1639 RESISTANCE IN SCOTLAND. 45 opposed in mutual defiance.1 Charles might have argued that Episcopacy was not as yet legally abolished, and that the presence of the bishops was necessary to the fair discussion which he contemplated. He did not understand that he was called on to sanction the results of a revolution, not to preside over a parliamentary debate. July 3. Riot at If the proclamation took for granted the illegality of the acts of the Glasgow Assembly, the protestation took for granted their legality. The feelings of the populace were expressed in a rougher fashion. Aboyne, who unwisely Edinburgh. ventured to show himself in the capital, was chased through the streets by an angry mob. Traquair's coachman was beaten. His Treasurer's staff was broken, and his coach pierced with swords. One of the judges, Sir William Elphinstone, was struck and kicked.2 Charles's displeasure may easily be imagined; but he was even less prepared to carry on war now than he had been in June. Hamilton told him plainly that the Scots July 5. The King's would have no bishops. If he meant to force Episdispleasure. copacy on the nation, he must summon an English Parliament, and be prepared for all the consequences which might flow from that step. misrepresented. Charles was the more angry because he discovered that a paper had been circulated in Scotland, purporting to be a July 6. report of conversations held with himself, in which Believes he was said to have consented tacitly to abandon himself to have been the bishops. Possibly the account may have been too highly coloured. Possibly, too, his own recollection may have fallen short of his actual words. At all events, he believed himself to have been foully misrepresented. Abandons His feeling was rather one of astonishment than the intention of anger. "Why," he complained to Loudoun, "do you use me thus?" 3 Yet, if he had no choice but to give up the bishops, he could not bring himself to pro of going to Edinburgh. I Proclamation and Protestation, July 1, Peterkin's Records, 230. 2 Baillie, i. 220. Borough to Windebank, July 5, S. P. Done. CCCCXXV. 22. 3 Unsigned letter, July 11, S. P. Dom. ccccxxv. 51. July 8. nounce the fatal words. The intention of appearing in person at Edinburgh was abandoned. Hamilton, too, had Hamilton no mind to expose himself again to obloquy. He Commission resigned his commissionership, and Traquair was ership. appointed in his room.1 resigns the 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 communications with them. 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 Into the dark mysteries of Hamilton's intrigues, it is impossible to enter further. As matters stood, no real between the King and 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 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 by those counsellors who were most hostile to the Scots. "For the Scottish business," Laud wrote to Roe, "'tis returns to Whitehall. 1 Rothes to Murray, Aug., Ham. Papers, 98. 2 De Vic to Windebank, July 16, S. P. Dom. ccccxxvi. 50. 3 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, 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 commission resigned his commissionership, and Traquair was ership. appointed in his room.1 resigns the The Covenanting leaders sent for. A 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. 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 communications with them. 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 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.1 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 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 Aug. 3. returns to Rothes to Murray, Aug., Ham. Papers, 98. 2 De Vic to Windebank, July 16, S. P. Dom. ccccxxvi. 50. 3 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. |