Abstract
The English Civil War took an inordinately long time to get started considering that by January 1642 both Charles and the junto were determined to settle their differences by force. Of course, civil war was only possible if each side had a committed popular following; and Charles’s bungled attempt to arrest the six junto members had temporarily discredited his cause. Not that Parliament was any more capable of raising an army at this stage. The people were deeply divided on certain issues, notably the settlement of religion, but they were neither prepared for war materially, nor ready to accept that the breach between king and Parliament was irreparable. They would be gradually disabused of this notion during the first half of 1642, as the pursuit of rival claims to the kingdom’s military resources generated controversy and a series of armed stand-offs. The fact that the nation still clung to the ideal of consensus and the rule of law made both sides anxious not to forfeit the constitutional high ground and thus hampered their military preparations. Nevertheless, while Charles and Parliament engaged in paper skirmishes over the spring and summer aimed partly at wooing moderate opinion, their enthusiasts in the counties battled (sometimes literally) to raise men and to seize arms and places of strategic importance. By the time Charles raised his standard at Nottingham on 22 August, sporadic fighting had broken out in a number of counties, and two of the kingdom’s major ports, Hull and Portsmouth, were under siege.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
J. Hexter, The Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1941).
J. Adamson, ‘Parliamentary Management, Men-of-Business and the House of Lords, 1640–49’, in C. Jones (ed.), A Pillar of the Constitution: The House of Lords in British Politics, 1640–1784 (London: Hambledon Press, 1989), pp. 21–50.
M. Kishlansky, ‘The Emergence of Adversary Politics in the Long Parliament’, Journal of Modern History, xlix (1977), 617–28.
C. Walker, The Mysterie of the Two Juntos (London, 1647), p. 7.
S. R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War, 1642–1649, 4 vols (London: Windrush Press, 1987), vol. I, p. 95.
D. Laing (ed.), The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie [hereafter cited as Baillie], 3 vols (Edinburgh, 1841), vol. ii, p. 34.
D. Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, 1637–1644 (Newton Abbot: David and Charles, 1973), pp. 263–4
J. Young, The Scottish Parliament, 1639–1661: A Political and Constitutional Analysis (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1996), p. 58.
P. J. Corish, ‘The Rising of 1641 and the Catholic Confederacy, 1641–5’, in T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin, and F. J. Byrne (eds), A New History of Ireland, III: Early Modern Ireland, 1534–1691 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), p. 298.
P. Lenihan, Confederate Catholics at War, 1641–49 (Cork: Cork University Press, 2001), p. 134.
D. Cregan, ‘The Confederate Catholics of Ireland: The Personnel of the Confederation, 1642–9’, Irish Historical Studies, xxix (1994), 490–509.
Ormond, vol. V, p. 287; M. O Siochru, Confederate Ireland, 1642–1649: A Constitutional and Political Analysis (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1999), p. 7.
I. Roy, ‘The Royalist Army in the First Civil War’ (Oxford University, D.Phil. thesis, 1963), pp. 345, 347.
S. R. Gardiner (ed.), The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 1625–1660, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906), pp. 267–71.
Copyright information
© 2004 David Scott
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Scott, D. (2004). The Outbreak of the English Civil War: August 1642–September 1643. In: Politics and War in the Three Stuart Kingdoms, 1637–49. British History in Perspective. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4039-3842-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4039-3842-8_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-65874-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4039-3842-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)