This step could not fail to startle and exasperate the Covenanters, more especially as their deputies, (the Earl of Dunfermline and Lord Loudon,) who had been sent off to Court after the prorogation on 14th November, had been dismissed contemptuously, without ever being admitted to an audience of the King. When the King sent orders for the prorogation, which took place of that date, he also ordered Traquair up to London, to give an account personally of all the recent proceedings in Scotland. He was coldly received, in consequence of the concessions he had made, and his signing the Covenant. He was accused by the Covenanters of inciting the King to a new war, and is alleged to have made his peace by doing so; but, although this is stated by Burnet and others, we have never seen any evidence to substantiate the charge; and it is more probable that his best (as in truth it was his only) apology for the part he had acted, was, that he had no alternative but to yield to the dominant party, both in the Assembly and Scottish Parliament, or at once commit the King in open hostility with his northern subjects. Indeed, it seems utterly impossible that he, or any man, could have obeyed his instructions without at the same time outraging the whole policy and passions of the Covenanters, and precipitating another open revolt, before the King could have made any preparations to encounter its force. He had, however, obtained possession of a letter from the leaders of the Covenant, addressed to the King of France, soliciting protection and assistance—a document which, it appeared afterwards, had never been sent or perfected; and this document, as in duty bound, he produced to his Sovereign, as a proof of the treasonable purposes of the Covenanters. It is quite possible that, with such apparently good evidence in his possession, he might have represented to the King that nothing but force would curb the ambitious views of the Covenanting Nobles and Barons; but, in so doing, had it even been so, we cannot discover any rational ground for the inveterate hostility subsequently shewn to Traquair and Hamilton as incendiaries; for, whether the letter was or was not sent, it evinced the treasonable purpose which was cherished, of soliciting the assistance of a foreign potentate, for the accomplishment of their purposes; and both Traquair and Hamilton were bound, as loyal subjects, to make the fact known to the King, and to give him such advice as their opportunities of observation enabled them to afford.
Be this as it may, however, the Covenanters transmitted another petition to the King, by a person named Cuningham, requesting permission to send some of their number to Court to vindicate their proceedings. This the King granted, and Loudon and Dunfermline were again dispatched, on the 31st of January, for this purpose. On the 2d of March, (1640,) these Deputies got notice that the King would receive them next day in the Council Chamber; and, on that occasion, Loudon made an elaborate exposition of all the Scottish grievances, which, with the King’s counter Declaration, are too long for insertion in this work; but the curious reader will find them both embodied in Rushworth’s Collections.[243] Several other audiences were given, at the last of which (18th March) the King and Council declared that the Deputies had no sufficient authority to demand a ratification of the Acts of the preceding Assembly. On the 11th of April a warrant was given to Adams, one of the Sheriffs of London, to take Loudon into custody; and he was subsequently committed to the Tower, on a charge of high treason, for his participation in the letter above alluded to; and he was not liberated thence till the 27th of June following, upon certain conditions which were not very creditable to either of the parties.[244]
Of this transaction, there can, we think, be but one opinion among all honourable men. Whatever might be Loudon’s demerits as regarded the letter to the King of France, he went to England under the guarantee of a Royal protection; and he was not amenable to any tribunal in England, as a Scottish subject, for an imputed offence committed in Scotland. He pleaded this, and the acts of pacification and indemnity which had followed. It appeared, too, that the act of treason had never been consummated by transmission of the letter; and he offered himself for trial in Scotland. The King was saved the infamy of carrying his original purpose into execution by a trial in England, in consequence of the interposition of Hamilton, who represented the serious consequences which would ensue. But we must now turn to the movements in Scotland subsequently to the prorogation of its Parliament in November preceding.
The finances of the King having been exhausted by the useless parade on the Borders during the preceding summer, and a renewal of the war having been resolved on by his Majesty and “The Junto,” as it was termed, in whose advice he confided, (Canterbury, Strafford, Hamilton, and Morton,) Charles was constrained to have recourse to a Parliament in England. This was reluctantly adopted, as the only means by which the sinews of war could be provided—and was the first that had been called by the King during the space of twelve years, in the course of which he had managed to carry on a perilous system of government, by levying taxes in virtue of the prerogative, and other devices, which ultimately led to his ruin. A Parliament having been summoned in England, and the warlike purposes of the King having speedily been manifested, these things could not long escape the vigilance of the Scottish leaders; and a meeting of the Nobles, Gentry, and Ministers was summoned at Edinburgh on the 10th of March; when, with their wonted energy, they resolved to levy an army, to fortify all the strengths of which they could obtain possession, and to raise the requisite funds for the purpose, both by voluntary contributions and taxes; and such was the enthusiasm of the people, that plate, jewels, and whatever wealth a poor country could supply, were cheerfully poured into the coffers of the insurgents. The banner of “The Covenant” was once more unfurled, and the pulpits of the clergy again resounded with ardent exhortations to rally round it.
Meanwhile, the proceedings in England tended materially to promote the views of the Scottish leaders. Before the Parliament was assembled, the discontents of the English—which were mightily strengthened by the success of the Scottish insurrection of the previous summer—had attained a pitch of consistency and force, which was extremely favourable to their northern neighbours, who were further encouraged by a forged promise of support, apparently by some of the most influential English nobility. And the issue of the first Session of the English Parliament contributed powerfully to promote the cause of insurrection in Scotland—the discontents and movements in both kingdoms naturally acting and reacting on each other as incentives to resistance to the “kingly way” of government, which Charles endeavoured, so unfortunately for himself and his country, to carry on. The King had urgently pleaded for supplies from his English subjects to carry on the war against the Scotch, whom he represented as bent on the utter subversion of the monarchy. But the English House of Commons would not grant any supplies without a previous redress of their own grievances; and, finding them inflexible on this point, he had again recourse to his former practice of dissolving the Parliament, on the 13th of April.
The embarrassments of Charles, in consequence of this sturdy refusal of his English subjects to support him, were infinite; and, resorting to all his accustomed modes of raising men and money for the impending war, these were only aggravated by the means which he adopted to supply the want of subsidies. His army had been completely dislocated and disbanded; and many who had joined his standard the previous year, were now marshalled in the ranks of opposition; while the general dissatisfaction of the country, rendered all his exertions, and the voluntary contributions of those who still adhered to and supported him, altogether inadequate to the exigency of his affairs.
The Scottish leaders, when they dissolved their army in June 1639, had taken the precaution to secure the future services of the veteran officers whom they had employed on that occasion, should those services be required; and the troops, though dispersed in their several localities, were warned to be in readiness for another muster, perhaps at no remote period. When the tocsin was again sounded, therefore, the Scottish army was speedily re-organized under their old commander, Leslie; and it was already re-established in a condition fit for action, while the King was struggling hopelessly with his financial difficulties and the discontents of his English subjects.
The 2d of June, to which the Scottish Parliament had been prorogued, at length arrived; and although another commission for a further prorogation to July was sent down, some technical difficulty in communicating it to the States, furnished a reason for this not being done; and they readily availed themselves of what was really a quibble, to disregard the commission for adjournment, and declared themselves a lawful Parliament, in which they proceeded to enact into laws, all the Bills which had been introduced previous to the former prorogation. Ruthven, who commanded in Edinburgh Castle, and refused to surrender it, was forfeited, and a great Committee of Estates named, with sovereign authority to direct all matters civil and military. That Committee, as usual, opened diplomatic communications with the King through Lord Lanerick, the new Secretary for Scotland, to which it is needless to refer particularly, as these communications are given among the annexed documents; and, in short, the people of Scotland once more stood in an attitude of open hostility to their King.
While matters were in this position, and amidst general preparations for war, the 28th of July arrived, being the time appointed for the meeting of the General Assembly at Aberdeen. No Commissioner was appointed by the King; but, after waiting one day for a Commissioner, (should one have been named,) they proceeded, according to their own views of “the liberties of the Kirk,” to business; but did nothing that is worthy of remark at present. And here we pause in our introductory narrative, to be prosecuted with more spirit-stirring matter, when we reach the date at which it may be suitably resumed, postponing some of the earlier military operations, till we give them all in connection.
We shall, therefore, only further note that, previously to this meeting of Assembly, the seeds of disunion were sown in the Church by a miserable controversy among the Covenanters themselves, about private meetings for devotional purposes, which some of the leading men in the Church countenanced and others reprobated—a schism which was agitated at the Aberdeen Assembly, and at a future period increased, till the Presbyterian Church was divided into two furious factions, denouncing, excommunicating, and persecuting each other. For the nature and particulars of this schism, we refer to Baillie, in which these are given with his characteristic naivete and frankness.[245]