The Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms and the Cromwellian Union, 1643-1663

Kirsteen M. Mackenzie

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317026525
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Histoire
• Subtopic: Histoire du monde

This book provides the first major analysis of the covenanted interest from an integrated three kingdoms perspective. It examines the reaction of the covenanted interest to the actions and policies of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, drawing particular attention to links, similarities and differences in and between the covenanted interest in all three kingdoms. It also follows the fortunes of the covenanted interest and Presbyterian Church government as it built and changed in response to the Royalists and the Independents during the 1650s.

1 The three kingdoms and the emergence of the anglocentric challenge, 1643–1648

From 1643 until the end of 1648, the Independents increased pressure on the covenanted interest within the three kingdoms. The more prominent elements of the covenanted alliance did disintegrate beyond repair, but the covenanted interest did not disappear with it. On the contrary, it consolidated itself in the face of pressures from the Independents. Faced with the growing influence of the Independents in the workings of the Westminster Assembly, members who favoured a Presbyterian settlement responded with the creation of an ‘Anglo-Scottish’ liturgy. This liturgy was to be sanctioned and discussed in, and between, the General Assembly, the Westminster Assembly and the House of Commons. Not only did those who favoured forms of Presbyterian Church government respond to challenges within the Assembly, they were also very active in responding to printed criticism in London. During this period, both English and Scottish Presbyterians responded to the sectaries through the printing presses in a semi-coordinated effort. Indeed, the Solemn League and Covenant encouraged all subscribers to act upon ‘what we are not able to suppress or overcome we shall reveal and make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed’.¹ Nor did Presbyterian Church government falter completely, despite the lack of support from Parliament and local committees. In fact, Presbyterian congregations continued to emerge in London and Ulster. The pursuit of covenanted uniformity aimed to compensate for the withering cooperation within the Anglo-Scottish relationship and the emergence of a fully anglocentic approach to the relationship between the Three Stuart Kingdoms. The priorities of an Independent minority at Westminster became paramount characterised by the emergence of a private interest at the expense of the public interest.

The reconfiguration of federative union: propaganda, providence and the politics of disorder

The Westminster Assembly’s primary purpose was to advise the English Parliament on the form of national church to be established in England. However, Robert S Paul has observed ‘the Scottish commissioners involving themselves in every phase’. It is clear that the Westminster Assembly was an integral part of the ‘covenanting revolution’ and the Independents ‘were a minority fighting a rearguard action … to postpone the establishment of full Presbyterian uniformity’. The religious legislation and liturgy which emerged was forged in response to the Independents and their attempts to circumvent established procedures in the Assembly as they launched an attack from the outside assisted by the printing presses.²

The procedures and the parameters for debate were established from the outset, in particular:

1. (7) ‘No man be denied to enter his dissent from the Assembly, and his reasons for it, in any point, after it first hath been debated in the Assembly, and thence (if the dissenting party require it) to be sent to the Houses of Parliament by the Assembly, not by any particular man or men in a private way, when either House shall require.
2. (8) All things agreed on and prepared for the Parliament, to be openly read and allowed in the Assembly, and then offered as the judgement of the Assembly, if the major part assent. Provided that the opinion of any persons dissenting and the reasons urged for it, be annexed thereunto, if the dissenters require it, together with the solutions, if any were given to the Assembly, to these reasons’.³

In effect, dissent even from a majority vote within the Assembly was dealt with in an orderly manner. Issues were to be discussed within the Assembly, and appeals were to be made to the Houses of Parliament. Private means of resolving dissent were forbidden, and all disputes had to be resolved by the appropriate channels. Any outside influence was to come by means of a petition to both Houses of Parliament, which was then passed onto the Assembly.⁴ Discussions were facilitated openly in the Assembly but also through a number of organised committees which would be devoted to exploring particular topics or issues. Votes would take place when it was felt an issue had been resolved or a majority in the Assembly had agreed on a point. It was an organised means of discussion, and it is in this context that the activities of the Scots, their English allies and Independents within the Assembly should be viewed.

Much has been made by historians of the Scots ‘forcing’ their austere brand of religion upon their English brethren.⁵ However, it is clear that Scottish commissioners were aware their role was limited to advising only and that the construction of the Church rested with English members of the Assembly. Indeed, the Westminster Assembly did invite the Scottish commissioners to become full members of the Assembly, an invitation which the Scots declined, thereby recognising and respecting England’s right to define its own church government. Thus, English members of the Assembly had to make ‘special motions’ to allow them to consult with the Scottish commissioners on a regular basis. The Scots fully encouraged the English to set up a Classical Presbytery based on English tradition and encouraged compromise. In response to Philp Nye’s sharp accusation that the Scots had ‘given’ the Assembly a whole system of church government, the Scottish members responded that ‘we were well content the Assembly should take their own order, and not tie themselves to ours’.⁶

Following established procedure, the Scottish commissioners advised through a committee, the main forum for discussion, but final votes were cast by English members of the Assembly. It was through the committee system, speeches and open discussions that the Scottish commissioners sought to persuade their English brethren. The focus of the Scottish commissioners was clearly the art of persuasion rather than force, and this was clearly demonstrated in their attempts to set up a ‘committee of accommodation’ to discuss differences with Independents in the Assembly and by the Scottish commissioners continuing adherence to standard procedure despite finding it tedious.⁷

In November 1643, it was suspected that the Independents were attempting extraordinary tactics to influence the Assembly. Edmund Calamy had received a note in his own church, breaching the confidentiality of the Assembly, which stated, ‘some have complained that they could not have freedom of speech in the Assembly’. This coincided with the creation of a committee for the Scots commissioners to enable them to lay out their ‘desires’ openly before the Assembly. In January 1644, the Independents were outnumbered by Parliament and the Assembly on the issue of ordination, and they became aggressive and impertinent. They openly resisted any attempt to form a committee to discuss the viability of the Presbytery and tried to verbally dominate the discussion despite being in the minority. The Scottish commissioners contributed to the discussion by giving all members of the Westminster Assembly a book which discussed church government in Scotland up front, and this was received with grateful thanks by the majority of members. It is important to remember that although this was a published work, it was distributed amongst members of the Assembly during the discussion and was thereby influencing debates from within.⁸

Seeing votes in the Assembly turn against them, and with the Scottish Army crossing the border into England, the Independents published a tract called An Apologeticall Narration. This was a tract published and distributed outwith the Assembly and was seen by members of the Assembly as a clear attempt to influence the Assembly and Parliament from the outside, bypassing the established committee structure. The Independents were courting public opinion to bear down on the Assembly, hoping to overturn a majority vote. According to Baillie, the majority in the Assembly resented the interference. This is brought into sharper focus when we consider that the French churches in London had to apply to the Houses before publishing anything in relation to the Assembly. One of the main features of the Apologeticall Narration was its eschewing of Anglo-Scottish cooperation on matters of church government, stating, ‘We had no State-ends or Political interests to comply with; No kingdoms in our eye to subdue unto our mold’. Within the context of the Solemn League and Covenant and the reciprocal pledges to maintain Anglo-Scottish relations, this attack was seen by Scots and their English allies as an unwarranted, rude and a very public attempt to humiliate them.⁹ Independents continued to try and overturn majority opinion by bypassing the internal committee structures and procedures by approaching the City for backing and bringing outside pressure on Parliament and the Assembly. From this perspective, the Independents were a minority trying to subvert the proceedings of the Assembly and to overturn the wishes of the majority and hampering ‘covenanted uniformity’ with what, as one member described, ‘inconsistent arguments’. The Independent attack on the ‘covenanted interest’ had begun.¹⁰

The Solemn League and Covenant also heralded a joint Anglo-Scottish military effort across the kingdoms which resulted in a Scottish army crossing the English border in January 1644 and the erection of military committees known by name of ‘the Committee of Both Kingdoms’. Historians have made much of the tensions within the Anglo-Scottish war effort played out in this Committee and have highlighted the negative aspects of the war effort, especially the Scots military misdemeanours whilst confronted with the success of the New Model Army.¹¹ However, just as significant were the divisions over the interpretation of providence and the use of the printing press.

Firstly, it has to be recognised that the Scots were indeed an integral element within the Committee of Both Kingdoms. This should come as no surprise because the Committee of Both Kingdoms was modelled on the committees which Pym had set up in 1642, which had drawn inspiration from the Covenanters military committees. As long as there was a Scottish army on English soil, the Committee was to compose of 21 Englishmen and four Scots.¹² John Adamson has argued that Scottish votes were rarely seen in the Committee, and, by default, the Scottish contribution was marginal.¹³ However, the Scots were not marginal members, neither by their activities nor in view of praise received from colleagues. Arguably, the accusation that the Scots were marginal figures came from outside the Committee, usually from opponents.

The Scots did have a central role in the Committee. As a critic complained in 1646, the Scots had a negative voice in proceedings, and therefore, voting could only go ahead if a number of Scots were present on the Committee. This is confirmed by the minutes of the Committee dated 15 April 1644 which stated that there was only one Scottish commissioner present and no vote was passed.¹⁴ From the outset, the Scots presence on the committee was highly important, as representatives from both nations shared responsibility for the prosecution of the war. Archibald Johnston of Wariston was promoted as an officer for the Oath of Secrecy alongside the English Parliament’s Lord Solicitor governing military intelligence. A book of the Committee’s proceedings was to be kept for both nations. It was clear that the Scots had derived their powers on the Committee due to a Scottish army being present on English soil, but they gave a declaration of loyalty to the English Parliament. Work in the Committee had to be carried out by joint councils, and military intelligence had to be shared between the two nations, and orders of supply for the armies could only be sanctioned by signatures of representatives from both nations.¹⁵ Propositions regarding the Scots army in Ireland were only discussed if Scots were present on the Committee, and the Scots were active in distributing passes and warrants.¹⁶

After the victory at Marston Moor on 2 July 1644, Anglo-Scottish cooperation continued, with many of the infamous disputes taking place outside the committee room. Statements about Marston Moor were issued from joint committees. Sir John Meldrum, a Scottish commander in the English Parliamentary forces, was openly praised for his efforts in the surrender of the strategically important Montgomery Castle, both within the Committee and in the printing presses, where it was declared that he ‘deserves a large share in the honour of this daies successe’.¹⁷ Wariston continued in his role relaying intelligence to the Committee of Both Kingdoms in the buildup to the second battle of Newbury in October 1644. Scots present at the battle, such as Sir William Balfour, received notable praise from the Committee for securing victory. In November 1644, Meldrum was again praised by the Committee for reducing the City of Liverpool. It is at this time that information begins to circulate around the Committee about the negative behaviour of the Scottish armies in Newcastle. The Anglo-Scottish Committee responded by referring to the rules governing quarter, reinforcing previous commands made by the Scots themselves. During 1645, Anglo-Scottish cooperation continued, and, in March, Major General David Leslie, of the covenanting forces in England, was dispatched to help alleviate Fairfax at Pontefract. Leslie was praised by the ...