No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
One of the most dramatic events of the entire Civil War occurred on May 5, 1646, when the English King unceremoniously appeared in the camp of the Covenanting army. Although not unexpected, despite Scottish protestations to the contrary, this bold move could conceivably have transformed the war's character. That it had so little impact on the final outcome resulted not from the high hopes of the participants, Scots, Royalists, and French, but from inadequate planning and the failure to realistically anticipate consequences. Before very long the recognition that Charles' flight to the Scots was a massive blunder for all those involved became embarrassingly evident. The King was to be held virtual prisoner by the Covenanters, yet the Scots would gain little from their prize possession. How it came about that these two parties participated in such an act of desperation is the subject of this essay.
The Covenanters' willingness in 1646 to resort to extreme measures resulted from the recognition that their position in England had seriously deteriorated. They had originally intervened in the Civil War on the side of Parliament because they feared that a triumph for Royalism would provide the King with another chance to impose a settlement on Scotland. It was hoped in Edinburgh that the favorable resolution of the conflict, which their highly regarded army was sure to bring, would allow the Scots to shape the terms of the peace, and ultimately to play a permanent role in English affairs. Of great importance to the Kirk was the establishment in England of a Presbyterian church similar to their own model. Here too, Scottish ministers, with their greater experience, would exert an ongoing influence in England.
1 Kaplan, Lawrence, “Steps to War: The Scots and Parliament,” Journal of British Studies, 9 (1970):50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Baillie, Robert, Letters and Journals, ed., Laing, David, 3 vols. (Edinburgh, 1841–1842), 2:231.Google Scholar
3 Meikle, H.M., ed., Correspondence of the Scottish Commissioners in London (London, 1917), p. 124.Google Scholar
4 Vindiciae Veritatis (London, 1654), Part I, p. 140.Google ScholarPubMed
5 Lords Journal, 7:653–654Google Scholar. (Hereafter cited as L.J.)
6 Baillie, , Letters 2:141Google Scholar. Regarding these terms Baillie wrote: “The Committees of Both Kingdoms has unanimously agreed to the articles which my Lord Warriston, for the most part drew up” (2:172, 177).
7 Gardiner, S.R., ed., The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1962), pp. 282–283.Google Scholar
8 Commons Journal, 3:350Google Scholar. (Hereafter cited as C.J.)
9 L.J. 8:237-238; Lawrence Whitacre, Diary, B.L., Add. MSS 31, 116, fol. 519.
10 SirHycle, Edward, Clarendon State Papers, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1767–1783), 2:196–197.Google Scholar
11 Charles I in 1646, ed., Bruce, J.B. (London, 1856), pp. 11, 17.Google Scholar
12 Ibid., p. 11.
13 Ibid., pp. 9-11.
14 de Montereul, Jean, The Diplomatic Correspondence, ed., Fotheringham, J. G., 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1856), 1:130–131Google Scholar. For evidence of the Independents' predominance at this time see: Ibid., p. 116, Baillie, Letters 2:336.
15 C.J. 4:523; Whitacre, fol. 266 v. Specifically his public criticism of Ireton's treatment of a Royal proposal in April, 1646.
16 The details concerning the secret advice are to be found in Whitelock, Bulstrode, Memorials of English Affairs, 4 vols. (London, 1853), 2:334–336, 462–464Google Scholar, and in the MSS of his Annals, B.L. Add. MSS, 37, 343, fol. 340.
17 L.J., 8:31, 36, 72, 235.
18 The Scottish Dove, January 7, 1646.
19 Montereul, , Correspondence, 1:14–15, 17.Google Scholar
20 Ibid., pp. 13-17, 11, 312.
21 Ibid., p. 45.
22 Ibid., pp. 83-84.
23 Charles I in 1646, pp. 22-23.
24 Montereul, , Correspondence, 1:106–110, 180–181.Google Scholar
25 Charles I in 1646, pp. 32-33; Earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, ed., Macray, W.D., 6 vols. (Oxford, 1888), 4:208.Google Scholar
26 Carey, H., ed., Memorials of the Great Civil War (London, 1842), 1:97.Google Scholar
27 Clarendon State Papers, 2:243.Google Scholar
28 Laing, David, ed., Correspondence of Sir Robert Ken, First ofAncram and his son William, the Third Earl of Lothian, 3 vols. (Edinburgh, 1875), 1:181–182.Google Scholar
29 Guthry, Henry, Memoirs (Glasgow, 1747), p. 213.Google Scholar
30 Montereul, , Correspondence, 1:117.Google Scholar
31 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic (1645–1647), pp. 188–190Google Scholar. The capture of Digby's Correspondence in October, whose references to Scottish negotiations with the Royalists, contributed to these early suspicions.
32 H.M.C. Portland MSS, I, pp. 323, 327, 335-336.
33 L.J., 8:43; C.J., 4:422.
34 C.J., 4:399; Meikle, , Correspondence of the Scottish Commission, pp. 154–155Google Scholar; The Scottish Dove, April 22, 1646.
35 Baillie, , Letters, 2:364Google Scholar; Meikle, , Correspondence of the Scottish Commission, p. 171.Google Scholar
36 Ibid., p. 179.
37 Montereul, , Correspondence, 1:151–152Google Scholar; Charles I in 1646, pp. 32-33.
38 Montereul, , Correspondence, 1:180–181.Google Scholar
39 Charles I in 1646, pp. 32-33.
40 Ibid.
41 Montereul, , Correspondence, 1:181–193.Google Scholar
42 Peck, Francis, Desiderata Curiosa (London, 1779), pp. 358–363Google Scholar; Ashburn, John, A Narrative …, 2 vols. (London, 1830), 1:75–78.Google Scholar
43 SirTurner, James, The Memoir (Edinburgh, 1829), p. 41.Google Scholar
44 Montereul, , Correspondence, 2:572.Google Scholar
45 Stevenson, David, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland (London, 1977), p. 65Google Scholar. However, some fifteen pages later Stevenson changes his mind and blames the Scots: “they had lured him to their army with promises to preserve his freedom and safety, but then made him a prisoner.…” pp. 80-81. No proof is given for either proposition.
46 Buchanan, John N., Charles I and the Scots (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1965), p. 526.Google Scholar
47 Clarendon State Papers, 2:176.Google Scholar
48 Meikle, , Correspondence of the Scottish Commission, p. 163Google Scholar; Montereul, , Correspondence, 1:176.Google Scholar
49 Guthry, , Memoirs, p. 217.Google Scholar
50 Montereul, , Correspondence, 1:132, 176.Google Scholar
51 Ibid., pp. 196, 199, 202; Charles I in 1646, p. 38.
52 Peck, , Desiderata, p. 361Google Scholar; Montereul, , Correspondence, 1:193Google Scholar. Also that his two companions would be protected.
53 H.M.C. Portland MSS, 1:379.
54 Montereul, , Correspondence, 1:193, 206Google Scholar; Charles I in 1646, p. 45.
55 Gardiner, S.R., History of the Great Civil War, 4 vols. (London, 1893), 3:100–102.Google Scholar
56 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1646, p. 433.Google Scholar
57 Montereul, , Correspondence, 2:584Google Scholar; L.J., 8:308.
58 L.J., 8:305-306.
59 Charles I in 1646, p. 40; Montereul, 1:201.
60 Baillie, , Letters, 2:374–378Google Scholar; The Scottish Dove, May 6-13, 1646.
61 On one occasion, just after the news of the King's arrival in the Scots army had been received. Parliamentary agents intercepted Scottish correspondence. But after the Scots Commissioners registered a protest, this practice was immediately discontinued. L.J., 8:312-313.
62 Whitacre, fol. 537; L.J., 8:308.
63 L.J., 8:314-315; C.J., 4:547-548. Note the restrained language of the proposed measure.
64 Montereul in March, commented upon how the Independents, “contrary to what we thought … were afraid of having him on their hands” (Correspondence, 1:176Google Scholar).
65 Cary, , Memorials, 1:1Google Scholar; Clarendon State Papers, 2:225–226.Google Scholar
66 Cary, , Memorials, 1:30.Google Scholar
67 C.J., 4:551.
68 L.J., 8:364-366.
69 Peck, , Desiderata, pp. 358–365.Google Scholar
70 Meikle, , Correspondence of the Scottish Commissioners, p. 190.Google Scholar