Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T21:56:13.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The First Army Plot of 1641

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

Conrad Russell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

ON 11 May 1641, Maurice Wynn reported that ‘some plott or other’ had been discovered to the Commons. The vagueness of his reaction seems to have been characteristic of much assessment of the army plot ever since. There is a general sense that there is enough smoke to make it probable that there is some fire, but we are not extremely clear who plotted with whom to do what. This is, in part, because of a very justifiable caution. It is felt that Charles I's plots, like his grandmother's lovers, are capable of growing in the telling, especially when the tellers are people to whom belief in popish conspiracy comes with eagerness distressing to a modern ear. Pym and Hampden's later readiness to exploit such mare's nests as the Beale plot at crucial moments in the debate on the Grand Remonstrance adds further to the wariness with which plot stories from the Long Parliament are treated. Wariness is an entirely justified reaction with any Long Parliament plot, but wariness may stop short of incredulity. Above all, a belief that plots should not be taken on trust is no substitute for an examination of the sources.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 38 , December 1988 , pp. 85 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1988

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 National Library of Wales, Wynn of Gwydir MSS, no. 1685.

2 Journal of Sir Symonds D'Ewes, ed. Coates, W. H. (New Haven 1942) (hereafter) ‘D’ Ewes (C), pp. 148, 149, 151, 167Google Scholar.

3 C.J. ii 573. All subsequent references are to vol. ii.

4 Bodleian Library MS dep. C. 165 (Nalson MS 13) item 9 C.S.P.D. 1633–4, vol. ccxxxviii, no. 35 examination of Eleanor Villiers: ‘he never promised her marriage, for she loved him so much that she never asked him’.

5 L.J. iv 235 (subsequent references are to vol. iv unless otherwise stated). The peculiarity of this committee is that it contained no bishops. This need not be a statement of political hostility, since the committee's work could be regarded as coming close to the giving of judgements of blood.

6 Alnwick Castle MSS vol. 15 (British Library Microfilm 286) f. 223a–b. I am grateful to His Grace the Duke of Northumberland for permission to examine these MSS. The MS is not in Henry Percy's hand, but in that of someone who was in England on 11 May (see below n. 85). There is no name on it, but the description of the occasion when ‘Goring and I’ went to see the King makes the identity clear. Percy's public confession is in SP 16/481/41.

7 The French ambassador's main informant was the Earl of Holland, who became Lord General in the middle of April, but he also enjoyed numerous sources in the queen's household, including Father Philip, the queen's confessor.

8 His Majesties Declaration (12 08 1642) BL, E. 241(1) p. 517Google Scholar. On the behaviour of the new Privy Councillors, see Staffs. R.O. D 1778/1/i/14, O'Neill to Legge, 23 Feb. 1641. I am grateful to the Earl of Dartmouth for permission to use his family papers.

9 Baillie, Robert, Letters and Journals, ed. Laing, D. (Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1841–1842), i. 305–6 (hereafter cited as ‘Baillie’)Google Scholar.

10 Stevenson, David, The Scottish Revolution (Newton Abbot, 1973), 219Google Scholar. I hope to discuss this matter at length elsewhere.

11 National Library of Scotland, Wodrow MS Fol. 65, f. 72a–b.

12 Public Record Office, State Papers (hereafter SP) 16/477/26 (also 12 and 54). I am grateful to Dr Ronan Bennett for a helpful discussion of the attitudes of civilian courts to soldiers.

13 SP 16/477/46: Pearl, Valerie, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution (Oxford 1961), 198–207Google Scholar. I have not added significantly to Professor Pearl's account of this episode.

14 Journal of Sir Symonds D'Ewes, ed. Notestein, Wallace (New Haven, 1923), 448–52 (hereafter D'Ewes(N))Google Scholar. BL Harleian MS 163, f. 837a (Strode speaking on 13 Aug. 1641).

15 House of Lords Main Papers, 20 March 1641.

16 House of Lords Record Office, Braye MSS 2 147V. A clumsy passage in this testimony is the result of a correction to eliminate hearsay.

17 SP 16/480/14: PRO LC5./134, p. 300.

18 Bodleian MS dep. C. 165, ff. 30–41: SP 16/481/41.

19 L.J. 667.

20 Braye MSS 2, f. 158 ff.

21 Bodl. MS dep. C. 165, ff. 14–41. Ashburnham appears to contradict himself.

22 SP 16/481/41: Alnwick MSS vol. 15, f. 223b. There is an intriguing suggestion in the last line of the Alnwick confession that Percy may have told Northumberland about the plot before his flight.

23 SP 16/481/41.

24 Goring's deposition, as above.

25 C.J. 116 and other refs. For the origins of this resolution, see B.L. Harl. MS 164, f. 951b. Stapleton and Holies who moved it, regarded it in part for the protection of the Scots. See also SP 16/479/27.

26 SP 16/479/13, 13.1, 19, 88. No. 88, which is an extract taken from a letter by Conyers not now in State Papers, says that Percy, as well as Holland and Goring was expected at the army. This probably means that Chudleigh or his colleague Sergeant Major Willis told the officers so, but it need not follow that we should believe them.

27 Braye MSS 2, ff. 147–9. Depositions of Chudleigh and Col. Vavassor.

28 ib. f. 151, deposition of William Legge.

29 SP 16/480/9.

30 Chudleigh's deposition, ff. 147–8. The plan to make Newcastle general was discussed at the London meeting, but Willmott, Ashburnham and Pollard denied that these other propositions had been discussed there. Chudleigh's suggestion that Newcastle would feast the troops in Nottinghamshire, where his estates were, raises the possibility that the army might have been moved far enough south to cause alarm, but not far enough to burn its boats.

31 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian 1640–42, pp. 142, 145; H.M. Twelfth Report (2), 280.

32 Staffs. R.O. D 1778/1/1/18, Berkeley to Legge, York, 1 May 1641. This letter deserves quotation in full: ‘Deare Will, I have ordered my officers to meete me at Doncaster, and therefore cannot stay. I have performed what was agreed on last night, you know there hath been many occasions of our delay but none from me although I of all men were most excusable if I had, being told by Capt. Palmes that I was mistaken if I thought the rest did not discent as much as he: then which in my judgement nothing could be more. However as I have not been backward heretofore so I will not be for the future in any honourable resolution that shall be approved on by such persons so itt be undertaken roundly and heartily and so you may assure all or any of them from thy Jo. Berkele’.

33 Baillie i. 282, Balfour's, deposition, Braye MS 2, f. 156 r–vGoogle Scholar.

34 BL Harl. MS 163, f. 500a; L.J. 229–30.

35 Braye MS 2, f. 144 r–v. This was not taken by the Lord's committee for examinations, but by Balfour and Newport as Lieutenant and Constable of the Tower. In acting as Constable, Newport was twenty-four hours premature.

36 Bodleian Library MS Carte 1, f. 182v.

37 Braye MS 2, f. 146 v–r (sic) (Lanyon's deposition).

38 Christianson, Paul, ‘The “Obliterated” Portions of the Lords' Journals’, E.H.R. xcv (1980), 346–8Google Scholar. I have taken the liberty of changing ProfessorChristianson's, reading of ‘Lord Chancellor’ on p. 347Google Scholar, since there was no such officer at the time. ‘Lord Chamberlain’ appears a more probable reading. Original Journals, vol. 16, p. 222.

39 Staffs. R.O. D 1778/1/i/21.

40 Bodleian MS dep. C 165, no. 9.

41 L.J. 236.

42 PRO 31/3/72, f. 552 r–v.

43 SP 16/480/18.

44 PRO 31/3/72, p. 458, but see ib. pp. 460–2 for the emasculated official form which this advice was transmitted to the Queen. For the deliberate circulation of the rumour, see ib. p. 416 (Jan. 28/Feb. 7), when the French ambassador reported that it was thought she hoped to inspire some jealousy in the Parliament. See also Baillie i. 295, PRO 31/3/72, pp. 423–4, 435, 436, H.M.C. De L'Isle and Dudley vi. 386 and Kent Archive Office U 1475/C 114/7. I am grateful to Viscount De L'Isle and Dudley, V.C., K.G., for permission to quote from his family papers. For the Queen's anger at Richelieu's response, see PRO 31/3/72, pp. 465, 482.

45 C.S.P. Ven. 1640–2, p. 127.

46 PRO 31/3/72, p. 554.

47 SP 16/480/18. It is not clear why a House of Commons document is now in State Papers.

48 PRO (Kew) WO 55/455 (26 Sept. 1640). This order carries a note that Browne's men were to be paid extra wages because of the need for haste. Payment is noted on 20 April 1641. For the order of 10 Dec. for new gun platforms for these guns, PRO WO 49/72, 10 Dec. 1640 (payment 8 May 1641). For the original desire to fortify the Tower after Newburn see SP 16/464/45 and 466/2 and 11, and Bodleian MSS Clarendon 1418 and 1423.

49 PRO SO 3/12, ff. 142 v, 144 v: SP 16/480/48 and 15.

50 Bedfordshire Record Office St John MSS J 1382. PRO C. 233/5, f. 87v.

51 PRO SO 3/12, f. 169v. See PRO Wards 9/431, f. 387v for the payment of Willmott's pension.

52 BL Add. MS 31954, fo. 184a.

53 SP 16/480/11 (Chidley) and 41 (Goring and Ashburnham).

54 C.S.P. Ven. 1641–2, p. 142.

55 National Library of Wales, Wynnstay MSS vol. 165 p. 10 (Wynn's book of poundage); vol. 173 pp. 12–13 (Wynn's warrant book). The warrant book records £1,400 not £1,300 as delivered into the Queen's hands. I am grateful to Professor Caroline Hibbard for drawing my attention to these MSS. The brief of Wynn's annual account, SP 16/484/48, shows £9,500 as delivered into the Queen'ss own hands. Of this, £4,200 is not accounted for in the poundage book or the warrant book. In December 1641, when Balfour was offered £3,000 to leave his place at the Tower, the money was channelled through Sir Richard Wynn. D'Ewes(C) p. 330.

56 C.J. 123.

57 Bodl. MS Rawlinson D 1099, f. 86a.

58 See my The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637–1642 (forthcoming).

59 SP 16/478/82. Gardiner, who is usually accurate on the Army Plot, is at his most Gladstonian in commenting on this memorandum; History of England, ix. 311–2 (1893)Google Scholar.

60 H.M.C. De L'Isle and Dudley, VI 367, 382.

61 Scottish Record Office, Hamilton MSS G.D. 406/1, 1437 and other refs.

62 Astley's deposition 29 Oct. 1641, Braye MS 2, ff. 203–4.

63 National Library of Scotland, Adv. MS 33.4.6, ff. 132v, 134r.

64 L.J. 231, BL Harl. MS 457, f. 72r and Stowe MS 187 f. 63r.

65 Scottish Record Office, Hamilton MSS G.D. 406/1/878 and 1096.

66 Baillie i. 350; Edinburgh University Library MS D.c.4.16., f. 89v.

67 National Library of Scotland, Adv. MS 33.1.1 vol. XIII no. 80: Stevenson, David, op. cit., 223Google Scholar.

68 Harl. MS 457, ff. 77r, 80r: National Library of Scotland, Wodrow MS Quarto 25, f. 160v. It is worth noting that this offer was not made at a formal meeting of the negotiators, but at a private meeting between Charles and the Scottish Commissioners.

69 Hamilton MSS, GD 406/1/1585 and 6.

70 PRO 31/3/72, fo. 513 (8/18 April). This rumour is unlikely to have helped towards Strafford's acquittal on the Irish army charge.

71 Gardiner, S. R., op. cit. ix 362Google Scholar and n.

72 BL Harl. MS 477, f. 28r.

73 SP 16/480/26.

74 BL Harl. MS 163, f. 512a.

75 C.J. 138–40, BL Harl. MS 477, ff. 43r, 45v, 47r. It is intriguing to imagine the course of the Civil War if this amendment had been carried.

76 SP 63/274/21 and 2.

77 S. R. Gardiner, Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution (Oxford repr. 1979), 155–6.

78 Baillie i. 351.

79 Hibbard, Caroline, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill, 1983), 194–6Google Scholar.

80 BL Harl. MS 163, fo. 544a.

81 SP 16/480/73.

82 Bristol Record Office, Smyth of Long Ashton MSS, no. 136(e). ‘Cure of’ is an interpolation in the MS.

83 L.J. 238, 241 and 235–246 passim; C.J. 135. The Lords Lieutenant asked for were duly appointed: PROC 231/5, ff. 447, 450, 451.

84 Stuart Royal Proclamations, ed. Larkin, James F. (Oxford, 1983), ii. 742–3Google Scholar.

85 Alnwick MSS vol. 15 (BL Microfilm 286), f. 221; L.J. 245, Original Journal, vol. 16, p. 24.