CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES IN SCOTLAND.

protest. Before the 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.1

253

CHAP.

VI.

1639. Aug. 30.

The Lords

of the

Articles to

be reconsti

tuted.

Parliament met on August 31. A constitutional Aug. 31. 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.

For the present Parliament a temporary compromise was arrived at. Traquair selected eight members of the nobility, and was wise enough to choose a majority of the eight from the supporters of the Covenant. These eight then chose eight from the estate of the Barons or country gentlemen, and eight from the estate of the Burgesses.

1 Peterkin's Records, 235.

СНАР.

VI.

1639.

Sept.

A permanent arrangement was more difficult to hit upon. Looking forward, as he did, to the ultimate restoration of Episcopacy,1 Charles would gladly have seen the fourteen Bishops replaced by fourteen ministers, whom he doubtless hoped ultimately to convert into Bishops. It was not likely that such a proposal would obtain any support whatever. It was obnoxious to the ministers, who had no wish to see some of their number elevated above the rest; and it was equally obnoxious to the nobility, who had no wish to share their power in Parliament with any of the clergy. Charles was therefore obliged to fall back upon a plan supported by a party amongst the Covenanters, of which Montrose was the leading spirit, which urged that the place of the Bishops should be taken by a body of fourteen laymen to be appointed by the King, and who, if, as must be supposed, they were to play the same part in the selection of the Lords of the Articles that had formerly been played by the Bishops, would have restored to the Crown the control of that important Committee. The re

3

1 "Il Rè sta tuttavia di buon animo, sperando che le cose possino passare per adesso in qualche maniera tollerabile con pensiero poi al sua tempo d'accomodarle a modo suo." Con to Barberini, Aug. 16 Add. MSS. 15,392, fol. 223. 2 Instructions to Traquair, Burnet, 150.

267

3 The vague statements in Airth's letter (Napier, Memoirs of Montrose, i. 226) may be elucidated from Rossingham's Newsletter of Oct. 7, Add. MSS. 11,045, fol. 61. "There is no agreement concerning the third estate yet. . . . The King hath a party in the Parliament that pleaded hard for the King that he may not lose the Bishops' fourteen voices, and therefore there hath been some propositions how to supply this third estate by introducing fourteen laymen to supply the Bishops which are included, but it does not take, many objections being urged against it. . . . The Earl of Montrose, the Lord Lindsay, two very active Covenanters, are body and soul for His Majesty in Parliament, in that particular of settling the third estate; so are divers others of the known Covenanters." This letter does not say that the fourteen were to be chosen by the King, but, if they were to be a substitute for 'The Bishops' voices,' this must have been intended.

MONTROSE AS A PARTY LEADER.

mainder, and, as it proved, the majority of the Covenanters, and especially the Barons and the Burgesses, were anxious to diminish the powers of the Lords of the Articles, and to make them a more exact representation of the House itself.

255

CHAP.

VI.

1639.

Sept.

of parties.

Montrose's

The parties thus formed were of permanent sig- Formation nificance in Scottish history. Montrose and his friends wished to break with Episcopacy for ever. policy. They were jealous of the popular movement which had made Episcopacy impossible, and they sought in the Crown a counterpoise, and more than a counterpoise, against the power which would be acquired by any members of their own order who chose to rest upon popular support. As might have been expected, Montrose's conduct exposed him to general distrust. The popular feeling was alarmed, and took expression in a placard which was affixed to his door: "Invictus armis, verbis vincitur." It could not be, it was thought, that the hero of the Covenant should have adopted the cause of the enemy of the Covenant, unless he had been beguiled by flattering words at his interview with Charles at Berwick.

In this charge there was doubtless much injustice. But it was not entirely unjust. Montrose could not understand, as Wentworth could never understand, how hard it was to work successfully for Charles. He presupposed that Charles intended to make a fresh start, and would reconcile himself to Scottish Presbyterianism. On October I Charles wrote to Traquair, announcing that though he had consented to refuses to the abolition of Episcopacy, he would not consent to any act rescinding the existing laws by which Epis- Episcopacy copacy had been established. "We cannot," he wrote, "consent to the rescinding any acts of Parliament made in favour of Episcopacy; nor do we conceive

Oct. 1.

Charles

rescind the

acts in favour of

CHAP.
VI.

1639.

Oct. I.

Argyle's policy.

that our refusal to abolish those acts of Parliament is contradictory to what we have consented to, or that we were obliged to. There is less danger in discovering any future intentions of ours, or, at the best, letting them guess at the same, than if we should permit the rescinding those acts of Parliament which our fathers with so much expence of time and industry established, and which may hereafter be of so great use to us." 1

Surely, in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird. The King's refusal to consent to a rescissory Act was an advertisement to all Presbyterians that they had nothing to expect from him. Montrose's political design was rendered hopeless from the beginning.

Montrose's opponents found a leader in Argyle. With the eye of a statesman, he perceived that the political meaning of the Presbyterian victory lay in the increased weight of the middle classes. Their ideas had prevailed in the Church, and their ideas must prevail in the State. The constitution of the Lords of the Articles must be made to give expression to this all-important fact. Montrose might try to support the nobility upon the unsafe foundation of the Royal power; Argyle would fall back upon the leadership of the middle classes.

It was difficult to carry the change which Argyle advocated through the Lords of the Articles, as they had been selected by Traquair. In the end it was voted by a bare majority of one, that each estate should in future choose its own Lords of the Articles. In this way the Barons and Burgesses would be represented by sixteen votes, the nobility by only eight, and the King by none at all. No Reform Bill in our own days has ever brought about anything approach1 The King to Traquair, Oct. 1, Burnet, 158.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS IN SCOTLAND.

257

VI.

1639.

Oct.

ing to the political change which was the result of CHAP. this decision.1 Henceforth the business of Parliament was to pass into the hands of a body fairly representing Parliament itself, whereas it had hitherto been in the hands of a body craftily contrived to represent the King.

changes

The legislative changes proposed by the Lords of Legislative the Articles were as distasteful to Charles as the con- proposed. stitutional changes. Episcopacy was to be abolished as unlawful within this Kirk,' and the Bishops were to be deprived of their votes in Parliament. A general taxation was to be levied to cover the expenses of the late war; and not only were the few Royalists in the country to be called on to pay their share of the burden of a defence which Charles styled rebellion, but that defence was expressly said to have been entered on for the sake of the laws and liberties of Scotland. The command of the castles of

1 Rossingham's Newsletter, Oct. 28, Add. MSS. 11,045, fol. 68. In an earlier letter of Oct. 21 the political situation is more fully depicted: "The Barons allege great mischiefs arise in their not choosing their own Commissioners for the Articles, so do the Burgesses, and the Nobility are divided about it. The Commissioners for the shires gave instructions to the Commissioners for the Articles requiring such things as quite overturn the very constitution of all future Parliaments, besides that they would choose the clerk of the Parliament, as all inferior judicatories do, which the King hath ever made choice of. Then they would have all the Bills and Supplications given to the Lords of the Articles by any member during the sitting in Parliament, that they may be read and answered accordingly; for they allege that the Lords of the Articles receive and reject what they please, to the great grievance of the whole kingdom, which they desire should be amended for time to come. Another of their propositions is that there be no public conclusion of any article which is to be passed or not passed for a law at the day of voicing; that before the conclusion a copy of every such article be given to every estate to be advised on by them with the representative body, that they may be more maturely advised on before the day of voicing, and that on the day of voicing, after one article is read, any member of Parliament may reason for it or against it, which hath not been the custom ever heretofore in that kingdom."