The execution of King Charles I on January 30, 1649, was a dramatic episode in the English Civil War, but it did not mark the end of armed strife in the British Isles. Unfortunately, the war entered a new phase lasting from 1650 to 1652. Known as the Third English Civil War, it was essentially a conflict between England and Scotland, distinctly more nationalistic in tone than the preceding struggles.

Subscribe Today

• Did you enjoy our article?
• Read more in Military History magazine
• Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!!!
 

Charles was a member of the House of Stuart, a Scottish dynasty that had ruled both England and Scotland since 1601. Although the countries shared a king, they maintained separate national identities and distinct bodies of law. They also maintained different established religions and separate parliaments. When Charles acceded to the throne in 1625 he tried to rule as an absolute monarch. This policy brought him swiftly into conflict with England’s Parliament, whose members strongly preferred a more flexible system of parliamentary monarchy. Between 1642 and 1648, Charles fought the English Parliament–which raised an army against him–but ultimately lost, was captured and put on trial.

During the 1640s, radical religious and political changes were occurring in Scotland as well. The Scots were deeply loyal to their national church–the Kirk, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. When Charles tried to interfere with the internal affairs of the Kirk, Scottish nobles and many commoners in 1638 signed a document called the National Covenant, by which they agreed to resist Charles’ proposed reforms. The power of the ‘Covenanters’ grew over the next decade. In September 1648, the Kirk Party, a fanatical branch of the Covenanters, seized power.

Religion and politics were inseparable in 17th-century Europe. Religious conscience dictated one’s actions and compromise with the established church’s conceptions was regarded as heresy. Although steadfast faith could bolster confidence in one’s thoughts and actions, it could also lead to dangerous narrow-mindedness in policy. An example is the Act of Classes, passed by the Kirk Party in Scotland’s Parliament on January 4, 1649, which barred the Kirk’s political opponents from service in the government and the army. Many men who were barred were veterans of the Civil Wars. Loyalty to the Kirk, it seemed, was more valuable to the country than military experience.

Then an event took place in England which set that country and Scotland on a collision course. A party called the Independents took power on December 6, 1648. Better known as the ‘Puritans,’ the Independents wanted to purify the Church of England and confer religious toleration on all Protestants. On January 1, 1649, the Independents declared England to be a commonwealth, or republic, and established a Council of State as the premier ruling body of the country. The Council brought Charles to trial on January 20, accused him of crimes against his people, and within 10 days found him guilty and had him executed.

On February 5, the Scots, furious that the English had committed an act of regicide against one of their own, declared Charles’ son, Charles II, king. Since the Kirk Party’s influence at that time was far from secure, its members championed Charles II in hopes that he would adhere to the National Covenant, be converted to Presbyterianism and submit to their control. That would secure the Kirk’s sway over Scotland. The Kirk’s ultimate goal was the conversion of England to Presbyterianism.

For 18 months, Charles negotiated the conditions for his return while exiled in France. He finally accepted the Covenanters’ terms, signing an agreement at Breda on May 1 and reaffirming it by oath just before his ship arrived in Scotland on June 23, 1650. The 20-year-old Charles publicly tolerated the Kirk Party’s control because he needed its members’ support. But once he regained the English throne, he planned to repudiate his agreements with them on the grounds that they had been made under duress.

This unstable situation constituted a basic problem for Anglo-Scottish relations. Presumably, Scotland was free to crown Charles, just as England had the right to become a republic. Leaders on both sides of the border, however, had divined Charles’ true intentions. Coincidentally, the English Council of State met on the same day Charles landed in Scotland. The Council cited Charles as the enemy–not the Kirk Party or the Scottish people–and decided to strike at Charles in an attempt to eliminate him and establish a pro-English government in Scotland.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to