thing to the contrary; but that he thought his brother had been very active in his own preservation.' Hamilton, in fact, had escaped the danger of being prosecuted as an incendiary by his new intimacy with Argyle. The 11th brought a third letter from Montrose. Oct. II. Montrose's third letter. This time he averred his readiness to prove Hamilton a traitor.1 After some hesitation Charles resolved to lay this letter before certain' lords, amongst whom were submit it to Argyle and Loudoun, in order that they might advise him on the matter.2 Proposal to a committee, Feeling of Argyle's opponents. Project of Argyle and So far, at least, Charles had taken the straightforward course; but it was not one which was likely to commend itself to the wrathful noblemen who thronged around him at Holyrood. In Scotland the traditions of private war had not yet wholly died out. A great nobleman depended somewhat on the arguments of his advocates before the Court of Session, and somewhat on his personal influence with the judges, but still more upon the sharp swords of his retainers. It was rumoured that Argyle and Hamilarresting ton had 5,000 armed followers in Edinburgh.3 Those who wished to put an end to the influence of Argyle and Hamilton thought far more of the means of carrying the charge against them to a practical issue than of the accumulation of legal proofs. Behind the veil which still hangs over their proceedings may be dimly discerned efforts to win over such of the soldiery as still remained under arms, and to secure the services of Leslie, in order that there might be no violent interruption of the course of justice. Such, at least, would be the most favourable interpretation of their conduct. How far this intention was communicated to Charles it is impossible to say. But it may be safely inferred that if it was communicated to him at all, he would only hear of it as a plan for vindicating the majesty of the law, and that it was only as such that it would be likely to secure his approval, though it is more probable that 1 Hamilton's name was not mentioned, but there can be no doubt that he was the person in question. 2 Murray's deposition, Hist. MSS. Com. Report, iv. 167.3 Colonel A. Stewart's deposition, ibid. iv. 164. If, he did not give his assent to any definite scheme at all. however, he really agreed to act on Montrose's last letter, it is not impossible that orders may have been given to Leslie to effect the arrest of the two noblemen on that very evening. The Earl of Almond, at least, is said to have had nothing more than the enforcement of legal proceedings in his mind; but amongst those who were burning to throw off Argyle's yoke there were hotter brains than Almond's. The Earl of Crawford, the Catholic head of the house of Lindsay, had served as a soldier Crawford's of fortune in the German wars on the side of the plan. House of Austria. He had been employed by Charles to command troops against his native country in 1640, and had been dismissed from the English army by the Parliament on account of his religion. Such a man was not likely to brook the predominance of Argyle and Hamilton. He had talked of stabbing them in case of necessity, and had formed a plan for inviting them to meet at the King's lodgings, Argyle and Hamilton to where they were to be seized, hurried down the backstairs, and carried on board a ship which was lying at Leith. He had entrusted this part of the plot to a certain Colonel Alexander Stewart. On the morning of the 11th this man sent for a cousin of his own, Captain William Stewart, and asked for his assistance in seizing Hamilton. "When you have gotten him," objected the Captain, "they would take him from you." "If it were so," was the reply, be seized. 66 we would make the Marquis desire his friends to stay off till he sustained a censure of what was to be laid to his charge, or else we would kill him, which is the custom of Germany where I have served." In such hands the scheme was slipping from an effort to bring an enemy to justice to a possible assassination.2 1 Even after the recovery of the depositions it is impossible to speak more precisely. Colonel Cochrane gave evidence to the effect that Murray, when he had inquired about his regiment, added, "You shall be bidden to know nothing but what ye get the general's order for " (Hist. MSS. Com. Report, iv. 166). Captain Stewart deposed (ibid. 163), after relating Crawford's violent language, that the Lord Almond was of another judg ment, that they behoved to be challenged by law.' * Colonel A. Stewart's deposition, ibid. iv. 164. The seizure, he The plot In any case, the plot would probably have been frustrated by the King's reluctance to take violent measures against Hamilton. Even before Montrose's letter was placed betrayed. in Charles's hands the worst part of the design had been communicated to those whom it most concerned. Captain Stewart had told what he knew to Colonel Hurry, and Hurry gave information to Leslie. Whether Leslie was ready to guard prisoners of high rank or not, he had no mind to take part in a murder, and he passed the information on to the two noblemen who were endangered. Hamilton went to the King, and told him that, as he could not escape calumny, he should leave the Court. Later in the evening he received fuller intelligence of the design against him, and on the following morning Argyle sent a messenger to Charles to tell him all that he had learned. At the same time the Parliament, having been informed of the danger into which two of its leading members had fallen, opened an investigation into the whole affair. Oct. 12. Charles goes ment House. In the afternoon Charles set out for the Parliament House, unwisely allowing himself to be followed by some 500 armed men, in which were to be counted the bitterest to the Parlia- enemies of the accused lords. Argyle, together with Hamilton and his brother, Lanark, either believed Flight of the themselves to be in actual danger, or affected to Lords. believe it. Professing their unwillingness to risk a slaughter in the streets, they fled to Kineill, one of Hamilton's country houses.1 accused Such was the course of the Incident, as this plot was named at the time. When Charles appeared before the Parliament The King's tears stood in his eyes. He spoke feelingly of his speech. affection for Hamilton, his childhood's friend, and declared-in touching remembrance of that night in which he had shown his confidence in the man who was then accused of said, was to be effected if the King was out of the way'—an important statement in the King's favour. 'Lanark's account, Hardwicke S. P. ii. 299. Oct. 22, Hamilton Papers, 103. Baillie, i. 392. Hamilton to the King, Balfour, iii. 94. The date of the 2nd Oct. in the first-named paper is plainly a misprint for the 11th, which is sometimes written ii. in MSS. of this date. conspiring to dethrone him, by admitting him to sleep in the same room with himself1-that had Hamilton been in any real danger he did not think that he could have found a surer sanctuary than in his bedchamber.' In the end, he asked that the Marquis should be sequestered from the House till the whole mystery had been cleared up, and that he might himself have justice done him by the refutation of the calumnies which had been laid upon him.2 Struggle between Charles and Charles soon found that he had not so ingratiated himself with the bulk of the members as to make them very eager to do him justice. They cared far more about the Parlia- tracking out the plot for the seizure of the fugitive lords. Charles urged that at least the inquiry might be openly conducted before the whole Parliament. The House, ment. See Vol. VII. p. 182. ? I entirely disbelieve Clarendon's story that Montrose offered to kill Hamilton and Argyle. Dr. Burton has argued (Hist. of Scotland, vii. 151) against the objection which has been made that Montrose, being in prison, could not have had an interview with Charles; that when great people are involved in deep plots, such and much greater obstacles have to be overcome.' He forgot that Charles's opponents had the custody of Montrose's person. 1 here is, however, another argument which seems to me to tell against the story of an interview between Montrose and Charles. All the evidence goes to show that Charles took no account of Montrose's first two letters. He could only have sought an interview after the third. That letter was only brought to Charles on the Montrose certainly could not have been got out of prison till the nightfall, and before nightfall Charles knew that Hamilton had received warning. He was hardly likely to send for Montrose after that. The fact is, there is no real evidence against Montrose. The story as originally told by Clarendon is a plain, straightforward narrative fitting in very well with all that we know of the matter from other sources. Twenty years later, Clarendon substituted another story, and told how Montrose had offered to commit murder, Such a change would be of value if he had had access to fresh evidence. But as all that he knew must have been derived either Charles or Montrose, there can have been no fresh evidence. My explanation would be that he had a vague recollection of hearing that Crawford had offered to kill Hamilton and Argyle, and that, with his usual habit of blundering, he substituted Montrose for Crawford, just as in giving the names of the persons who suggested that the King should make his speech of May I about Strafford, he substituted Saye for Savile. to from Oct. 15. perhaps not knowing what disclosures might come out, insisted on an investigation by a secret committee. For days the struggle continued. The King saw in the eyes of those before him their suspicions that he had himself been an accomplice in the plot. He rightly felt that he was himself being put on his trial. "However the matter go,” he said, “ I must see myself get fair play." He called on the President to ask the House 'why they denied his just and reasonable request.' He protested that if they refused a public inquiry 'he knew not what they would grant him.' It was in vain that Charles protested. On the 21st he gave way, and a committee of investigation was appointed. Oct. 21. Committee of investiga tion appointed. How far to blame. No one who has studied Charles's character can believe for a moment that he was directly guilty of conspiracy to murder. Yet, if he found himself distrusted, he had but himCharles was self to blame. No doubt Argyle was intriguing and ambitious, and Hamilton was but seeking to swim with the tide; but had not Charles, too, been intriguing and self-seeking? Why was it that he had courted first the Presbyterian middle classes, and then, when he found himself unable to gain his ends by their help, had thrown himself upon the old feudal aristocracy? Was it so very surprising that that aristocracy was still what it had ever been? Its traditions were those of plot and violence, of enemies shot down in the streets of Edinburgh, or hurried off to imprisonment in distant strongholds. Nor did Charles's guilt end here. He had not come to Scotland for any purpose connected with the welfare of the Scottish people. He had looked on them simply as the instrument by the help of which he was to work his will in England, and he had no reason to be surprised if the instrument had broken in his hands. Oct. 21. Charles's intentions to the Even now Charles had not by any means relinwith regard quished his projected attack on the English Parliamentary leaders. It may be that he did not consciously wish to overthrow the legislation of the past year. If the new laws brought with them improvements English leaders. |