56 with fear of what further opposition they might arouse.

At the same time reports were circulating that the Prince of Orange intended to aid Charles. Parliament had cause for

55* Clarendon, History of the Rebe l l i o n , v, 9. 56. C.S.P.V, . xx v i , 17.

14-8

concern. On 29 March directions v/ere sent to the younger 58

Hotham to reinforce the garrison at Hull. Parliament v/as quickly discovering the need for friends. Thus, on 6 April, it was ordered that a committee (Stapleton, Hampden,

Fiennes, the younger Vane, Sir William Lewis and

Pierrepont) draw up a declaration to the Scots designed to preserve the ’brotherly Affection and near Union' between

59

England and Scotland. The time had come to ensure that the Scots understood affairs in England.

The task was to convince the Scots of Parliament's interpretation of the struggle in England. Parliament as yet was not confident that the Scots v/ould not harken to the King's arguments. Therefore, when the Commons conferred with the Peers (8 April) about maintaining 'a good

correspondency between the Two Kingdoms...', the emphasis v/as on refuting the claims made on the King's behalf against the Parliament. The Scots were to be 'rightly informed of the Proceedings of Parliament' to prevent the rise of

'jealousies' in a time when malignants desired to set the

60

Kingdoms against each other. Both Houses resolved to send the declaration to the Scots, advising them that a fuller explanation of affairs v/as in preparation, but assuring them that Charles had not abandoned Parliament on account of anything the Parliament had done, but solely because of evil counsellors v/ho had 'disaffected' His Majesty with

57." ibidTT 1 9.

58. Gardiner, op. cit ., x, 18^.

59. C .J . , ii, 513. The declaration of the Parliament to the Scots v/as reported to the Commons on 8 April: ibid., 517. 60. L. J., iv, 70o.

Parliament’s proceedings. The tenor of the conference and the declaration indicated that Parliament was not at all certain that it could retain the goodwill of the Scots. The fact that the English were eager to send the Scots even a preliminary declaration implies that they were not simply sensitive to royalist imputations, but that they feared the Scots would be beguiled by them. This urgency of conference and declaration was not a sign of confidence in the Scots. As to the declaration itself, D ’Ewes protested that the

62

sharpness of the language against the King was unseemly. Although perhaps the language was unseemly, it was the language of men earnest not to be enemies of both the King and the Scots. It v/as the language of protest; a protest of innocence to a party which, they did not doubt, might be swayed by the royal arguments. D'Ewes also complained that it was superfluous to send to the Scots another declaration when they had already seen the ’Remonstrance on the State of the Kingdom and the late Declaration sent to Nev/market. * But the number of protests, however indiscreet, serves to indicate how anxious Parliament was about the disposition of the Scots. All D'Ewes' objections were ignored, and the

63

Commons hastily adopted the main declaration.

While Parliament v/as beginning its attempt to

keep the Scots out of the royalist camp and secure, at least, a neutral friend to Parliament, Charles declared his

intention to go to Ireland and personally suppress the

6 1. ibid.,

707

5 20 -1

62. D'Ewes. B.M. Harl. MSS. 1

63

63

rebellion there. It is not surprising that Parliament did not wish him to go. The further Charles removed himself from London, the less able would Parliament be to watch over him and prevent his preparing some stroke against itself. On 15 April Parliament sent to the King a protest against his decision to go into Ireland and noted that, should he go, the papists would be encouraged in their efforts to destroy Protestantism, which even now v/as only prevented by the

6 5

union of England and Scotland. The document clearly

implied that Charles would be acting contrary to the efforts of the two Kingdoms to preserve the Protestant religion if he went to Ireland. Charles1 proposal to go to Ireland would be seen to countenance the rebels, and would hinder further reform. On the other hand, it v/as England and Scotland which stood united against those forces which assailed the

Kingdoms. Clearly Parliament regarded Scotland as a desirable ally against 'Papists’ and 'Malignants'.

The Scots, however, were not inclined, for the moment, to enter into any agreement v/ith either the King or the Parliament. On 22 April the Privy Council of Scotland

sent to both King and Parliament letters recommending that they seek a reconciliation. They particularly urged Charles not to risk his life in Ireland when he was urgently

66

required in England. But this Scottish impartiality and

6>b. Both Houses received the King's notification of his intent for Ireland on 11 April 16^2: C . J ., ii, 522; L.J., iv, 709-10; D'Ewes. B.M. Harl. MSS. 1

63

63

of the Rebellion, v, o^f.

66. R.P.C.S., vii, 2*4-9-51. These papers were presented in the Lords on 7 May l6*+2: L.J ., v, 53-*+*

150

in the Commons, the Scots* unsolicited advice (read on 9 May) was ignored except where they also advised Charles to return to Parliament. For this alone did they thank the

67

Scots, Moreover, the Commons resolved to reiterate their case to the Scots by sending them a further declaration relating all that had passed between King and Parliament, and to ask of the Scots an account of what information they

68

had received from the King about Parliament's actions. Evidently Parliament believed that if the Scots only properly understood the real state of affairs in England they would abandon their apparent impartiality and whole­ heartedly adopt the parliamentary cause. Nor did they doubt that the Scots were being influenced by communications from Charles. His arguments had to be met and answered. Hence the extraordinary demand that Charles' correspondence with the Scots be revealed to Westminster.

preference for mediation did not suit Parliament. Especially

Because the Scots had not openly taken part with Parliament, the rebels feared that they did not understand the justice of the parliamentary case. In fact the Commons thought that the impartial content of these letters could only

69