful King.2 the Scots. The Council to the Lord Mayor, May 31, Rushworth, iii. 1188. Common Council Journal, xxxix. 97, Corporation Records. ... 2 This rests on the testimony of Rossetti. He would be well informed by the Queen of what was passing. After speaking of the guards placed by the King at Somerset House and St. James's, he says that this was done 'poiche avrebbe voluto, sotto questo colore di reprimere tali seditioni, unire insieme le sue forze per meglio tenere in offitio la città, e costringerla formatamente à dargli qual sussidio di danaro che per via parlamentaria non ha potuto ottenere. Ma perchè per essere la stagione troppo inanzi, e questo dissegno del Rè solamente meditato, difficilmente o con molto progresso potrebbe effettuarlo in quest' anno, si è inteso di più che egli voglia pacificare in qualche buon modo gli Scozzesi per hora et intanto aggiustare le cose d'Inghilterra per nor. haver impedimento dietro le spalle, e provedersi di danari e d'altre cose necessarie per poter essere in termini à tempo più maturo di muoversi contro la Scotia, et per condurre S. M più cuatamente il tutto credesi che pensi di voler andare con apparecchio pacifico alle frontieri di quel Regno, accommodarsi in qual miglior |