British Quarterly Review, American Edition, Vol. LIII / January and April, 1871

by Various

Charles now began to act after the fashion which was to lead him at last to ruin and death. He had not yet alienated the hearts of his people, and timely concession and simple justice would certainly have allayed the tempest. But he resolved to dissimulate with them, to hold out hopes that he would comply with their requests, and, at the same time, to prepare the means of chastising them as audacious 'rebels.' He sent Hamilton, as a commissioner, to Scotland, with full power to redress grievances, with a promise that a General Assembly and a free Parliament should be convened; but he secretly determined to put down opposition by sheer military force. If Charles was not what is called a 'bad man,' if he was not a mere reckless and wicked tyrant, it must be allowed that the detestable doctrines of kingcraft had poisoned his understanding; he acted on system, as though he were free from all obligations of good faith with his subjects. Mr. Burton gives us the following letter, written to Hamilton at this juncture; it is one of the worst extant specimens of royal duplicity:—

'And to this end I give you leave to flatter them with what hopes you please.... This I have written to no other end than to show you I will rather die than yield to those impertinent and damnable demands, as you rightly call them.... As the affairs are now, I do not expect that you should declare the adherers to the Covenant traitors until, as I have already said, you have heard from me that my fleet hath set sail for Scotland.'—(Vol. vi. 505.)

According to the promise given by the king, a General Assembly was now held, described fully by Mr. Burton. This great convention met at Glasgow; and Episcopacy was condemned and set aside, as in the days of the first Reformation. Charles replied by seizing Edinburgh Castle, and taking possession of the chief Scottish fortresses; and Hamilton openly issued proclamations denouncing the Covenanters as audacious rebels. Civil war broke out in 1639; and in a few weeks, an irregular contest was raging in the east and south-east, and threatening to overrun the kingdom. At this juncture, Scotland abounded with soldiers trained in the Thirty Years' War, not mere mercenaries of the Dalgetty type, but men really fitted to command; and a resolution was formed to march to the south, and to make an armed demonstration against England. In an incredibly short time, 22,000 men were arrayed under the orders of Leslie, and making for the English border—a force relatively to the population of Scotland, of extraordinary numerical amount, and a conclusive proof of the enthusiasm of the country. The composition of this army, led by some of the noblest men in Scotland, shows all classes, high and low, joined in the movement against the king:—

'Our crouners (that is, colonels) for the most part were noblemen. Rothes, Lindsay, Sinclair, had among them two full regiments, at least, from Fife. Balcarras, a horse troop; Loudon, Montgomery, Erskine, Boyd, Fleming, Kirkcudbright, Yester, Dalhousie, Eglinton, and others, either with whole or half regiments. Montrose's regiment was above fifteen hundred men.'—(Vol. vii. 56.)

The Scottish army having reached the Border, the king consented to the brief truce known by the name of the Pacification of Berwick. Once more Charles made specious promises with a resolution to break faith: the wishes of the nation were to be respected; Episcopacy was not to be restored; Presbyterianism was to be the form of Church government; and the National Estates were to sanction the reforms confirmed by a paternal and high-minded sovereign. The Parliament, however, was hardly assembled before it was indefinitely prorogued; and there is ample evidence that Charles intended, as soon as an opportunity came, to invade Scotland, and take summary vengeance. At this juncture, the Scottish leaders unquestionably remembered the 'Ancient League,' and looked to France and Richelieu for aid; and if we cannot approve their purpose, we at least should remember the great provocation. The king thought that the time had arrived to inflict punishment on the 'rebels of the North;' he felt assured that the old English jealousy of a political connection between Scotland and France would throw all England upon his side; and he issued orders for a general armament, for the invasion and even the conquest of Scotland. But, at this crisis, political sympathy got the better of past national dislikes; and England, as a people, was averse to aid the king in crushing discontent beyond the Tweed. For a series of years the government of Charles had provoked indignation in England, only less than that which existed in Scotland; the tyranny of Strafford and the arrogance of Laud had combined the Constitutional and Puritan parties, and a great revolution was fast approaching. The future chiefs of the Long Parliament co-operated with the Scottish malcontents; and Charles found it impossible to collect a sufficient army to carry out his purpose. Mr. Burton describes the situation thus:—

'The result is described by one on whom heavy responsibility lay—the Earl of Northumberland, who was to command the army of the North: "Most of the ways that were relied on for supplies of money have hitherto failed us, and, for aught I know, we are likely to become the most despised nation of Europe. To the regiments that are now raising, we, for want of money, have been able to advance but fourteen days' pay—the rest must meet them upon their march towards Selby, and for both the horse and foot already in the North, we can, for the present, send them but seven days' pay." Those who were considered liable to serve in the army resisted the conscription; and when embodied, they were often so mutinous as to be more dangerous to their officers than they were likely to be to the enemy.'—(Vol. vii. 99.)

The Scottish army, as is well known, encountered no opposition on the Tweed, and, having taken Newcastle, was advancing southwards, when its progress was stayed by the Treaty of Ripon. The sword had been struck out of the hands of the king; his English subjects had refused to second his efforts against their ancient enemies; and, in England and Scotland alike, the national cause was about to triumph. From this time, the chiefs of the opposition to the court cooperated in the two countries; and the acts of the Long Parliament and the Scottish Estates were, in a great degree, of the same kind, and had objects almost similar. Mr. Burton, however, correctly shows that Scotland certainly has the honour of having inaugurated this glorious resistance; but for the resolution displayed by the nation, it is not impossible that Stratford's scheme of 'Thorough' might have been successful for many years, and the constitutional liberties of England might have been suspended for at least a generation. Mr. Burton describes at some length the visit of the Scottish Commissioners to London, and the first proceedings of the Long Parliament; but we have no space to dwell on a subject which, however interesting and picturesque, belongs more properly to the History of England. In 1640-41, the Scottish Estates were convened in accordance with the conditions of the Treaty of Ripon, and it became evident, at once, that the authority of the king would be swept away by a violent revolution. This Assembly, formerly little more than an instrument of the will of the king, was now intent on putting an end to the policy and the power of Charles; it was overflowing with religious zeal and with national, if not democratic passion; and it resolved once for all that the House of Stuart should no longer trifle with the rights of Scotsmen. As Scotland had suffered more grievously than England from the tyranny of the court, the legislation of the Estates was more violent than that of the Long Parliament, and marked more strongly with precipitate haste; on the whole, it does not contrast favourably with that of the English Assembly; but, undoubtedly, not a few of its measures served as precedents for the Long Parliament, in the later stages of the conflict with Charles. For instance, after destroying Episcopacy, and sweeping away all the innovations in Church and State of the twenty years before, the Estates proceeded practically to abolish the prerogatives of the Crown in Scotland; and the course they took seems to have suggested the Nineteen Propositions of the Long Parliament:—

'One of the points which the Estates had determined to carry, was the appointment, by themselves, of all public officers. The Secret Council and the Court of Session were recast, the appointments being made in two separate Acts. In a general Act, applicable to Government offices at large, the king's form of appointment is treated with all reverence; but, at the same time, it is to be exercised in each instance "with the advice and approbation" of the Estates.'—(Vol. vii. 140.)

It was not to be expected, after this, that a revolution could be avoided. Charles, unquestionably, resolved to draw the sword as soon as an opportunity offered; the Estates, backed by the mass of the nation, were as determined to maintain their advantage. When such were the feelings on either side, there is little use in examining with care how or by whom the Civil War was commenced. But, as in the case of the Five Members, so in that of the mysterious Incident, the king seems to have acted with that treacherous malice which so often provoked the indignation of his subjects; and after this event, war was inevitable. The great Irish rebellion of 1641 came to add fuel to the gathering flame; and Scotland, like England, was impressed with the belief that Charles had connived at an infamous scheme of overthrowing the colonists of Ireland, and of marshalling a Papist Irish army to put down the Estates and the Parliament. Mr. Burton examines at some length the evidence against the king in this matter, and certainly is not inclined to acquit him; however that may be, it is somewhat curious that he does not allude to a most significant fact, that the alleged commission to the rebellious Irish was given under the great seal of Scotland, and was said to be in the interest of the Scotch, and that the Irish carefully avoided to lay a hand, at first, on the Scottish colonists, while they massacred wholesale their English fellows. Civil war now broke out in England and Scotland; and for some time, as is well known, success inclined to the side of the king. Mr. Burton describes the brilliant campaigns of Montrose in the North minutely and well; but he shows correctly that they were mere raids, of which the importance has been exaggerated; and Montrose was defeated without difficulty, when encountered by a really able soldier. The real struggle was in the South; and Mr. Burton, perhaps, underrates the extraordinary efforts of Cromwell in restoring the Parliamentary cause, and overestimates the weight which Leslie and the Scottish army threw into the balance. Undoubtedly, however, Leslie and the Scots were auxiliaries of extreme importance. We quote this brief description of Marston Moor, where Leslie and Cromwell commanded together:—

'Prince Rupert headed one of those impetuous attacks for which he was renowned, and scattered before him the right of the allied army under Fairfax and Leven. It was one of those great blows that may confuse a whole army; but the other half was in very competent hands—those of Cromwell and David Leslie. They beat back their opponents, not by a rush, but a hard, steady fight, and were on the enemy's ground, when Rupert returned from a pursuit which he had carried too far. He found that while he had been away pursuing the defeated enemy, events behind him had arranged matters for a second battle, in which each occupied the ground that earlier in the day, had belonged to the other side. The end was an entire victory.'—(Vol. vii. 180.)