Mercurius Britanicus on Charles I: an Exercise in Civil War Journalism and High Politics, August 1643 to May 1646* Joyce Macadam Watford
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mercurius Britanicus on Charles I: an exercise in civil war journalism and high politics, August 1643 to May 1646* Joyce Macadam Watford Abstract This article examines in detail the sustained campaign of character assassination run by Mercurius Britanicus against Charles I. It illustrates the substance, style and provenance of Britanicus’s arguments; it then assesses the newsbook’s attacks in their chronological context.The article argues that Britanicus worked closely with the parliamentary war party grandees to discredit Charles publicly, to divide royalist opinion by revealing his weaknesses and mistakes, and to pressurize him into making peace on the radicals’ terms. Although Britanicus stopped short of calling outright for Charles’s deposition, this was the logical conclusion to be drawn from the newsbook’s comments. On Monday 4 August 1645, readers of the London newsbook Mercurius Britanicus were confronted with a remarkable opening passage: Where is King Charles? What’s become of him?...some say...heran away to his dearly beloved Ireland; yes, they say he ran away out of his own Kingdome very Majestically. Others will have him erecting a new Monarchy in the Isle of Anglesey. A third sort there are which say he hath hid himself...therefore (for the satisfaction of my Countrymen) it were best to send Hue and Cry after him.1 Having couched in terms of public rumour its preliminary accusations that the cowardly king had abandoned his people and was now consorting with their worst enemies, Britanicus came directly to the point: Charles was ‘a wilful King, which hath gone astray these four years from his Parliament, with a guilty conscience, bloody hands, a heart full of broken vows and protestations’. He had effectively abdicated his throne. This editorial was no isolated act of reckless bravado on the part of Britanicus’s editor at the time, Marchamont Nedham.2 The ‘Hue and Cry’ represented one episode in the newsbook’s extended character assassination of Charles I that was unique in civil war journalism. During the war, direct personal criticism of the king became a notable * The author is grateful to Prof. Blair Worden and Dr. Jason Peacey for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. She also wishes to thank the anonymous referees for this journal for their helpful references, comments and suggestions. 1 Mercurius Britanicus, xcii, 4 Aug. 1645, 825. 2 Nedham became editor of Mercurius Britanicus in Sept. 1644 (Lords Journals, viii. 321). He awaits a full scholarly biography. Joseph Frank’s monograph Cromwell’s Press Agent: a Critical Biography of Marchamont Nedham, 1620–78 (Lanham, Md., 1980) has been superseded by recent research. B.Worden’s ‘“Wit in a Roundhead”: the dilemma of Marchamont Nedham’, in Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England, ed. S. D. Amussen and M. A. Kishlansky (Manchester, 1995), pp. 301–37, provides a stimulating and nuanced account of Nedham’s career between 1643 and 1651. Copyright © 2011 Institute of Historical Research DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2281.2010.00561.x Historical Research, vol. 84, no. 225 (August 2011) Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Mercurius Britanicus on Charles I, 1643–6 471 feature of the London serial press.3 Nevertheless, no other newsbook could match Britanicus’s sustained, hard-hitting and subtly-paced campaign. It was an exceptional enterprise, and one that could not have been undertaken without encouragement or direction at the highest political level.4 Britanicus’s ‘Hue and Cry’ has been described as ‘perhaps the most famous journalistic episode of the mid seventeenth century’.5 It was so controversial that it was still being recalled and discussed in coffee shops twenty years later.6 It provoked an immediate response from the house of lords, the body ultimately responsible for press censorship in the sixteen-forties:7 the day after publication, the peers jailed the newsbook’s deputy licenser, Thomas Audley, and its printer, Robert White; editor Nedham received a reprimand and a printed apology was ordered.8 Sir Roger Burgoyne, the Presbyterian M.P. for Bedfordshire, hoped that Britanicus ‘may smart to purpose’ in jail for being ‘too saucy and uncivil with the king’.9 The response of the newsbook’s parliamentarian detractors was to engineer Audley’s dismissal from his post.10 Royalist propagandists delighted in the discomfiture of their leading antagonist among the London press.11 The editorial is an outstanding piece of civil war political journalism yet it has received relatively little detailed scholarly attention. Recent academic interest in the early modern serial press has focused on the expansion of print culture and on the 3 J. Frank, The Beginnings of the English Newspaper, 1620–60 (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), pp. 65, 80, 112–13. 4 Frank, Beginnings,p.60; Worden, ‘“Wit in a Roundhead”’, p. 306; J. Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda and Politics during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 151–2.The terminology used to describe the parliamentary factions during the first civil war is problematic because of the chronic fluidity of the political situation. When referring to the period before 1645, the present author has used the terms ‘the war party’,‘the militants’ and ‘the parliamentary radicals’ to describe the group around Lord Saye and Sele among the peers, and Sir Henry Vane the younger and solicitor Oliver St. John in the Commons. After the Uxbridge negotiations of Feb. 1645, contemporaries used the religious terms ‘Independent’ and ‘Presbyterian’ to describe the militant and moderate political factions respectively.The author has followed this convention. The shifting political situation meant that a group or individual might be considered as ‘radical’ at one point but not at another. By 1647, e.g., St. John was not a ‘radical’ like the Levellers, the sectaries or the rogue republican Henry Marten M.P., but a parliamentary moderate, a ‘royal Independent’ (V. Pearl, ‘The “royal Independents” in the English civil war’, Trans. Royal Hist. Soc., 5th ser., xviii (1968), 69–96,atpp.73, 75–81). 5 J. Peacey, ‘The struggle for Mercurius Britanicus: factional politics and the parliamentarian press, 1643–6’, Huntington Libr. Quart., lxviii (2005), 517–44,atp.535. 6 Worden, ‘“Wit in a Roundhead”’, p. 315. 7 A Transcript of the Register of the Worshipful Company of Stationers, 1640–1708, ed. G. E. B. Eyre and G. R. Rivington (3 vols., 1913–14), i. 71–229, passim; Peacey, ‘Struggle’, passim. Following the collapse of the prerogative court machinery for implementing press censorship, parliament arranged for the Stationers’ Company to continue its regulation of the press through a series of ordinances passed in 1642 and 1643. However, the peers increasingly took it upon themselves to call erring printers and editors to the bar of the House, to issue reprimands and jail sentences when they deemed it necessary (Peacey, Politicians,pp.138–48; D. Freist, Governed by Opinion: Politics and Religion and the Dynamics of Communication in Stuart London, 1637–45 (1997), pp. 47, 55–7, 71–3; S. Lambert, ‘The beginning of printing for the house of commons, 1640–2’, The Library, 6th ser., iii (1981), 43–61,atpp.44–5, 47; for press censorship in the later 1640s, see J. McElligott, Royalism, Print and Censorship in Revolutionary England (Woodbridge, 2007)). 8 Lords Journals, vii. 525, 527–8; British Library, E.296.(10.), Mercurius Britanicus his apologie to all well-affected people, 11 Aug. 1645. 9 Historical Manuscripts Commission, 7th Report, vii. 454, Sir Roger Burgoyne to Sir Ralph Verney, 7 Aug. 1645. 10 Brit. Libr., E.269.(20.), Aulicus his Hue and Cry sent forth after Britanicus, 13 Aug. 1645; Peacey, ‘Struggle’, pp. 536–7. 11 Brit. Libr. E.294.(31.), Mercurius Anti-Britanicus (1645), pp. 4–5, 7; P.W.Thomas, Sir John Berkenhead, 1617–89: a Royalist Career in Politics (Oxford, 1969), pp. 117–18. Historical Research, vol. 84, no. 225 (August 2011) Copyright © 2011 Institute of Historical Research 472 Mercurius Britanicus on Charles I, 1643–6 ways in which news and propaganda were disseminated.12 Many studies have taken a distinctly literary or sociological approach.13 Joad Raymond, for example, has noted the emergence of a ‘public sphere’ in England in the sixteen-forties. He has asserted, however, that this Habermasian model requires refinement for use in the context of the civil war period.14 In contrast, the intimate relationship between newsbooks and parliamentarian politicians has been a somewhat neglected topic, with the exception of studies by A. N. B. Cotton, and the more recent and extensive work of Jason Peacey.15 The present author aims to contribute to this particular area through an assessment of Britanicus’s attacks on Charles I. This article examines Britanicus’s campaign with regard to its substance, its distinctive style, and the provenance of its arguments. It proposes a number of reasons for the newsbook’s enterprise in terms of civil war journalism and politics. A contextual analysis of the newsbook’s most notable comments illustrates the mechanics and progress of the campaign, and the article concludes by considering the impact of Britanicus’s extraordinary undertaking. There were several striking aspects of the ‘Hue and Cry’ that contributed to its notoriety among contemporaries. Its language, which was notable for the economy of its style, was overtly offensive – it was clearly intended to strip Charles of his subjects’ respect and loyalty – while the bitterness of its attack was shocking and its mockery repulsive. In these respects, the ‘Hue and Cry’ was representative of the rest of Britanicus’s assaults on Charles; the outstanding feature of this editorial was its spectacular vehemence, and its strong intimation that Charles was a failed monarch.