Caliban Books - Edited by Edward & Peter Razzell

Review by Sandra Costello

Orders of the day, Volume 31, Issue 3, May/June 1999

5 volumes, £50 each. Special rate to SK members £45 each (includes p&p).
Contact Caliban Books, 30 Ingram Road, East Finchley, London N2 9QA,
ISBN 1 85066 031X

This set of five volumes may well be one of the better-kept secrets of Civil War publications. They represent the weekly reports of a series of Venetian ambassadors and staff to their superiors, selected by the editors to focus on the English Civil Wars and Commonwealth. It therefore consists of regular, sequential accounts and comment on current events by independent diplomatic observers of what was happening in Britain at that time. It is this consistent viewpoint by informed outsiders which makes this resource so special. Histories, by their nature, are written with the wisdom of hindsight, and aim to select, interpret and analyse. Here we have observations as the situation changes from day to day; the ambassador does not know what will happen next week, and his accounts are sometimes almost journalistic. These Ambassadors and Secretaries usually held their posts for 3-4 years: Alvise Contarini, Vicenzo Gussoni, ... up to Gerolamo Agostini in 1645. Then for ten years Venice had no ambassador or senior staff in London, and the “Advices From England” were written by the Venetian interpreter and other embassy ‘underlings’.

These writers are however by no means unbiased - they are on the whole strong supporters of the monarchy and of the established order. Although not often actual eye witness accounts, they are sometimes very vivid, such as that of the murder of the Duke of Buckingham, in September 1628: “This morning at ten, while the Duke was taking leave of a gentleman who had spoken to him, another of low origin, Felton by name, son of a catchpoll, a violent Puritan, approached him with a knife concealed under his hat, which he held in his hand. He seized the advantage of an act of civility performed by the Duke when he bowed, and took his life with a single thrust to the heart. The Duke did not utter a single word, except in the act of drawing out the knife, when he said, “Ha traitor, thou has slain me.”

From the beginning of the reign the accounts reveal the already marked division between King and Parliament, and what comes over strongly is the almost inevitable progress towards a major confrontation. “The people enjoy prerogatives of great liberty, and indeed the over jealous care with which they guard it may render them unruly and seditious ... While there is no potentate more secure from without, so within there is no prince more in the hands of his subjects than the King of England.”

Throughout these early pages stalks the powerful figure of the Duke of Buckingham, loathed by all but his own supporters, and openly favoured by the King. “The hatred and contempt for the Duke of Buckingham increases the more he is supported by the King and receives fresh posts and dignities. They say that this has been done to heap contumely upon Parliament, and that His Majesty is abandoning himself, his Kingdom and his subjects for a person whom they call the curse of their dominions ...” The issues which colour these years are above all the divisions between King and Parliament, money, and the perceived threat of the Catholics; then after the death of Buckingham, the growing antipathy to Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury and new royal favourite. Laud, “with the King’s assent, has introduced many novelties into the church ... This renders the Archbishop generally odious, to such an extent that one hears people regretting that while there was someone venturesome enough to take the life of the Duke of Buckingham, with less cause, there is no one now to do it against this even worse minister, who is leading towards the total subversion of the Realms.”

Then in August 1637 the word ‘Scotland’ hits the ambassador’s headlines, and for a while the news is all of Scotland, where the people are determined to resist the imposition of Laud’s religious innovations. The troubles worsen in 1638, and war is declared. The Scots go from strength to strength, but always expressing their loyalty to the King - provided it is on their terms. The King is forced to concede and agree to the summoning of the Scottish Parliament, and finally “the King has at last been obliged to conquer his repugnance, and grant England a parliament also” (August 1639). A year later the Scots’ invasion of England as far as York and their demands for huge sums of money force Charles to summon the ‘Long Parliament’. “He ... repeated his readiness to give the people the utmost satisfaction, adding that he would do nothing in future without the sole approval of Parliament. He was so effusive in these assurances, showing so much submission that came ill from the mouth of a great prince, as to leave many with the impression that his remarks were suggested by the consternation of one terrified by apprehension of personal danger.”

The first half of 1641 sees a ferment in the country, what with the Scots still at York, the trial of Strafford and demands for his execution, and feverish anti-Catholic measures. In March 1641 the Prince Palatine turns up on the doorstep, a rather unwelcome visitor: “The King did not conceal his vexation at the news of his arrival, or the Queen either ... It is thought that they will get rid of him as soon as possible, because of the danger amid the present agitations of the sojourn in the Kingdom of a prince so near to the succession, the son of a mother acclaimed by the people ...” A rumour is spread that the King and Queen had plotted for a French invasion. While this is not believed by many, the volatile people of London think differently: “Meanwhile the news had spread among the people and increased the excitement to such an extent that on Saturday morning they girded their arms and prepared to march to the Palace to secure the royal persons. These on hearing the news and full of terror, made up their minds to leave this city without more ado.” In this climate the King is forced to agree to the death sentence on Strafford. “The wisest freely predict that this monarchy will soon be turned into a completely democratic government.”

During these months the attacks on Catholics - both legally and physically - cause the ambassador great anxiety - “I sigh devoutly for the time when I can leave the perils of this kingdom, where my long stay has been so painful.” By July 1641 Parliament is insisting on the substitution of those in positions with people “agreeable to itself”, such as members of the King’s household, ships’ captains, and lieutenants of counties who “shall be bound to ... take oath to this republic. The very word is used in the Bill.” The ambassador goes on to comment with growing foresight: “...The Queen displays the deepest affliction at these audacious moves, foreseeing that unless there is some change in the King’s favour, he will soon lose his liberty as well as his crown.” Towards the end of July the Queen wants to quit England for Holland, “to escape the indiscreet passions of the Parliamentarians and the danger of unpleasant incidents to her royal person. She said she was prepared to obey the King, but not 400 of his subjects, as this did not befit her spirit or her birth.”

The ambassador is always a keen if critical observer of the religious dissensions and innovations: “Preaching in the churches is no longer confined to the ministers, but any person from the common people may venture to proclaim the forms and dogmas of the particular faith which he follows. Quite recently, in particular, some women have held forth from the pulpits ... so that one may say that there are as many religions as there are persons. This is a disastrous state of affairs which threatens ruin to the State unless such scandalous license is speedily and vigorously restrained.”

Late in August 1641 the King announces his intention to go to Scotland, which meets with great resistance from the Commons. The ambassador’s comments bring home the dangerous and radical mood pervading: “The Lower Chamber, which is composed of persons of little experience in government, made many violent proposals to the Upper. To obtain their intent they suggested a demonstration to Parliament by 20,000 working men, who should boldly protest by their shouts that the King must not go... Some even went so far as to suggest depriving him of the Crown and giving it to the Prince, or the Palatine, or else to set up a democratic government.” Three days later, as the King went to Parliament “he found at the entrance 400 of the citizens here, assembled by some of the more factious members, with the design of intimidating him. When the King appeared, these citizens set up a loud shout begging him not to go. Dissimulating his feelings at such a liberty, His Majesty told them that it was highly gratifying to him that his English subjects desired his presence as much as the Scottish ones did. In this suave manner he rid himself of these folk and proceeded with hasty step into the House of Parliament.”

At times there is a great sense of immediacy, and one can picture the ambassador justifiably anxious about his own welfare: at the end of August Giustiniani writes: “With the increase of the heat, which is remarkable, the plague is making great strides and everyone is making haste to leave London. This house is surrounded by three neighbours which are attacked by the disease, and I am not unnaturally perturbed by this fresh misfortune...”

Although not surprisingly greatly concerned with the fluctuations of feelings against the Catholics, and the measures taken against them, he is a keen observer and commentator on the growing power of the Puritans, and “the schism between the Puritans and the Protestants”. One can almost imagine oneself on the muddy streets of London: “Fresh bills have been posted up in public places against the Puritans and their leaders. These, on their side, published in their wrath a manifesto in which they made known to the people that they have discovered a fresh conspiracy against the liberty of the State contrived by the Catholics, assisted by the Protestants also... Also they cause ceaseless watch to be kept over this city by armed guards, and over Parliament itself, all this being done with the aim of keeping the people apprehensive and to increase the excitement against the Catholics and Protestants. There is a danger that what is begun with the tongue and the pen, may end at length with the sword and give rise some day to a sanguinary issue throughout the Kingdom.”

In November 1641 another major event occurs, with the news of the Irish rebellion, which brings the King back from Scotland, to be warmly welcomed in London. The major news in January 1642 is of the attempted arrest of the Five Members. Giustiniani gives a colourful account: “... The King ... came out of his chamber immediately and proceeding to the guard room said in a loud voice, My most loyal subjects and soldiers, follow me. Thus, accompanied by 500 men he descended the stairs of the Palace. Finding the coach of a private individual at the gates he entered it and had himself driven to Westminster followed on foot by the persons described.” What followed is well known. The account concludes: “In this city they are keeping constant guard. The lowest of the people are provided with arms and the London shops have been shut up for the better part of three days. All the trained bands stand to arms.” He goes on to describe “streets barred with great chains, the most dangerous ones with pieces of artillery as well ... sailors, scattered over the River in a considerable number of barques provided with artillery and other firearms ... the apprentices, gathered in great numbers ... and all carried upon banners, pikes and sticks a printed paper protesting that at any price they would preserve inviolable the laws of the Realm, the liberties of the country and the observance of the Protestant religion.” One longs for press coverage and photos!

In February the pace cranks up, with more and more demands from Parliament “all aimed at stripping the King of the remainder of his authority”. The Queen, again sensing the ugly mood, now leaves for Holland. “His Majesty accompanied his wife as far as the shore, and did not know how to tear himself away from her, conversing with her in sweet discourse and affectionate embraces, nor could they restrain their tears, moving all those who were present.” Soon after this exit, a significant character takes the stage for the first time: “the Prince Palatine Rupert” arrives in England, recently released from imprisonment. With the Queen gone, the King makes a move, leaving London with the Prince of Wales, heading first for Newmarket. “The Parliamentarians are in great apprehension over this absence of His Majesty” and sent commissioners to present the King with an “audacious paper”, threatening “that if he persists in his determination to remain at a distance (from London) and in refusing his assent to the demands of Parliament, a most deadly blow of ultimate ruin will inevitably overtake him.” The King however proceeds to York where he is well received “with demonstrations of the utmost joy.”

In this more comfortable environment Charles sends for all the officials of the Court and the Knights of the Garter to attend him in York. These now have to stand up and be counted, and while many do go to York to offer him their service, loyalty clashes with self-interest: “... The resolutions of the two sides are lost amid uncertainties and every one studies to advance his own condition.” The King continues to refuse to return to the capital and is enjoying popularity and support in the north. This causes Parliament great alarm, leading to the significant measure of claiming the authority to raise troops.

Throughout the gradual intensification of progress towards war, and then during the war itself, these weekly reports on events as they unfold give us a very different insight - that of ‘the man-on-the-spot’. This makes an appreciation of the flow of events both more difficult and more interesting as one follows the reportage of day-to-day happenings, without the guidance of the historical writer. We get little insights into ‘the way things were’: Parliament orders printed documents to be “burned by the common hangman in the most conspicuous places”; in the early stages of the war men in London who support the King wear rose-coloured bands on their hats; women and little children help construct trenches and earthworks. Carts and messengers travelling between London and Oxford need passports, “yet the daughter of the Earl of Leicester has obtained a passport, her sex being less open to suspicion. But the officials who met her on the way, having carefully searched her, found a catalogue with the names of all His Majesty’s partisans in London. She was able to escape arrest herself with the excuse that it was put in her baggage by the servants without her knowledge.” Nothing changes. Mentions are made of “the two little princes ”, held hostage in London, being moved from place to place under escort under the pretext of removing them from danger, but in reality for their value as hostages in case the King were ever successful in taking London.

Events take place on a map that is both familiar and unfamiliar: “Wolverhampton - a small place of insignificant condition”, “Marlborough, a considerable town 20 miles from Oxford” and “Southampton, a small place by the sea ”.

The account of the battle of Edgehill is somewhat cursory, but still vivid, with the freshness of the words of someone who has distilled all the reports he has heard: “The King on this occasion performed all his duties with presence and also with spirit. Contrary to the general expectation he gave proofs of great courage and established the devotion of his troops to his cause. For quite three hours he was taking part in the fighting, always with his sword in his hand, and more than once he placed himself, without reservation, at the head of the Army.” The writers are unashamedly pro-Royalist: “a prince of such blameless habits”, “prudent and generous”, whereas the Parliamentarians are “brimful of malice”. Agostini is extremely critical of most Parliamentarians, especially of Essex: “General Essex now on one pretext and now on another puts off moving or engaging the Royal Army ...” He seems reluctant to fight, and lingers in Reading “for security and comfort” rather than pressing on to seek the enemy, and later “wasting money and men in sloth ... negligence and indolence .” Curiously, while many individuals are named, especially military commanders, the Parliamentarian leaders are almost without exception a faceless, nameless and numberless group - the one exception being the naming of Pym following his death.

By 1643 there is great dissatisfaction in London because of high prices, taxes, and the ban on the carriage of coal, grain and salt from Newcastle. Taxes are collected by paid troops, who sack the houses and shops of everything so that “a large number of the houses are empty, some of the shops closed and the rest contain little or no merchandise.” Many are reported as going overseas “to escape these perils and calamities”. There is a rather agonised description by Agostini of the destruction of the Cheapside Cross: “Parliament has permitted the people to demolish from its foundations a most beautiful pyramidal cross surrounded with figures of saints of exquisite workmanship ... which was the most conspicuous ornament of the principal street of this city .”

In July 1643 the Scots are invited by Parliament to invade England. The vote for this in the Upper House is given as nine for and seven against, showing how few were left. In August six members of the Lords decide to go over to the King’s side - “The Upper House is now reduced to only six ...” In early 1644 the Scots begin to invade England. “Some of those now in the Parliament, more capable and less desperate than the rest, do not approve in their hearts of opening the gates to the powerful assistance of a nation which in former times has caused such jealousy and spread such distress.” The battle of Marston Moor is initially described as ‘an engagement 8 miles from York’ in which Prince Rupert was “utterly overthrown”, but the following week a much fuller account is given. A month later we are back on an old tack: “General Essex remains idle in the west, and, although he is strong enough to withstand the forces of the King and Prince Maurice, yet he seems indifferent about moving against them or trying to obtain any other advantage.” On the other hand, the King is described as succumbing to “his bad fortune, to infidelity and to his own reprehensible mildness.”

Once again the Prince Palatine - the elder brother of Rupert and Maurice - appears, turning up in London at the invitation of Parliament. “The King is very jealous about it ...” He is granted £30 a day spending money and displays “an obsequiousness and reverence to Parliament only equalled by his perversity against his uncle. For the rest ... there is no hypocrisy that he does not practise.” We get another intriguing snippet in September 1644: “Waller, who was sent ...some days ago with a strong army, has got no further than Farnham, the soldiers being indignant at marching under the command of his wife who, being zealous in religion, grown ambitious of the popular favour and predominant over her husband, has usurped the General’s baton. To please them Parliament has recalled her ...”

It is at this point that the ambassador has quit London, and the reports are in the hands of the lesser staff who remain.

Throughout the winter months of 1644 and 1645 many attempts at an agreement between King and Parliament are initiated by both sides. Each is pursued tortuously, but ultimately there is no agreement. The means of communication in each case is by the sending of “a trumpet”, who beats a regular path between Oxford and London. In June 1645 we get a strange account of “the battle desired by Parliament ... fought on the 22nd June a short distance from Northampton, where the King’s Army was worsted ...” This was the battle of Naseby, but it is not identified as such in the footnotes.

There is a telling picture of how established the Press had become: “In London their audacity has gone so far that they have thrown all respect to the winds and published a sheet of advices which has been hawked in all the streets by the newsboys for two days running ... It is in the following terms: Anyone who finds a king, obstinate, a traitor to his promises, perfidious in his words, who has now absented himself from his Parliament for four years to bathe his hands in the blood of his subjects, should report it to the Court Mercury. To distinguish him, any one who gets him to speak will see that he is a stammerer, that he cannot speak the truth or talk plainly. After feeding the hatred of the vulgar with such publications, Parliament has had the publisher sent to prison.” A week later, we have the following news item: “Seven Barbary ships have put men on shore in Cornwall at night, ... and have sacked some places there, carrying off goods and prisoners, including about 200 women, some of them ladies of rank and fortune.” Did Daphne du Maurier know about this?

The bulletin for September 28, 1645 reports two disasters for the King: the defeat of Montrose at Philiphaugh and the fall of the siege of Bristol. In December the King is still in Oxford and most think his case is hopeless and are pressing him to let his intentions be known so that they know how to act. Throughout the following months Charles continues to send requests to Parliament ‘by trumpet’, asking that he by allowed to come to London to discuss peace terms, but these are always refused. The Scots (now as far south as Newark) begin to flex their not inconsiderable muscles: “the Scots, who are less averse to him, begin to feel for him. They are not without suspicion of Parliament, being unable to agree about a common religion, and realising that the English are seeking their own and not the Scots’ advantage.” Meanwhile the King, besieged by Fairfax at Oxford, decides to make his escape, throwing himself on the mercy of the Scots, to their surprise and to the consternation of Parliament. The writer comments, “Your Excellencies will see that the penultimate act of the tragedy is played with the flight of the King, and nothing is left except to see them shed his blood .”

The English and the Scots are soon at loggerheads over “the disposal of the King’s person”. In August 1646 Charles is presented with peace proposals as an ultimatum; meanwhile the Scots are offered £200,000 to induce them to leave the country. The Scots finally agree to hand over the King, in February 1647. “The Scottish commissioners then went to the King and told him that, as he refused to sign the proposals and treaties, they were obliged to hand him over to the English. Some of them had tears in their eyes, but the King made a sharp reply and showed great firmness. He said it mattered little that they refused to admit him to Scotland as even if he had been at liberty he would rather have gone to those who bought than to those who sold him .”

With the King a prisoner of the English and the Scots withdrawn beyond the border, a new development arises. The Army is seen as a threat, with its Royalist enemy no more, and it is proposed that it be disbanded. However the Army has “grievances”, is unpaid and is becoming increasingly aware of its power. In June 1647 in a swift move, 1200 soldiers turned up at Holdenby and whisk the King off to Newmarket, sending Parliament into a turmoil. Things now take an ominous turn and London anticipates being invaded by the Army. Fairfax, ordered to disband the Army, informs Parliament that it is in a mutinous state. Parliament orders Fairfax and the Army to keep 40 miles away from London; the Army in its turn makes a number of demands, in favour of the King and for the vindication of its honour. News arrives that the Army, with the King, are marching towards London, causing panic. “The Houses are beginning to cajole the King and have already sent him a present of three coaches with sumptuous liveries for his royal person. The leading men, who followed the Royal Party and who made their peace with the Houses under the pressure of necessity, have gone to meet the King and have been restored about his Majesty .” Parliament capitulates to some of the demands and Fairfax agrees to remain 30 miles from London.

There is great unrest in London; “The Presbyterians, seeing their party downtrodden, have incited the apprentices ...” and there is an amazing scene at Westminster in August, when it is reported that 10,000 apprentices went to Parliament to present a petition, insisting that the Speaker himself received it from them. “The apprentices seeing the Speaker there asked him if he was a good servant of the King, and when he replied, Yes, they told him to shout “God save the King”. Being intimidated he did this in a very low voice, whereupon they made him raise it so that everyone there should hear.” The King is described at this point as being “the sport of fortune, now raised up by Fairfax, who previously defeated him and now by the Presbyterians, who were his capital enemies ”.

The Army now marches into London, Fairfax takes control of the Tower and goes to Parliament, to be obsequiously received by the two Speakers. In September the writer tellingly comments, “The one thing certain is that nothing is certain, as confusion has reached such a pitch that the most essential decrees do not ordinarily last more than a day.” Fairfax gets Parliament to agree to the demolition of London’s fortifications in order to weaken the City. In November 1647 it is reported that “The new faction in the Army which has caused some regiments to separate from the others, bears the title of the Levellers, and demands that the State shall be formed without king, princes or nobles, but all equal, as men were after the Creation.”. There are increasing mentions in these weekly bulletins of Lieutenant General Cromwell, “whose advice and co-operation have hitherto directed the action of Fairfax”, but “who is believed to favour the King, prudently realising that neither he nor Fairfax himself could subsist for long against the secret detestation of Parliament .”

Then in November, the King escapes from Hampton Court to the Isle of Wight, and the last long chapter is begun. But it is a chapter full of surprises and unexpected twists.

We know what will happen in just over 12 months’ time, but throughout 1648 that outcome is by no means inevitable. At the beginning of the year there is still a possibility that Fairfax favours theretention of the King; certainly there is strong influence from Scotland in his favour. In February however Parliament “are beginning to draw up a process against His Majesty in order to decide about his person and the Crown. They accuse him of violating the privileges of the Kingdom, of causing the War, and are producing old and almost forgotten charges, (and here an old skeleton is dragged out of the cupboard and dusted down) that His Majesty hastened the death of his father by poison, or that Buckingham attempted it with his consent .”

In April 1648 however there are increasing signs of support for the King - in England, Ireland and Scotland. In many counties there are uprisings in his favour and even in London “the people do not seem hostile to the royal name.” By May the Royalists are reported as being “masters of practically the whole country without opposition”. Parliament urges Fairfax to deal with the Royalists, but the Army is demanding pay, and it is felt dangerous to leave London unprotected. All seems optimistic for the Royalists: the Fleet has gone over to the King, the Scottish army has once again invaded England, “in the King’s service” and the Army of the North is increasing daily. The leaders of the English merchants present a petition to Parliament “to remedy the disorders and above all to establish a good peace with the King ”. 12,000 Londoners sign a petition asking that the King be brought to London.

But at the end of August this tide of optimism is suddenly brought to a halt: “While all circumstances combined to indicate that fortune was changing with considerable advantage to the King’s party, an event has happened which shows clearly that it has not deviated a step from its ordinary path. The Scots, entering with over 25,000 combatants to set up the Royalist Party, have suffered a mishap which has destroyed all hope at one blow ... ” This was the defeat at Preston. Now the clamour from all quarters is for a treaty and a settlement. Fairfax is triumphant, and by late October the King has accepted practically all the proposals made to him. Cromwell invades Scotland and the Scots now play a different tune and are only too willing to come to terms with Parliament.

From the euphoria of the summer when the tide seemed to be turning for the King, the fall is all the greater. The final scene comes indecently fast, as if the playwright wanted to finish it off ... and the supporting character moves centre stage to take the lead with confidence: “Meanwhile General Cromwell is trying not only to throw difficulties in the way of the treaty but, having made himself a power in the Party of the Independents, to make himself master of the King and Parliament too. Although there is no doubt about his pretensions yet his hopes will doubtless prove vain ...” - the writer obviously cannot really believe Cromwell is ‘star material’. In mid December there is a significant shift: it seems it is not Parliament who is calling the tune, but the Army who have “required General Cromwell to suspend all treaties with the King as destructive of the liberty bought with their blood.” Charges against the King are formulated by the Council of War: “That the King receive due punishment, ...That a republic be constituted as right and proper for the liberty of the subject, ... that henceforth there be no king save by election of Parliament” - and, incidentally, “that the Army receive its promised arrears .”

All this is too much for Charles, still imprisoned at Carisbrooke, who “shut himself up for half a day and then appeared, saying that he had conceded too much, and ... was resolved to die rather than lay any further burden on his conscience. ” Parliament however feels hopeful of a settlement, but this does not suit Fairfax who is afraid that a treaty would mean that the Army might not be paid the money owed to it; at the end of December he invades the City of London, has 60 members of Parliament arrested, and the King transferred from the Isle of Wight to Hurst Castle. By mid January (old style) the King’s situation is hopeless and there is talk of a trial.

The account of the King’s last days is extremely sparse, presumably because there is no resident ambassador in England, and the reports are being written by the embassy ‘underlings’ remaining in London during the period. The brief reports from London are augmented by those sent to Venice by the ambassadors at Munster and Paris. However, if you hadn’t read the list of ambassadors at the beginning of Volume 1, you would easily have overlooked this point, and a footnote reminder and explanation here of the noticeable change in reportage would have been useful. The ambassador at Munster reports touchingly, “The poor King of England has at last lost both crown and life by the hand of the executioner, like a common criminal, in London, before all the people, without any one speaking in his favour and by the judicial sentence of his own subjects... History affords no example of the like .”

Following the execution there are still nearly two volumes, covering the years 1649-1675, but I have not touched on these for obvious reasons. To reiterate, these books offer a quite remarkable record of contemporary events. The scope tends to be overwhelming because of the length and detail, and because there is no convenient organisation of what is happening. But as an adjunct to other works which focus on themes and interpret this complex period, it is a goldmine, where the reader may assess whether the glitter is iron pyrites or a true gem. One of the great riches of these volumes is the insight given into Charles and his actions. He comes over as a classically tragic figure, who inspired great loyalty and admiration in his followers, if little love. His efforts to come to terms with the Parliamentarians are innumerable and appear genuine, as is his devotion to his duty and role as a king. For anyone seeking a fresh slant on the part played by the Scots or the Army, or the affect of the war on London, these volumes would be of particular value. For military matters, Dear Reader, look elsewhere.