and strangers were commanded to leave the capital within twenty-four hours; the second ordered the seat of government and the courts of law to be removed to Linlithgow (a move which had been tried before); the third denounced a book, which had been popular, "A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scotland," all copies of which were ordered to be brought in to the Council, and publicly burned.4

The citizens of Edinburgh and the people then assembled there were greatly offended, and directly resolved to disobey the proclamations, and not to separate till they had established a rallying-point. The next morning, while the Bishop of Galloway was going to the Council-house, a mob attacked him and pursued him to the door; and the crowd then surrounded the Council-house, and loudly demanded that the obnoxious lords should surrender to them. The Council dispatched a messenger to the magistrates, asking their help, but he found them in the same plight as the Council. A portion of the mob had stationed themselves around their meeting-place, and some of them forced their way into the lobbies, and threatened that unless the magistrates joined the burgesses in opposing the Liturgy, they would burn the building about their ears. When this became known to the Privy Council, the High Treasurer and the Earl of Wigton forced their way through the multitude to the townhouse. After some consultation, it was agreed that the magistrates should do all in their power to disperse the crowds; accordingly they told the seething multitude that they had acceded to the demands of the people, and were ready to join in their petitions against the Liturgy. Thereupon the Treasurer and his followers thought that they might venture to return to the Council-house; but as soon as they appeared in the street, they were assailed with hootings and howlings. The lords assured the excited people that they

4 Large Declaration, pp. 32-34; Balfour's Annals, Vol. II., p. 236.

would urge their requests upon the King, but they were received with scornful jeers. Then a rush was made, the Treasurer was thrown to the ground, his hat, cloak, and staff of office were riven from him, and he was in danger of being trodden to death; but some of his companions got him to his feet, and the pressure of the crowd half-carried him and his friends to the Council-house door, where they immediately disappeared. In a short time the magistrates joined them, and then all the authorities were beset, while some of them trembled for their lives. At last it was resolved to send for the nobles who had already declared themselves against the Liturgy, and by their exertions the crowd was broken up, and the councillors got safely to their homes.5

At this time the nobles, the gentry, the ministers, and others opposed to the Liturgy, had been engaged deliberating on the form of a complaint against the bishops, which was to be presented to the Council. Two forms were prepared, one by Henderson and Lord Balmerino, the other by Dickson and Loudon. The latter was adopted, and was immediately signed by about twenty-four earls and lords, by upwards of a hundred of the gentry, and by many of the ministers. The subscribers of this document stated, that by the tenor of the late proclamations they had been forced to remonstrate against the archbishops and bishops of the kingdom, who, having been entrusted by the King with the government of the Church, had framed and enjoined two books--the Canons and the Liturgy; and that, in the Liturgy, not only were sown the seeds of divers superstitions, idolatry, and false doctrine, but also the English service-book was abused, especially in the communion, in a manner quite contrary to the intentions of the blessed reformers of religion in England; while in the Book of Canons the observance of the Liturgy was enforced under the penalty of excommunication, and many regulations were enacted tending directly to

* Large Declaration, pp. 34-38; Baillie's Letters and Journals, Vol. I., pp. 37-38.

foster superstition and error. And therefore, from their duty to God, to their king, and to their country, they craved that the matter should be tried, according to the laws of the kingdom; and that meanwhile the bishops should not be suffered to sit as judges. The Council promised to forward this petition to the King.

The opposition party, before separating, resolved to meet again on the 15th of November. In the interval they were to exert themselves to insure as large a meeting of the people as possible, to wait for an answer to their former petitions.

On the appointed day many earnest men thronged into Edinburgh; the influx of people being greater than ever, while the Earls of Rothes, Cassillis, Eglinton, Home, and others, mingled with the crowd. The Privy Council, fearing a repetition of the former tumults, held a conference with some of the leaders of the petitioners at Linlithgow on the 14th of November. The councillors complained that the multitude of people gathered together at Edinburgh threatened to break the peace of the kingdom, and that these meetings were illegal. The nobles, on the side of the petitioners, insisted on their right to meet and to present their grievances; but to remove any cause of complaint, they suggested that their party were ready to act by representatives, and thus render crowded meetings unnecessary. The Council agreed to this proposal, and perhaps unwittingly lent its aid to the embodiment of a power in the nation which quickly superseded its own. The party's scheme soon assumed form. Four permanent committees were appointed: the first comprising all the nobles who had joined the movement; the second consisting of two representatives from each of the counties; the third embracing one minister from each presbytery; and the fourth including one or two deputies from each borough. These committees sat at different tables in the Parliament House-hence in history they were called the Tables; and

6 Baillie's Letters and Journals, Vol. I., pp. 35-37.

together they represented the community. For business and effective action each of the committees elected four representatives, and these united formed a select deliberative body of sixteen members, appointed to sit constantly in Edinburgh, with instructions to assemble the larger body of representatives when any critical emergency appeared. At first they merely took charge of the petitions, and urged them upon the attention of the government; but they soon began to feel themselves strong, to form proposals and plans for the party, and to issue mandates which were more respected and better obeyed than the proclamations of the King and his council. They speedily assumed the functions of rulers, and the real control of affairs fell into their hands.

Though the troubles which the King's policy had raised in Scotland were thus forced upon his attention, even yet he only dimly saw the character of the movement. Accordingly he deemed it sufficient to dispatch the Earl of Roxburgh to negotiate; and then issued a proclamation intimating to his faithful subjects, that he had delayed answering their petitions owing to the tumultuous and violent acts done in Edinburgh, in contempt of his royal authority. He was graciously pleased to protest that he abhorred all popery, and that he had no intention of doing anything contrary to the laws of Scotland. This was not likely to pacify a people almost ripe for rebellion; and the movement grew and gathered vigour.

On the 21st of December, 1637, the representatives of the Tables appeared before the Privy Council, and demanded that their petitions should be heard. Lord Loudon boldly restated their grievances touching the Book of Canons, the Liturgy, the Court of High Commission, and the Bishops, who, it was asserted, were the authors of all these innovations. And as the Bishops were the chief delinquents and directly interested parties, it was claimed that they should not be allowed to sit

7 Balfour's Annals, Vol. II., p. 243; Baillie's Letters and Journals, Vol. I., pp. 40, 42.

as judges upon the matters in dispute between the government and the petitioners. The Council's hands being tied by orders from the court, they remitted the whole matter for the determination of the King.

The Government and the King were now sadly perplexed; and about the beginning of 1638, Traquair, the Lord Treasurer of Scotland, was called to London. He found that the King was extremely ignorant of the real state of affairs in Scotland. Those whom he trusted were partly responsible for this; but the King himself was unwilling to inquire or to listen to information about the difficulties which he had helped to produce. Some consultation was held concerning what was next to be done; but the idea of yielding to the opinions and sentiments of the people could not be entertained by the King; and

8 Large Declaration, p. 46. The following is a part of Loudon's speech before the Council:-"A more weighty and stately cause than this, for which we now appear before your lordships, was never pleaded before any judge on earth: being for the defence of true religion and established laws, on which depends the welfare both of Church and Commonwealth, our condition of life, of liberty, and temporal estate in this transitory world, and our eternal happiness in the world to come; our duty to God Almighty, the supreme King of kings, and our allegi ance and duty to our sovereign lord and master the king. . . . And in respect that, by the whole strain of our supplications and complaints, given in to your lordships, the archbishops and bishops are our direct parties, as contrivers, devisers, introducers, maintainers, and urgers of the Books . . . and other unlawful innovations and just grievances complained of by us, we crave that the matter may be put to trial, and the bishops taken order with, according to the laws of the realm, and not suffered to sit as judges, until our cause be tried and decided according to justice; so these prelates being the only parties, of whom we have at this time justly complained, must be declined as our judges, seeing that they cannot be both judge and party, according to the loveable laws of this kingdom. And our declaration ought to be sustained as relevant against them, notwithstanding that they have purposely absented themselves at this time, because if the matter and action depending shall not be decided at present, but shall happen, by answer or letter from his Majesty, to be remitted back to the Council, the chancellor and bishops who are councillors will be judges in the complaint given in against themselves; and the chancellor, with six or seven of the bishops, making up a quorum of the Council, may determine and dispose of our cause and petitions, now depending, as well as they passed an act of Council for approving the Liturgy before it was either printed or seen."-Baillie's Letters and Journals, Vol. I., pp. 455-458.