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. 1639. Sept. of parties. The parties thus formed were of permanent sig- Formation nificance in Scottish history. Montrose and his Montrose's 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 1 Charles wrote to Traquair, announcing that though he had consented 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 refuses to acts in rescind the favour of CHAP. 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 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. 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." VI. 1639. Oct. Charles makes up CHAP. Edinburgh, Stirling, and Dumbarton was to be entrusted to none but Scottish subjects, and though these governors were still to be selected by the King they were not to be admitted to exercise their authority until they had been approved by the Estates. Taken as a whole, the new legislation implied that Parliament and not the King was to be the central force in Scotland. Before the end of October Charles had made his mind to up his mind to resist. It was not the government of the Church alone that was at stake. Civil obedience, he held, was no longer to be had in Scotland. He sent orders to Traquair to prorogue Parliament till March. Oct. 31. Traquair was met by the assertion that the King had no right to prorogue Parliament without its own consent. So strong was the opposition, that Traquair consented to a short adjournment to November 14, to give him time to consult Charles afresh. Two lords, Dumfermline and Loudoun, were despatched to England to plead the cause of Scotland before the King.2 resist. Adjourn ment of Parlia ment. The day of the adjournment was signalised by a distribution of favours amongst those who had taken Charles's part. Hamilton's brother became Earl of Lanark; Lord Ogilvy was created Earl of Airlie ; Lord Dalziel appeared as Earl of Carnwath. Amongst the newly-created lords was Ruthven, the Governor of Edinburgh Castle, who was now to assume the title of Lord Ettrick. It was impossible for Charles to signify more clearly that opposition to the national will was the surest road to such honours as he had it in his power to distribute. He had done all that 3 1 Acts of Parl. of Scotl. (new edition), v. 595. Rushw. iii. 1040. Gordon, iii. 64. Sir T. Hope's Diary, 110. Lockhart to Traquair, Nov. 8, Hailes' Memorials, 76. Spalding, i. 230, 235. Balfour, ii. 361. Rossetti to Barberini, Nov. 1, R. O. Transcripts. Salvetti's Newsletters, Nov. 1 i 3 Balfour's Annals, ii. 362. 15 25 THE WAR IN GERMANY. 259 VI. could be done to arouse suspicion. He had done CHAP. nothing whatever to increase his chance of being able to carry his intentions into effect. 1639. Oct. 31. relations tal Powers. Feb. Charles's misfortunes never came alone. The same Charles's want of perception of the conditions of action which had with the baffled him in Scotland baffled him in his dealing with Continen the Continental Powers. The year had been a year of gloom for him in every direction. Early in the spring he had learned from Roe that there was no likelihood that any such treaty as that which he had sent him to negotiate would ever be obtained.1 Before long the Baner in Swedish General Baner, careless of the fortunes of the Thuringia. Elector Palatine, was pushing forward in triumph through Thuringia, if a commander can be said to triumph who marches forward unchecked through scenes of havoc and desolation. "It is no more war, but spoil," wrote the English Ambassador, " without difference of friend or foe, and therein also I give it a civil name. Men hunt men as beasts for prey in the woods and on the ways." Charles indeed was hopeful, but his hopefulness was not for Germany or for humanity. The one thing he cared for, amidst these horrors, was to regain the Palatinate for his nephew. He assured his sister that when he had gained that victory in Scotland to which he was at that time looking forward with confidence, his power to assist her son would be as free as his will. Disappointed of aid from Sweden, Charles turned his eyes wistfully to Bernhard of Weimar. Like Charles Bernhard Lewis, Bernhard was a dispossessed prince. Like Charles Lewis, he had good cause to be jealous of the French Government. He knew that, if he had won victories by Richelieu's aid, Richelieu coveted for his master the cities and lands of Alsace which had been of Weimar, |