Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:30:46.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scotland, Ireland and the English Civil War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Charles L. Hamilton
Get access

Extract

Historical orthodoxy has long recognized the fervent belief of the Scottish Covenanters that their successful revolution against Charles I “stood or fell” with that of their brethren in England. Although by the end of 1641 the Godly Party in the northern kingdom had temporarily destroyed the foundations of Stuart government, many of the King's Scottish opponents no more trusted Charles to accept a permanent curtailment of his power than did their English counterparts. Should the King triumph over his enemies in London, it was assumed that backed by the power of a still episcopal England he would quickly attack the revived presbyterian establishment in Scotland. Concurrently, the political revolution—completed in the Scottish Parliament in 1641—would also be reversed, for the connection betweeen the leading Covenanting politicians, led by the Marquis of Argyll, and the reformed Kirk was very close. It should be remembered that while the clerical estate was abolished in the Scottish Parliament, laymen could sit in the General Assembly and participate in the most important decisions of the Church. Indeed, the aristocratic element in the Glasgow Assembly was large and the meeting's attack on episcopacy and the five articles of Perth may in fact have reflected lay opinion more than clerical. Caroline bishops, favored in Scotland as well as in England for high political positions, were unpopular with the Covenanting nobility for whom presbyterian church government not only restored God's True Kirk but also eliminated dangerous secular rivals. To undermine presbyterianism would, therefore, remove much of the strength from the political hand which Argyll had so shrewdly played since allying with the Covenanters in the Glasgow Assembly.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Summer 1975 , pp. 120 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Seven earls and a number of lesser nobles sat as members of the Glasgow Assembly: in addition lay elders had participated in the election by presbyteries of reprsentatives to the meeting. Concerning the extent to which the acts of the Assembly reflected lay opinion, see Cowan, I. B., “The Covenanters: A revision article.” .Historical Review. XLVII (April. 1968): 39.Google Scholar

2 Lowlanders were uneasy even when Highlanders were used in support of the Covenant; see Burton, J. Hill, The History of Scotland (Edinburgh. 1873), VI: 343.Google Scholar

3 The Earl of Loudoun. Chancellor of Scotland and cousin of Argyll, wrote Archibald Johnston of Wariston on 10 February 1642 of his fears that the Irish rebels would join with men from the Western Isles and Highlands, “who speak the same language as the Irish do.” and raid the West Coast of Scotland; Wodrow MSS., folio LXVI. no. 103, National Library of Scotland. As a Campbell, Loudoun had more reason to fear an Irish-Highland uprising than others might.

4 The Lord Balmerino's speech in the High Court of Parliament in Scotland, spoken November 4, 1641 (London, 1641).Google Scholar

5 Wodrow Analecta (Edinburgh, 1842) II: 209-10 and 280Google Scholar; Wedgwood, C. V., The King's Peace (London, 1958), p. 470.Google Scholar

6 In fact, the Scots even asked the English to help pay for 1,000 soldiers to be kept in Scotland after their army had been sent to Ireland; see a letter from the Earl of Loudoun. II February 1643. Wodrow MSS., folio LXVI, no. 104.

7 Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, V: 404-5 (hereafter cited as A.P.S.).

8 Hazlett, Hugh, “The Recruitment and Organization of the Scottish Army in Ulster, 1642-9,” in Cronne, H. A., et al., Essays in British and Irish History in Honour of James Eadie Todd (London, 1947). p. 108Google Scholar. Dr. Hazlett's article is very helpful with respect to the administrative and logistical problems created for the Scots by their army in Ulster. See also Lords' Journal, IV: 471.Google Scholar

9 Most of the correspondence between the English and Scottish Commissioners concerning Ireland may be found in Proceedings of the Scots Commissioners sent to England for Concluding the Articles of the Treaty. 21 November 1641-18 July 1642, HM Cieneral Register House. MSS., Edinburgh.

10 Loudoun to Wariston. 5 January 1642, Wodrow MSS., folio LXVI, no. 98. The Scots also believed it to be necessary for them to send the 2,500 soldiers to Ireland immediately in order to answer those in London who accused them of using the Irish rebellion as an excuse to wring further concessions from the English Parliament on more general questions. See a letter from the Commissioners to the Privy Council, 26 January 1642. Register of Letters to and from the Scots Commissioners in London. 1642. 1644-5. HM General Register House, MSS., pp. 5-6.

11 Results of the Treaty as they were drawn up by the Scots Commissioners, Proceedings of the Scots Commissioners sent to England for Concluding the Articles of the Treaty. 21 November 1641 - 18 July 1642, pp. 45-8; the final draft of the treaty is on pp. 91-5; see also A.P.S., VI; pt. I, pp. 189-92.

12 Demands of the Scots Commissioners anent the soldiers' pay, the brotherly assistance, and the issuing of commissions, Proceedings of the Scots Commissioners… 21 November 1641 - 18 July 1642, p. 83; Hazlett, p. 109.

13 Scots Commissioners to the English Commissioners, 16 July 1642, Papers Relating to Negotiations with the King and the English Parliament, 24 February 1641 - 27 August 1646, HM General Register House, MSS., p. 55.

14 Hazlett, p. 117; see also a comment by SirTurner, James in Thomson, I., ed. Memoirs of his Own Life and Times (Edinburgh, 1829), p. 24.Google Scholar

15 At the same time, the Scots realized that the English Parliament had many claims on its resources. During the discussions with the English following the drafting of the Solemn League and Covenant the Covenanters urged that their troops in Ireland be supplied, but they temporarily waived the payment of the final installment due them according to the terms of the Treaty of 1641. See The Answer to the English Commissioners. 29 August 1643, Register of the Committee of Estates, 1643-44, HM Cieneral Register House, MSS., fol. 6.

16 An account of the plot is given in Gardiner, S. R., History of the Great Civil War, 1642-49 (London. 1893). I: 176–7Google Scholar; for contemporary reaction see Laing, David, ed., The Leiters and Journals of Robert Baillie (Edinburgh, 1841) II: 74Google Scholar, and the Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, 2nd series, VII: 442–4.Google Scholar

17 Gardiner, , Civil War, I: 224–5.Google Scholar

18 Baillie, II: 103.

19 The text of the Solemn League and Covenant is given in Kenyon, J. P., The Stuart Constitution (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 763–66.Google Scholar

20 11 October 1643, Register of the Committee of Estates 1643-44, fol. 35-6.

21 Turner, in Thompson, , Memoirs, p. 29.Google Scholar

22 Register of the Committee of Estates, 1643-44, fol. 139-40.

23 See a comment by Turner, in Thompson, , Memoirs, p. 33.Google Scholar

24 The Committee of Estates with the Army to the Scots Commissioners in London, 12 March 1644, Meikle, Henry W., ed., Correspondence of the Scots Commissioners in London, 1644-46 (London, 1917), p. 10Google Scholar; see also p. 16, p. 26 and pp. 29-30.

25 Hazlett, pp. 121-2.

26 Committee of Estates to the Commissioners at London, 17 December 1644, Meikle, p. 51. The civilian population in Ulster was also suffering; Blair to Robert Douglas, 10 January 1645, Wodrow MSS., folio XXV, no. 27.

27 The negotiations can be followed in detail in Fotheringham, J. G., ed. and tr., The Correspondence of de Monlereul and the Brothers de Bellièvre, French Ambassadors in England and Scotland, 1645-46, 2 vols. (Glasgow, 1898)Google Scholar. For a lucid modern account of the general diplomatic situation relating to the Scots, the King and Parliament, see C. V. Wedgwood. The King's War, Book Three, passim.

28 For an indication of the Scots Commissioners' views, see a letter from Montereul to Secretary Nicholas, 16 April 1646, M.C. I: pp. 178-9; cf. Robertson, Alexander. The Life of Sir Robert Moray (London, 1922), p. 45Google Scholar. Moray was involved in the negotiations and Robertson's account is very helpful.

29 Gardiner, , Civil War, III: 97–102Google Scholar, gives an account of the King's movements from the time he left Oxford.

30 Robertson, p. 47, argues that the Scots lured the King to their camp “with words which meant one thing to them and something very different to him.” On the assumption of the Scots that Charles would not have come to their army without being prepared to accept the Solemn League and Covenant, see the letter of the Scots Commissioners to Major-General Middleton, 12 May 1646, Meikle, p. 183. Baillie (II: 383) reflects the general Covenanting opinion that the King did not adhere to episcopacy for reasons of conscience.

31 O'Neil's behavior following the battle robbed it of some of its consequences.

32 In a memorandum of 23 June 1646 for Lord Balcarras the Scots Commissioners stated their belief, based on information from France, that in Ireland Digby was “to procure 10,000 men to go over into Scotland to join with James Graham.” Also, the Commissioners reported that the Queen was encouraging Montrose to continue in arms, despite any contrary orders he had received from the King. Register of Instructions to the Scots Commissioners in London, 1644-46, HM General Register House. MSS.

33 On 8 Juno 1646 the Committee of Estates told the King that if he sent a letter to both Parliaments stating his willingness to accept peace terms, Scotland would then follow a course of action which would prevent a breakdown in Anglo-Scottish relations; Letters from the Committee of Estates at Newcastle and the Commissioners of the Kingdom of Scotland…at London…Together with two papers Delivered in to His Majesty (London, June 17, 1646) p. 8Google Scholar. Baillie put the matter beyond doubt on June 26 when he wrote: “We resolve not to divide from England on any terms.” II: 376.

34 Instructions from the Committee of Estates to the Scots Commissioners in London. 23 December 1646. Register of Instructions to the Scots Commissioners in London. 1644-46.

35 See the letter of the Scots Commissioners of 13 October 1646. Meikel, p. 222.

36 M'Crie, T.. ed., The Life of Mr. Robert Blair. Minister of St. Andrews, Containing his Containing his Autobiography,… (Edinburgh, 1848), p. 192.Google Scholar

37 Burnet, Gilbert, The Memoirs of the Lives and Actions of James and William, Dukes of Hamilton… (London, 1677), p. 311Google Scholar; National Library of Scotland MSS., 2263, p. 194.

38 A.P.S.. VI: pt. I. p. 660; the Scots, of course, realized that the situation was still explosive; see M'Crie. p. 196.

39 Letter of the Committee of Estates to the Scots Commissioners in London. 6 July 1647. Register of the Committee of Estates. 1646-47.