Australian National University THESES SIS/LIBRARY TELEPHONE: +61 2 6125 4631 R.G. MENZIES LIBRARY BUILDING NO:2 FACSIMILE: +61 2 6125 4063 THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY EMAIL: [email protected] CANBERRA ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA USE OF THESES This copy is supplied for purposes of private study and research only. Passages from the thesis may not be copied or closely paraphrased without the written consent of the author. I certify that this thesis is my own work and that all sources used have been acknowledged. THE ATTITUDES OF THE LONG PARLIAMENT TOWARDS THE SCOTS 16^ 0- 16^-3 Gary Francis Scarrabelotti M.A. Thesis Department of History School of General Studies Australian National University March 1977 ii Table of Contents Abbreviations iii Introduction vi Chapter I A Point of Honour 1 Chapter II Shifting Loyalties 53 Chapter III S-cots all Suspected 89 Chapter IV Still a Natural Ally 128 Chapter V Close Contest 1 6 6 Conclusion 210 Appendix I The Articles of Cessation signed at Ripon 26 October 16^0 223 Appendix II The Eight Heads of Demands of the proposed Peace Treaty presented to the Lords Commissioners by the Scots, and reported to the House of Commons 17 December l6*+0 226 Appendix III S. R. Gardiner’s Treatment of Parliamentary Attitudes tovrard the Scots, November I6*f0- March 16^-1 228 Bibliography 231 iii Abbreviations Baillie Baillie, Robert Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, C.J. Journal of the House of Commons. Clarendon, History of the Rebellion Clarendon, Edward Hyde, 1st. Earl of History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England. C.S.P.D. Calendar of State Papers Domestic. C.S.P.V. Calendar of State Papers Venetian. D ’Ewes, B.M. Harl. MSS. D ’Ewes, Sir Simonds Journal of Sir Simonds D ’Ewes« British Museum Harleian MSS. D 1Ewes^ Coates D'Ewes, Sir Simonds Journal of Sir Simonds D ’Ewes, ed. William Havelock Coates. D fEwes, Notestein D ’Ewes, Sir Simonds Journal of Sir Simonds D ’Ewes, ed. Wallace Notestein. H.M.C., Cowper Historical Manuscripts Commission MSS of the Earl of Cowper K.G. H.S.P. Miscellaneous State Papers from T5q T-1706. ed. Philip York» 2nd. Earl of Hardwick. L.J. Journal of the House of Lords. Nalson Nalson, John An Impartial Collection of the Great Affairs of State. Notes on the Treaty Notes on the Treaty Carried on at Ripon between King Charles and the Covenanters of Scotland A.D. 1 Peyton Peyton, Sir John Journal of a Parliamt holden at Westminster begun the third day of November« 16^0. R.P.C.S. Register of the Privy Council of Scotland. Rushworth Rushworth, John Historical Collections Yerney Verney, Sir Ralph Verney Papers. Notes on the Proceedings in the Long Parliament, Temp. Charles I. Whiteacre, B.M. Add. MSS. Whiteacre, Lawrence House of Commons Proceedings, 16^2-16V7, British Museum Additional MSS. Yonge, B.M. Add. MSS. Yonge, Walter Journal of Proceedings in the House of Commons, British Museum Additional MSS. Introduction vi According to Professor Trevor-Roper, John Pym was in the habit of calling on the Scots to aid the Long Parliament’s cause and of dismissing them when he had done 1 with their services. Whatever the truth of this claim, most of the historians of the Great Rebellion have followed the example of Trevor-Roper’s John Pym, and have peremptorily summoned and dismissed the Scots as it suited the requirements of their narrative* For this, however, historians of the great contest between King and Parliament ought not to be blamed. After all, the object of their scholarship is the working out of that conflict, and the drama of the events depends very much upon the close combat between King and ’Country’. The Scots are but one ingredient in a complex of rival forces; and at times the significance of the Scots to the narrative is greater than at others. To the history of the Great Rebellion, particularly during its early years, the Scots are but a shade of colour employed to develop the grand canvas upon which the general historian works. The treatment of the Scots in these early stages of the rebellion is episodic. It is a treatment which, though suiting the purposes of general history, is not necessarily appropriate to understanding the import of this single factor in the melee of the early ^^fO’s. Such is the task of an history thesis: to highlight the issues half- 1. H. R. Trevor-Roper, ’Scotland and the Puritan Revolution', Historical Essays 1600-1750« ed. H. E. Bell and R. L. Allard, London, 1963, 89* vii forgotten in the writing of great historical narratives. There has yet to be described the Scottish factor in these tumultuous events. Most historians recognise that the parliamentary side sought to gain some advantage from having a Scottish 2 army on English soil. Some historians recognise that parliamentary affection for the Scots fluctuated, and that 3 it differed from one group to another. Historians generally recognise that Parliament did much to detain the King from his Scotward journey, in August 1 6 M , lest Parliament be deprived of those advantages the Scots had provided hitherto. Most historians perceive that parliamentary affection for the Scots was not simple and grateful but 2 . Clarendon is the arch-exponent of this thesis. See his History of the Rebellion, ii, 27; iii, 23, ^3, 73—^9 91-2, 219, 221, 226, 23^. See also: S. Reed Brett, John Pym, London, 19*+0, I82ff.; Godfrey Davies, The Early Stuarts, 160V1660. Oxford, 1937, 91; S. R. Gardiner, History of England, London, 190*+, ix, 219, 226; John Richard Green, History of the English People, London, 1879, iii, 205; David Hume, History of Great Britain (The Reigns of James I and Charles I), ed. Duncan Forbes, London, 1970, 397, Vl2-3; F. C. Montague, History of England from the Accession of James the First to the Restoration, London, 1907, 232, 237; Ivan Roots, The Great Rebellion. London, i96o, 28-9, 315 3*S *+6-8; H. R. Trevor-Roper, op. cit., 79; C. E. Wade, John Pym, London, 1912, 18*+; C. V. Wedgwood, The King’s Peace. London, 1971, 369ff# Neither Macaulay nor Trevelyan has anything noteworthy to say about English attitudes towards the Scots. 3 . Gardiner, op. cit., 29*+-7, 300-1, 376-7; Brett, op. cit., 182-3; J. H.. Hexter, The Reign of King Pym, London, 19^1, 28-9; Montague, op. cit.. 2Mo-7s Wedgwood, op. ^ cit., *+06ff. All historians consulted agree that a dislike of Presbyterianism occasioned some change in the attitude of Parliament to the Scots. Often, however, this conclusion is implicit in their comments on the subject of religion, rather than explicitly stated. b. See any general history of the civil war. viii inlaid with misgivings. This betrayed itself especially on 5 the subject of religion, which was so natural a part of the parliamentary sense of the Scots that it was only the dire strait of near defeat that compelled Parliament to seek, in 16^3? Scotland’s military aid. It seems to me that the general historians are right in much of what they say about parliamentary attitudes toward the Scots. However, their statements are a gloss. They have not sought to detail the history of that relationship and they have not attempted seriously to understand and explain the fluctuations in the Long Parliament’s attitudes toward the Scots from its opening to the making of the Solemn League and Covenant. For instance, by being content to observe simply that military pressures forced Parliament 7 into alliance with the Covenanters, historians fail to provide an adequate account of the considerations Parliament made when contemplating the proposed measure. Because of this oversight historians tend to underestimate the controversial nature of Scottish issues. On examination, much of the writing about parliamentary attitudes toward the Scots appears to be derived from a cursory examination 5. See above, Note 3* See also C. Hill, Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England, London, 196^,212-^3. 6. Most historians do not delve into the debate of the proposed Scottish alliance in 16^3* They are usually satisfied to record simply that English prejudices against the Scots we re overcome when defeat threatened. See: Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War. 16k2-J\6*+9« London, 1905. i. 177-8: Green, op. cit.«226-7: Hobbes, Bohemoth, ed. William Molesworth, New York, 15o; Hume, op. cit.,' 5^9: Sir John A. R. Marriot, The Crisis of English Liberty, Oxford, 1930, 21^; Montague, op. cit.. 289: C. V.. V/. Wedgwood, The King1 s War. London, 1970, 229ff.; Wade, op. cit., 306. 7* See above, Note 6. ix of the Scottish question in the early years of the Long Parliament. Why should one attempt to probe the matter more deeply? Historians of the period open their work with England nearly prostrate before their Scottish saviours out of gratitude for their stand against the Court. London, we are 8 told, celebrated the Scottish invasion as its own victory. But not one historian has any difficulty in passing from England’s salutation of the Scots to hinting darkly at 9 England’s suspicions. Almost every one of them seems determined to drain from his narrative any suggestion of English affection for their ’Brethren the Scots’, until each becomes as hard-headed about the Solemn League and Covenant as were Pym or Vane. There is no love at the bottom of it, but all Adwalton Moor and Roundway Down. Again, I think the historians are justified in recording this dichotomy; and I appreciate that there is little room in their work for describing how Englishmen moved from the warm embrace of 16HO to the cool calculation of 16^+3• They do not have the space to analyse adequately those prejudices which had to be overcome before Parliament was ready openly to align itself militarily with the Scots.