СНАР. 1637. Oct. 18. The tion. Council and the Court of Session from Edinburgh. He had been able to do so because he had the nobility and the country at large on his side. The men who guarded his Councillors through the streets were no longer, as their fathers had been, on the side of the King against the Capital. The reply of the petitioners was a General SuppliSupplica- cation, in which the Bishops were pointed at as the authors of the calamities of the Church. Charles was asked to allow them to be put on their trial, and, as they were now parties in the case, to prohibit them from sitting in the Council as judges of matters relating to the present dispute.1 The peti tioners assume the offensive. The petitioners had thus changed their defence into an attack. Not we, they said in effect, but the Bishops are the breakers of the law. The demand that the Bishops should not be judges in their own case was the same as that which, four months before, had been received with derision when it proceeded from the lips of Bastwick in the English Star Chamber. In the heat of discussion before the Council, Bishop Sydserf and Hay threw out a suggestion which had unexpected consequences. Why should not the mass of the petitioners return home, leaving behind a few of their number to speak in their name? The petitioners took them at their They word. They chose a body of Commissioners from missioners. amongst themselves. From that moment, if the nation rallied round the new Commissioners, it would have a government, and that government would not be the King's. There were no more riots in chooseCom Edinburgh.2 To a man of practical instincts, like Traquair, the outlook was indeed pitiable. "I am in all things," 1 Large Declaration, 42. Rothes, 17. Baillie, 35, 38. ORGANISED RESISTANCE. he wrote, "left alone, and, God is my witness, never so perplexed what to do. Shall I give way to this people's fury which, without force and the strong hand, cannot be opposed?" It was hard for him to believe that a compromise was no longer possible. Why, he asked Rothes, could they not agree to accept the English Prayer Book as it stood? Rothes would not hear of it, and the resolution of Rothes was the resolution of his countrymen.1 On November 15, the petitioners returned to Edinburgh. Their Commissioners, hastily chosen, were to give way to a more permanent body, composed of six or more noblemen, two gentlemen from each shire, one townsman from each borough, and one minister from each Presbytery. Traquair, seeing that authority was slipping out of his hands, remonstrated warmly; but Sir Thomas Hope, the Presbyterian Lord Advocate, gave an opinion that the petitioners were acting within their rights, and further opposition was impossible.2 121 CHAP. III. 1637. Oct. 19. Nov. 15. Organisa tion of the Commis sioners. waits for an In the persons of the Commissioners, Scotland Scotland waited, not impatiently, for an answer. If Charles answer. could frankly abandon the Service Book, as Elizabeth had once abandoned the monopolies, he might, perhaps, have saved some fragments of authority for the Bishops. He could not even make up his mind to announce his intentions plainly. On December 7, a proclamation issued at Linlithgow, where the Council, in obedience to the King, was now sitting, declared that, on account of the riots at Edinburgh, the answer to the supplication would be delayed. All that Charles had to say was, that he abhorred Popery, and would consent to nothing which did not Traquair to Hamilton, Oct. 19; Hardw. St. P. ii. 95. Rothes, 22. 2 Ibid. 23. Dec. 7. The procla mation at gow. Linlith CHAP. III. 1637. Dec. 7. Dec. 21. The Suppli Declinator. tend to the advancement of the true religion as it was 'presently professed' in Scotland. "Nothing," the proclamation ended by saying," is or was intended to be done therein against the laudable laws of this His Majesty's native kingdom.": Scotsmen had made up their minds with almost cation and complete unanimity that those laudable laws had been broken. In vain Traquair begged that the King should be propitiated. The deputation from the City of Edinburgh might wait on him at Whitehall, offering him their charter and the keys of their gates,' as a mere matter of course.2 The Commissioners would not hear of the suggestion. It must be settled once for all, whether it was in accordance with the law of Scotland that a king could change the forms of worship without the sanction of any legislative assembly whatever. Dec. 8. Dec. 21. Protest Bishops re the Council. At last, on December 21, a copy of the General against the Supplication which had been drawn up in October, maining in was formally handed in by the Commissioners to the Privy Council, accompanied by a formal demand that the case between themselves and the Bishops might be judicially determined, and that the Bishops might in the meanwhile be removed from the Council. 1638. Before long, Charles sent for Traquair, to hear from his own mouth his opinion on the state of affairs in London. in Scotland. It would have been well if he had more Feb. Traquair seriously attended to that cool and dispassionate adviser. The Lord Treasurer assured him that the Scottish people had no wish to cast off his authority, but they would not look on idly whilst their religion was assailed. Above all, they were proud of their 1 Proclamation, Dec. 7; Large Declaration, 46. CHARLES JUSTIFIES THE PRAYER BOOK. ancient independence, and they would not take orders from the Archbishop of Canterbury.1 His Majesty must plainly understand, that if he wished the new Prayer Book to be read in Scotland, he must support it with an army of 40,000 men. To withdraw the Service Book and to assert his civil authority, was the substance of this advice. Charles listened, but was not convinced. Traquair was sent back with orders to issue a proclamation which was virtually a declaration of war." That proclamation was read on February 19, in the streets of Stirling, where the Council, after leaving Linlithgow, had been allowed to take up its quarters, rather than in the more distant Dundee. Charles truly asserted that he, and not the Bishops, was responsible for the issue of the Prayer Book. "As much," he said, "as we, out of our princely care of maintenance of the true religion already professed, and for beating down of all superstition, having ordained a Book of Common Prayer to be compiled for the general use and edification of our subjects within our ancient kingdom of Scotland, the same was accordingly done, in the performing whereof we took great care and pains so as nothing passed therein but what was seen and approved by us, before the same was either divulged or printed, assuring all our loving subjects that not only our intention is, but even the very book will be a ready means to maintain Feb. 24 2 Ven. Transcripts. 1 Zonca's Despatches, Jan. 18, Feb. 1 Mar 2 "Your Lordship can best witness how unwilling I was that our master should have directed such a proclamation; and I had too just grounds to foretell the danger and inconveniences which are now like to ensue thereupon." Traquair to Hamilton, March 5; Hardw. St. P. ii. 101. Mr. Burton must have overlooked this passage when he wrote that the proclamation was too nearly in the tone of the advice which Traquair had given.' Hist. of Scotland, vi. 477. 123 СНАР. III. 1638. Feb. Feb. 19. The King s defence of the Prayer Book. СНАР. 1638. Feb. 19. The Protestation. Rothes's circular. the true religion already professed, and beat out all superstition, of which we in our time do not doubt but in a fair course to satisfy our good subjects." His Royal authority, he proceeded to say, was much impaired by the petitions and declarations which had been sent to him. All who had taken part in them were liable to high censure, both in their persons and their fortunes, as having convened themselves without his permission. He was, however, ready to pass over their fault, provided that they returned home at once, and abstained from all further meetings. If they disobeyed, he should hold them liable to the penalties of treason.' Charles could not see why, if the Prayer Book had satisfied himself, it should not satisfy others. The objection that it had no legal authority he treated with contemptuous disregard. All the more tenaciously did the Scottish leaders cling to legal forms. As soon as the herald had finished his task, Johnston stepped forward to protest against it in their name. They treated the proclamation as the work of the Council alone, and announced that from that body they would accept no orders as long as the Bishops retained their places in it. They demanded to have recourse to their sacred sovereign, to present their grievances and in a legal way to prosecute the same before the ordinary competent judges, civil or ecclesiastical.' 2 If this appeal to the law was to have any weight with Charles, it must be supported by an appeal to the nation. Rothes, who had been placed by his energy and decision at the head of the movement, despatched a circular letter to the gentlemen who 1 Proclamation, Feb. 19; Large Declaration, 48. |