Charles, however, not sufficiently acquainted with the latent spirit of his Scottish subjects, ordered an act to be framed, soon after his coronation, embodying the enactments of both the statutes above alluded to, asserting the unlimited prerogative of the King in all matters, civil and ecclesiastical, and giving him power to regulate the robes and raiment of ecclesiastics. This was strenuously opposed by Rothes, Balmerino, and a majority of the Estates, notwithstanding the personal presence of the King, and his domineering orders to them to vote and not to speak. By a juggle, however, the clerk-register (Primrose) reported the majority the other way—a falsity which could not be impugned without incurring the pains of treason; and so intent was Charles on coercing the Estates into this measure, that he marked on a list the names of all who had voted against his crotchet, and threatened them with his resentment.[5] These extraordinary and indecorous stretches of authority, excited the greatest alarm. The freedom of speech in Parliament, its independence, and the integrity of its record, were violated in a manner the most outrageous and inconsistent with all liberty or safety. The nobility held various consultations as to what was to be done in this juncture, and a petition to the King was drawn up and shewn to some of them—amongst others to Batmerino; but the King having declared that he would receive no explanation or remonstrance from them, the purpose was dropped. A copy of it however, with some corrections on it in Balmerino’s handwriting, having been confided by him to a notary for transcription, it was treacherously conveyed to Charles, by Spottiswood, Archbishop of St Andrew’s, some months afterwards. For this innocent and, according to modern notions, this constitutional exercise of the right of petition, or rather this intent to exercise it, Balmerino was put on his trial,[6] before a packed court and a packed jury, for _leasingmaking_ or an attempt to sow dissension betwixt the King and his subjects—an offence of the most arbitrary construction, and certainly not overtly committed by Balmerino in this case. Seven of the jury were for acquittal—but eight, being a majority, found him guilty—and he was sentenced to a capital punishment. This trial excited the deepest interest throughout the country, and its result produced consternation, and prompted to the most desperate counsels. It was proposed to force the prison and rescue Balmerino; or, if that failed, to kill the obnoxious judges and jurors, and burn their houses. But these perilous resolutions were obviated by Lord Traquair, one of the jury and a tool of the Court, representing to the King the consequences which were to be apprehended; and it was found expedient to grant Balmerino a pardon.[7]