out consulting of the Committee who were commanded by the Parliament to attend the army. Those who received the commission, and dispatched away MrEleazar, were some of the Committee. The deponer could not condescend upon their names, and, in respect the deponer was urged by the Committee to show, and set under his hand, what further he knows upon the foresaid question, being loath to touch upon these parties, whom he respected, desired to be delayed until he had acquitted himself to them, which being refused by the Committee, he declared that he understood, by the Earl of Argyle, that the Earl of Rothes had written to him, to let him know if his Lordship had a mind to he Chancellor of Scotland, and likewise did see the Earl of Argyle's answer to the Earl of Rothes, wherein he did show that he had no such intention." Nor did Keir retract what he had said, for it appears that on the 12th of August he was again examined, and pressed upon the allegation of the "indirect practising of a few," when he "declares, as in his former deposition of the fifth day of August in the afternoon, after he was commanded by the Parliament to depone, to which deposition he adheres."† The fact thus brought out was of course not made the subject of inquisitorial investigation, it being no part of the covenanting scheme to convict either Rothes or Argyle of" underhand dealing," or "seeking preferment to themselves." But in this anecdote we may perceive the real object of the leading factionists, in wresting from the King his most valuable prerogative of selecting his principal functionaries, and one of the * How little truth there was in this declaration of Argyle's, will be seen afterwards. + Original MS. signed by Keir and Balmerino. many simultaneous circumstances that checked the heady current of Montrose's early politics. And now, that he had been compelled to depone upon oath in the criminal process against him, was Montrose released, or even brought to the speedy and public trial he so respectfully, though firmly and incessantly demanded? In the matter of Argyle he had produced his informer, who had been executed. In the matter of the King and Traquair, he had cleared himself upon oath, and the falsehood of Walter Stewart was made manifest even by the King himself. Did these prime ministers of Religion and Liberties extend to the accused the benefit of Christian feeling or legal right? They did not. On the very day after the reference to his oath, being the 14th of August," this,” says Balfour, “ being the peremptory day to which the Earl of Montrose was cited to answer before the Parliament, after some debate, by voices, he was ordained to compear in person at the bar, as a delinquent, in the place appointed for the common incendiaries, which he in all humility obeyed, and his trial was delayed till the 24th of August instant." But we now know how to interpret the malicious" in all humility obeyed," with which Balfour dismisses the dignified resignation and gentlemanly bearing of Montrose. He rose superior to their indig 66 nities then, as when he had to drain to its dregs the bitter cup of covenanting malice. And Balfour might have been more honest in his notice of what passed upon this occasion, for, by the original record, it appears that Montrose, when placed at their bar, "offered himself ready to answer, and desired no continuation, and desired the extracts of the depositions 4 and papers whereupon his summons is founded," *—— but he pleaded and protested in vain.† It was on the evening of this same day, being Saturday, 14th August 1641,‡ that the King arrived at Holyroodhouse, accompanied, among others, by his nephew the Palsgrave, the Duke of Lennox, and the Marquis of Hamilton. * MS. Orig. Record of Parl. + From one of the original manuscripts, signed by Balmerino, it appears that on the 4th of August, when Montrose was pressed with interrogatories,—“ his Lordship answered that he was now, by warrant from the Parliament, cited to appear before them, who had warranted his Lordship to advise and consult with Advocates and Lawyers, in whose hand he had referred his whole process, and himself also, to whom he was bound that he would do nothing but with their advice and approbation; and declared he was willing in all humility to give obedience to any of the Parliament's commands, if it were in his power, but being tied to his procurators, he could do nothing herein till they gave his Lordship resolution thereanent," &c. The Inquisitors" represented to his Lordship that their interrogatories were all upon fact, and not in law, and so needed no resolution," &c. Montrose answered, "that his process consisted of two halves, the one in law, the other in fact, both which parts he had referred to his lawyers and procurators.”—Orig. MS. This plea of Montrose's was treated as contumacious ! I have not discovered the authority upon which Dr Aiton, (Life of Henderson, p. 475,) who has noted none, asserts, that,—“ In the afternoon his Majesty did not return to church, but exercised himself at golf, a play with a ball and club, somewhat like pell-mell, which was the only recreation the place afforded. Henderson took an early opportunity of hinting his error in this respect to him, when he promised not to be guilty of giving such offence again." Now, it is not likely that Charles, who had only arrived on Saturday night after an extraordinary rapid journey, should on Sunday afternoon be playing at anything ❝ somewhat like pell-mell,”—a game, by the way, rather requiring explanation than golf. Sir James Balfour, who could scarcely be misinformed, notes," 15th August, Sunday, his Majesty, afternoon went not to sermon, but being weary reposed himself in private." Baillie says,— " afternoon he came not, whereof being advertised by Mr Alexander, (Henderson) he promised not to do so again.” CHAPTER IV. THE KING AND THE COVENANTING PARLIAMENT OF 1641. CHARLES, notwithstanding his haughty aristocratic bearing, and that effervescence of his royal and hasty blood so frequently roused to his lips by the rude shocks of the times, was harmless as a dove when brought to the proof, and, when left to his own resources in difficulty, was undecided and helpless as a child. On his throne of Scotland, at that Parliament in 1641, he was even less of a Monarch than the Duke of Venice, whom Montrose describes as no more than the idol to whom ceremonies and compliments are addressed. Charles, however, was rather in the position of a delinquent at their bar. All those warlike projects and feelings,which Hamilton had stirred within him only to his ruin, withered by the same influence, had passed away, and left a broken spirit behind. How strange, that the nobleman on whom alone the King leant,—and trusted with a love surpassing the love of women,--he who had confidentially urged the King to carry fire and sword into covenanting Scotland, should now be in high favour with that very faction, while those whose most secret advice to Charles had been, ́ practice, Sir, the temperate government, it fitteth the humour and disposition of Scotland best,-it gladdeth the hearts of your subjects,-strongest is that power which is based on the happiness of the subject—one peace is better than a thousand triumphs',-should be in prison, as plotters, incendiaries, traitors, invoking the names of Justice and Liberty in vain! But where was Rothes,-the father of the Covenant,the primo buffo of the Cause ?* Where was the canny Rothes, who had so pertinaciously haunted the footsteps of Charles, when last in Scotland, that the people might see whom it was the King delighted to honour? He had died, and even Mr Brodie admits that, "Rothes, an offer of a place in the bed-chamber, and the promise of a great marriage had so won, that it is extremely probable, in spite of his professions to his old friends, a premature death alone rescued him from the disgrace of apostacy." But surely the apostacy that can be thus hypothetically declared of him, must have left some token against him e'er he died. It is not to the rescue that Death steps in, when the approaches of disgrace have become apparent. The King of Terrors, indeed, baulked Rothes of his reward, but as for his apostacy,— The sin where Death hath set his seal, Nor falsehood disavow. It was indeed a scene in the Dance of Death. In * The shewy appearance and facetious address of Rothes told admirably, upon the mobocracy, from the first hustings of the Covenant, when protestation met proclamation in conflicts so fatal to the monarchy. He appears to have been not a little proud of his political convert Montrose, whom he loved to parade as an elève of his own in democracy. The following anecdote is told by James Gordon in his manuscript. The Covenanters, he says, who were protesting, "had a scaffold ordinarily reared opposite the Cross, and there stood the noblemen and other prime men, and such as read the protestation. It is reported that at one of these protestations at Edinburgh Cross, Montrose standing up upon a puncheon that stood on the scaffold, the Earl of Rothes in jest said to him, 'James, you will not be at rest till you be lifted up there above the rest in three fathom of a rope. " |