Lord Balmerino was one of the nobles who had dared, in the late Scottish parliament, to speak and vote with in dependence. A temperate and submissive petition had been prepared by those Scottish patriots, in order to ex culpate themselves from the imputation of having re sisted the prerogative, and to deprecate the operation of those articles from which they had dissented. But when the design was intimated to Charles, and the royal dis pleasure was signified, the petition was abandoned even before it was subscribed. A copy retained by Balmerino, was, however, surreptitiously transcribed, and communi cated to hay of Naughton, the personal enemy of that nobleman. Hay remitted it to the archbishop of St An drews, and Balmerino was imprisoned and brought to trial for its contents. He was not the author of the pa per ; he had interlined, with his own hand, the passages which he had thought not sufficiently humble in a sub missive and inoffensive petition. A jury, industriously selected of such men as were thought desirous of Bal merino's death, were set upon his trial ; yet even these were not unanimous. By a majority of suffrages, he was found guilty of having concealed the paper, and sentence of death was immediately pronounced upon him. The Scotch, however, were in such a ferment, that fear ex torted a pardon, which justice and clemency would have denied. The people of Edinburgh had held consulta tions for his release. It was determined to burst open the prison, or, if that attempt should miscarry, to take revenge on his judges, and the eight jurors by whom he had been convicted. Traquair, who had been foreman of the jury, terrified at the danger, soon pleaded at court the policy of sparing Balmerino. While the Scotch were thus suffering violation in their religious rights, the Puritans of England were discontented at the prospect of civil as well as religious oppression, and would have gladly sought a refuge among the deserts of North America, from their restraints and persecu tions. Some of them did escape to the new world, and laid the foundation of a free government, which has last ed ever since. But even the liberty of emigration was refused, and eight ships, ready to sail with emigrants from the Thames, were detained. In one of these ships were John Hambden and Oliver Cromwell. In the ab sence of parliament, the arbitrary principles of the court continued to be put in practice, by the violation of the petition of rights in every article ; and when men were selected for imprisonment by the king and council, they were refused bail or releasement.
John Hambden had been rated at twenty shillings of ship-moncy, for an estate which he possessed in Buck inghamshire. The judges had already declared, that the king might impose the tax of ship-money, in cases of necessity, and that he was sole judge of that necessity. Hambden, not dismayed by this illegal declaration, nor by all the power of the crown, resolved to stand a legal prosecution, rather than submit to the imposition. The case was argued during twelve days in the exchequer chamber. The prejudiced judges (lour excepted,) gave sentence in favour of the crown. Hambden, however, obtained by the trial, the end for which he had gener ously sacrificed his safety and his quiet. The nation was roused from its lethargy, and their indignation was thoroughly awakened against the arbitrary designs from m which the tax had proceeded, and the prostitution of judicial authority, which gave sanction to those de signs.
We have already seen in what state of mind Charles had left his Scottish subjects. By an unfortunate at tempt to force a liturgy into their national church, he called their secret discontents into open action. The liturgy destined for Scotland was a little different from the English, but in receding from that service, it ap proached more to the forms of popery,—a religion which was never named in Scotland without horror. During the whole week before the new service was to be per formed in the churches of Edinburgh, the people were agitated by discourses and pamphlets. On Sunday the 23d of July, the dean of Edinburgh prepared to officiate in St Giles's, and the bishop of Argyle in the Grey Friars' church ; and to increase the solemnity, each was attended by the judges, prelates, and a part of the council. The congregation in St Giles's continued quiet till the service began, when an old woman, impelled by sudden indignation, started up, and exclaiming aloud against the supposed mass, threw the stool on which she had been sitting at the dean's head. The service was inter rupted by a wild uproar, and but for the interposition of the magistrates, the bishop might have been sacrificed at his own altar. When most of the people had retired, and the turbulent had been excluded, the doors were locked, and the service was resumed ; but was soon overpowered by the people from without, who burst open the doors, broke the windows, and rent the air with exclamations of, " A Pope, an Antichrist, stone him, stone him !" With a few exceptions the prelates were equally unsuccessful throughout all Scotland in im posing the liturgy.
The Scottish privy council plainly perceiving the re solution of the whole nation, represented to Charles the difficulty of enforcing the new rites. Their remonstrance had no effect, but to produce a threat from the sove reign of removing the seat of government from Edin burgh. In the mean time, a conflux of supplicants against the liturgy, from all Scotland, arrived at Edin burgh ; and an accusation against the prelates was sub scribed by all ranks, from the peer to the peasant. The citizens of Edinburgh, exasperated at the threat of the scat of government being removed, surrounded the town council house, and demanded the replacing the ministers who had been ejected for refusing the liturgy. In this tumult, the principal citizens, and even the wives and sisters of the magistrates, took a share.
The council, uninstructed by Charles, conceded a most important point to the supplicants, in permitting the celebrated Tables, a representative body of nobles, gentry, clergy, and burgesses, to sit permanently in Edinburgh, while the multitude dispersed to their homes. An evasive answer from court was insufficient to satisfy the public mind. A formal revocation of the liturgy was required, and the accusation of the prelates proceeded to be urged by the Tables. A royal procla mation was issued, denouncing the supplicants as trai tors ; but the effect was only to summon once more the whole body of those men around their chiefs, and the proclamation was every where met by a protest, held equally legal and sufficient to counteract its effects.