Hubbry Logo
Bishops' WarsBishops' WarsMain
Open search
Bishops' Wars
Community hub
Bishops' Wars
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Bishops' Wars
Bishops' Wars
Bishops' Wars
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Bishops' Wars
Part of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms

The Signing of the National Covenant in Greyfriars Kirkyard by William Allan, 1838
Date21 March 1639 – September 1640
Location
Scotland, Northern England
Result Covenanter victory
Belligerents
Scottish Covenanters Kingdom of Scotland Scottish Royalists
Kingdom of England England
Commanders and leaders
Strength
20,000 20,000–25,000
Casualties and losses
300–600 300–400

The Bishops' Wars[b] were two separate conflicts fought in 1639 and 1640 between Charles I and his Covenanter opponents in Scotland. They were the first of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which also include the First and Second English Civil Wars, the Irish Confederate Wars, and the 1650 to 1652 Anglo-Scottish War.

In 1637, Charles I, then king of both Scotland and England, imposed changes in religious practice on the Church of Scotland. These were strongly opposed by many Scots, leading to the signing of a National Covenant in 1638, pledging to prevent their implementation. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland then expelled bishops, turning a religious dispute into a struggle for political supremacy. The new Covenanter government raised an army to prevent Charles using force to restore his authority.

The First Bishops' War began in early 1639, when minor skirmishing between Covenanters and Royalists took place in north-east Scotland. In June, English and Scottish armies assembled near Berwick-upon-Tweed, but withdrew without fighting, after signing the Treaty of Berwick (1639). The terms included calling a new General Assembly and Scottish Parliament, which Charles hoped would reverse their earlier decisions. Their confirmation instead led the Second Bishops' War in 1640.

The Scots invaded and occupied parts of northern England, after winning a victory at the Battle of Newburn. Under the interim Treaty of Ripon, the occupation continued pending a final settlement, during which Charles agreed to pay their expenses. This required him to recall the Parliament of England to raise money and ratify the treaty which was finalised in August 1641. This ended the Bishops' Wars, but ongoing political differences between Charles and the new English Parliament led to the First English Civil War in August 1642.

Background

[edit]
Riots over the Prayer book, allegedly sparked by Jenny Geddes

The Reformation in Scotland created a Church of Scotland, informally referred to as the Kirk, that was Presbyterian in structure, and Calvinist in doctrine. While Presbyterian and Episcopalian now imply differences in both structure and doctrine, this was not the case in the 17th century. Despite shared Protestant beliefs, Episcopalian churches were governed by bishops, usually appointed by the monarch, Presbyterian by presbyters, elected by ministers and elders.[2] This meant arguments over the role of bishops were as much about politics, and the extent of royal authority, as they were about religious practice.[3]

The vast majority of Scots, whether Covenanter or Royalist, believed a "well-ordered" monarchy was divinely mandated; they disagreed on what "well-ordered" meant, and who held ultimate authority in clerical affairs. In general, Royalists viewed the monarch as head of both church and state, while Covenanters held this applied only to secular matters, and "Chryst Jesus ... was King of the Kirk".[4] However, there were many other factors, including nationalist allegiance to the Kirk, and individual motives were very complex; Montrose was a Covenanter in 1639 and 1640 before becoming a Royalist, and switching sides was common throughout the period.[5]

Covenanter political leader, the Marquess of Argyll

When James VI and I succeeded as king of England in 1603, he viewed a unified Church of Scotland and England as the first step in creating a centralised, Unionist state.[6] This policy was adopted by his son, Charles I, but the two were very different in doctrine; many in both Scotland and England considered Charles' reforms to the Church of England as essentially Catholic.[7]

This mattered because fears of a Catholic revival remained widespread, even though by the 1630s Catholicism was practiced only by some of the aristocracy, and in the remote Highlands.[8] Scots volunteers and mercenaries fought on the Protestant side in the Thirty Years' War, while Scotland had close economic and cultural links with the Dutch Republic, then fighting for independence from Catholic Spain. In addition, many Scots had been educated in French Huguenot universities, the majority of which were suppressed by Louis XIII in the 1620s.[9]

A general perception Protestant Europe was under attack meant increased sensitivity to changes in church practice. In 1636, a new Book of Canons replaced John Knox's Book of Discipline and excommunicated anyone who denied the King's supremacy in church matters.[10] When followed in 1637 by a new Book of Common Prayer, the result was anger and widespread rioting, said to have been set off with the throwing of a stool by Jenny Geddes during a service in St. Giles Cathedral.[11] Historians like Mark Kishlansky now argue her action was not spontaneous, but one in a series of planned and co-ordinated opposition to the Prayer book, the origin of which was as much political as religious.[12] These culminated in February 1638, when delegates from across Scotland agreed a National Covenant, pledging resistance to liturgical "innovations".[13]

The Marquess of Argyll and six other members of the Scottish Privy Council backed the Covenant.[14] Charles agreed to defer discussion of the new canons to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, but at the same time told his supporters that he had no intention of making concessions. As a consequence, when the Assembly gathered in Glasgow in December it rejected the changes, expelled bishops from the Kirk, and affirmed its right to meet annually, not just when granted permission. The Marquis of Hamilton, Charles' chief advisor on Scottish affairs, now advised him there was no alternative to war.[15]

First Bishops' War

[edit]
Bishops' Wars is located in Scotland
Aberdeen
Aberdeen
Berwick
Berwick
Dumbarton
Dumbarton
Edinburgh
Edinburgh
Carrickfergus
Carrickfergus
Duns
Duns
Turriff
Turriff
class=notpageimage|
Key locations of The First Bishops' War, 1639
Main article: First Bishops' War

Charles decided to re-assert his authority by force, using his own financial resources and thus avoiding the need to recall Parliament to obtain tax funding. An English army of 20,000 would advance on Edinburgh from the south, while an amphibious force of 5,000 under the Marquis of Hamilton landed on the east coast, where it would link up with Royalist troops led by the Marquess of Huntly. Lastly, an Irish army under the Earl of Antrim would invade western Scotland from Carrickfergus, where he would join forces with the MacDonalds and other Royalist clans.[16]

This overly complex plan quickly fell apart. On 21 March 1639, the Covenanters occupied Edinburgh Castle,[17] then secured likely landing places on the West Coast, notably Dumbarton Castle.[18] This ended any prospect of an Irish landing, while Hamilton's amphibious force was unable to disembark after finding the Forth estuary strongly defended.[19][20]

Despite widespread domestic support for the Covenant, this was less so in north-east Scotland, particularly in Aberdeenshire and Banffshire. Recognising this, the Covenanter government ordered a force of 8,000 under Montrose to occupy Aberdeen, which fell bloodlessly on 30 March.[20] On 13 May, the Royalists won a minor victory at the so-called Trot of Turriff, where a Royalist soldier became the first casualty of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Royalists under Viscount Aboyne retook Aberdeen, but were then defeated on 19 June at the Brig of Dee by Montrose. This was the only significant engagement of the First Bishops' War.[21][22]

The First Bishops' War was unpopular in England, where it was labelled "King Charles's northern follies" by many within the English media and political class.[23] Since only Parliament could approve taxes, Charles tried to fund the war using forced loans, coat and conduct money, impressments, and requiring the civilian population to provide accommodation for his troops. This resulted in widespread anti-war sentiment among those from whom his army was recruited, with several instances of men attacking their own officers.[24] Internal conflict was enhanced by Covenanter propaganda, and meant many English politicians opposed the war.[25]

In May, an English army of around 15,000 assembled at the border town of Berwick-upon-Tweed. The vast majority were untrained conscripts from the northern trained bands or militia, many armed only with bows and arrows. Charles tried to compensate by recruiting foreign mercenaries from the Spanish Netherlands, exposing him to accusations of using foreign Catholics against his own subjects.[16] Though both sides included large numbers of professional soldiers who had served in the European wars, many of the senior English commands went to Charles' favourites, who were largely inexperienced.[26] This was exacerbated by factional disputes within the leadership, some of whom like the Presbyterian Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, appeared unclear as to what they were fighting for.[20]

Alexander Leslie; Covenanter military commander

The English faced a Scottish force of 16,500 led by the veteran Alexander Leslie, who had served with the Swedes in the Thirty Years' War. On 14 May, Charles announced the Scottish army would be destroyed if it moved to within ten miles of the border. On 3 June, a small force of cavalry was sent to investigate reports Scottish troops had reached Kelso, well within the limit. Encountering Scottish units, the English feared they were outnumbered, and retreated back across the border without a shot being fired. Their retreat further lowered English morale, while the Scots now felt confident enough to ignore the 10 mile limit, and on 5 June advanced as far as Duns.[27][20]

Neither side was anxious to fight and opened negotiations on 11 June, concluding with the signing of the Pacification of Berwick on 19 June. This referred all disputed questions either to the General Assembly, or Parliament of Scotland. However, both sides viewed this as a temporary truce, and continued preparations for another military confrontation.[28]

Interlude

[edit]
Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford, and organiser of the King's forces for the Second War

The General Assembly met again in August 1639 and confirmed the decisions previously taken at Glasgow, which were then ratified by the Scottish Parliament. When Charles' representative, Lord Traquair, tried to suspend it, his action was declared illegal and Parliament continued to sit. A series of acts were passed which amounted to a constitutional revolution, including Tri-annual Parliaments, and making the Covenant compulsory for all holders of public office.[16]

His advisors convinced Charles the only way to finance a second war was to recall the English Parliament, and in December 1639, he issued writs for the first time since 1629. Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford, his most capable advisor and Lord Deputy of Ireland also asked the Parliament of Ireland for funds. In March 1640, they approved an army of 9,000 to suppress the Covenanters, despite violent opposition from their co-religionists in Ulster. This provides an example of how the Bishops Wars destabilised all three kingdoms.[29]

Charles hoped this would provide an example for the Short Parliament, which assembled in April; however, led by John Pym, Parliament demanded he address grievances like ship money before they would approve subsidies. After three weeks of stalemate, Charles dissolved Parliament, ensuring he would have to rely on his own resources to fund the war. Meanwhile, in January 1640 the Covenanter leaders mustered their regiments, and to secure their rear, occupied Aberdeen, centre of the Royalist north-east.[30]

Second Bishops' War

[edit]
Bishops' Wars is located in North East England
Newburn
Newburn
Berwick
Berwick
Durham
Durham
Newcastle
Newcastle
class=notpageimage|
The Newburn campaign, 1640

In June, the Scottish Parliament met in Edinburgh, and granted Argyll a commission of 'fire and sword' against the Royalist areas of Lochaber, Badenoch and Rannoch in the Scottish Highlands. A force of 5,000 conducted this campaign with great brutality, burning and looting across a large area, one of the most infamous acts being the destruction of Airlie Castle in Angus. As they had done in the First Bishops' War, the Covenanter forces also seized Dumbarton Castle, preventing Strafford's Irish army from landing in Scotland and so enabling them to focus on the threatened English invasion.[31]

The Scottish army was again led by Leslie and consisted of around 20,000 well-equipped men, and possessed vastly superior artillery compared to its opponents. The English troops consisted largely of militia from Southern England, poorly-equipped, unpaid, and unenthusiastic about the war. On the march north, lack of supplies meant they looted the areas they passed through, creating widespread disorder; several units murdered officers suspected of being Catholics, then deserted.[32]

Lord Conway, the English commander in the north, focused on reinforcing Berwick-upon-Tweed, the usual starting point for invading England. On 17 August, cavalry units under Montrose crossed the River Tweed, followed by the rest of Leslie's army. The Scots bypassed the town, and headed for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, centre of the coal trade with London, and a valuable bargaining point.[33]

On 28 August, the Scots forced a passage over the River Tyne at the Battle of Newburn; they still had to take Newcastle, but to Leslie's surprise, when they arrived on 30 August, Conway had withdrawn to Durham. One suggestion is he did not trust his ill-disciplined and mutinous troops, but morale in the rest of the army now collapsed, forcing Charles to make peace.[34] The only other significant action of the war was the siege of Edinburgh Castle, held by the Royalist commander Sir Patrick Ruthven, who had previously served with Leslie in the Swedish army. Blockaded since the end of May, starvation forced him to surrender in September.[35]

Aftermath

[edit]
John Pym, leader of the English Parliamentary opposition; defeat forced Charles to recall Parliament in November 1640

Under the truce negotiated in October 1640, the Scots were paid £850 per day and allowed to occupy Northumberland and County Durham until peace terms had been finalised. Many believed this arrangement was secretly agreed between the Parliamentary opposition and the Scots, since it allowed them to maintain pressure on London by controlling the export of coal from Newcastle, while only Parliament could levy the taxes needed to pay the occupation costs. The so-called Long Parliament that assembled in November 1640 asserted its power by executing Strafford in May 1641. By August, the Treaty of London was signed and the Scottish army finally evacuated Northern England.[36]

While defeat forced Charles to call a Parliament he could not get rid of, the Irish Rebellion of 1641 was arguably more significant in the struggle that led to war in August 1642. Both he and Parliament agreed on the need to suppress the revolt but neither trusted the other with control of the army raised to do so, and it was this tension that was the proximate cause of the First English Civil War.[37] Victory confirmed Covenanter control of government and the Kirk, and Scottish policy now focused on securing these achievements. The 1643 Solemn League and Covenant was driven by concern over the implications for Scotland if Parliament were defeated; like Charles, the Covenanters sought political power through the creation of a unified church of Scotland and England, only one that was Presbyterian, rather than Episcopalian.[38]

However, success in the Bishops' Wars meant they overestimated their military capacity and ability to enforce this objective.[39] Unlike Scotland, Presbyterians were a minority within the Church of England, while religious Independents opposed any state church, let alone one dictated by the Scots. One of their most prominent opponents was Oliver Cromwell, who claimed he would fight rather than agree to such an outcome.[40] Many of the political radicals known as the Levellers, and much of the New Model Army, belonged to Independent congregations; by 1646, the Scots and their English allies viewed them as a greater threat than Charles. Defeat in the 1648 Second English Civil War resulted in Charles I's execution, while a failed invasion of England intended to restore his son in the Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652) was followed by Scotland's incorporation into the Commonwealth, a union made on English terms.[41]

Footnotes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Bishops' Wars

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Bishops' Wars were two short military campaigns fought in 1639 and 1640 between the forces of King Charles I of England and Scotland's Covenanters, stemming from Scottish opposition to Charles's efforts to impose episcopalian church government and Anglican liturgy on Scotland's Presbyterian Kirk. The conflicts originated in 1637 when Charles introduced a new Book of Common Prayer in Scotland, perceived as containing Catholic elements and violating Presbyterian principles, sparking riots in Edinburgh and widespread resistance formalized by the National Covenant signed in Greyfriars Kirkyard in February 1638. The Scottish General Assembly subsequently abolished the office of bishop, prompting Charles to mobilize an army without parliamentary consent during his Personal Rule. In the First Bishops' War of 1639, led approximately 20,000 troops to the border but refrained from invasion after the , commanded by Alexander Leslie, positioned their forces defensively; the standoff ended with the Pacification of Berwick on 19 June, in which tacitly accepted the removal of bishops in exchange for a truce. Tensions reignited when sought to reverse these concessions, leading to the Second Bishops' War in 1640, where Leslie's 20,000-strong army invaded , routing forces at the Ford on 28 August and occupying and Durham. The Scots' victories imposed severe financial burdens on Charles, who agreed via the Treaty of Ripon in October 1640 to pay their army's upkeep while they held , culminating in the Treaty of London in August 1641 that ratified the abolition of episcopacy in and compensated the with £300,000. These defeats exhausted royal finances, forcing Charles to recall on 3 November 1640 after an 11-year absence, thereby initiating the and accelerating the constitutional crisis that erupted into the Wars of the .

Origins and Causes

Religious Divisions in Stuart Britain

The Protestant established divergent ecclesiastical structures across Britain that persisted into the Stuart era, fostering deep religious divisions between and . In , the 1560 Reformation Parliament abolished papal authority, adopted the Calvinist of Faith, and embraced , a system governed by assemblies of elders (presbyters) rather than bishops, with the First Book of Discipline outlining congregational and synodal oversight. In contrast, the retained episcopal governance—dioceses led by bishops appointed under royal authority—following Henry VIII's 1534 break with and subsequent reforms under , which emphasized hierarchical order and liturgical uniformity via the . These polities reflected broader theological tensions: 's strict prioritized predestination and moral discipline, while 's settlement tolerated a spectrum from high-church ceremonialism to puritan critiques of ritualism. The 1603 accession of James VI of as James I of united the crowns but not the churches or parliaments, amplifying pressures for conformity amid the king's belief that "no bishop, no king" linked episcopal hierarchy to monarchical stability. James restored episcopacy in at the 1610 of , consecrating bishops like John Spottiswood to oversee dioceses, though presbyterian elements like kirk sessions endured. He further imposed the Five Articles of Perth in 1618, ratified by parliament, mandating practices such as kneeling at communion, observance of holy days (, ), confirmation by bishops, and private baptisms or communions—measures viewed by presbyterians as echoing Catholic ceremonialism and eroding congregational autonomy. Resistance simmered, as these articles bypassed full consent and clashed with 's anti-prelatical tradition codified in 1592 legislation affirming presbyterian government. Under Charles I from 1625, divisions intensified through Archbishop William Laud's Arminian-influenced program, which elevated sacramental aesthetics (e.g., altar rails over simple tables) and over synodal authority, alienating both Scottish presbyterians and English who favored Calvinist simplicity and feared "popery" in episcopal pomp. pursued uniformity without Scottish parliamentary or assembly approval, reviving Perth rites and preparing a 1636 Book of Canons and modeled on England's, igniting perceptions of tyrannical innovation that equated bishops with divine-right absolutism rather than . These policies exacerbated cross-border fissures, as English nonconformists sympathized with Scottish resistance to prelacy, while Scottish leaders defended presbytery as biblically mandated against hierarchical "tyranny," setting the stage for covenanting opposition. Catholic minorities in both kingdoms added peripheral tensions but were overshadowed by intra-Protestant strife over and worship.

Charles I's Assertion of Royal Authority

Charles I, guided by a firm belief in the , pursued absolute authority over both temporal and spiritual affairs in his kingdoms, viewing himself as the supreme governor of the church. This conviction drove his efforts to enforce religious uniformity across and , aligning the Presbyterian with Anglican practices under the influence of Archbishop . Laud's reforms, emphasizing ceremony and hierarchy, informed Charles's policies, which prioritized over consultative bodies like the or . In 1633, traveled to for his on June 18 at in , where he introduced liturgical elements from the English into the ceremony, departing from established Scottish traditions and foreshadowing broader impositions. This visit allowed him to appoint bishops favorable to his vision and to assert control over church governance, but it alienated Presbyterian clergy who perceived the changes as encroachments on their Calvinist framework. Three years later, in 1636, Charles unilaterally promulgated the Book of Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, which explicitly declared his supremacy over the and mandated punishments, including , for those denying royal authority in religious matters. These canons, drafted without input from the General Assembly, exemplified Charles's rejection of shared ecclesiastical decision-making in favor of direct monarchical command. The pinnacle of this assertion came in 1637 with the introduction of a new Book of Common Prayer for Scotland, commissioned by Charles and composed by Scottish bishops under Laud's oversight to bridge English and Scottish rites while enforcing structured liturgy. On July 23, 1637, royal proclamation required its use in all churches, bypassing any legislative or assembly ratification; the first public reading at St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh incited immediate riots by worshippers who hurled stools and decried it as "popish." Charles's insistence on implementation without consent—rooted in his view of unquestionable sovereignty—framed opposition not as doctrinal disagreement but as outright defiance of his God-given rule, setting the stage for escalated conflict. This top-down approach, devoid of negotiation, underscored Charles's causal prioritization of centralized authority over accommodating Scotland's distinct religious heritage, ultimately catalyzing widespread resistance.

Escalation to Rebellion: The Prayer Book Riots and National Covenant

In July 1637, King Charles I ordered the introduction of a new Book of Common Prayer in Scotland, modeled on the English version and incorporating elements perceived by Presbyterians as Arminian and popish, such as prescribed prayers and ceremonies that deviated from the established Kirk practices. On 23 July 1637, during a service at St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh, Dean Hannay began reading from the book, prompting market trader Jenny Geddes to hurl her stool at him in protest, igniting a riot that spilled into the streets and forced authorities to clear the cathedral. The unrest rapidly spread beyond Edinburgh to other towns, fueled by fears that the prayer book represented an assault on Scottish Presbyterianism and a step toward reintroducing episcopacy under royal control without parliamentary or Kirk consent. Charles responded by demanding signatures of loyalty from nobles and ministers, but this only intensified opposition, as protesters formed supplications against the book and the bishops enforcing it. The riots evolved into organized resistance through the establishment of the Tables, elected committees in burghs and shires that coordinated petitions and defenses, effectively challenging royal authority over the . By early , ministers like Alexander Henderson and Archibald Johnston drafted the , a document renewing the 1581 King's Confession against popery and pledging adherence to the true Protestant religion as previously established in , while rejecting unlawful innovations imposed by the king. First subscribed on 28 February in , , by nobles, clergy, and laity amid a crowd estimated in the thousands, the Covenant bound signatories to mutual defense of the and opposition to perceived tyrannical changes, without directly renouncing allegiance to but insisting on his adherence to law. Subscriptions proliferated across , with over 300,000 signatories by summer 1638, including armed enrolments and copies circulated to remote areas, transforming the protest into a national movement that armed supporters and seized control of key fortifications like by July. The Covenant's adoption prompted the king to summon a in , but the November 1638 assembly, dominated by delegates, annulled the , the 1636 canons, and episcopacy itself, deposing the bishops and asserting the Kirk's independence from royal interference. viewed these actions as rebellion, refusing to ratify the assembly's decisions and preparing military intervention, which escalated the crisis into the First Bishops' War in 1639. This sequence of events marked the ' shift from defensive protests to proactive governance, undermining Stuart absolutism in and setting the stage for broader British conflicts.

First Bishops' War (1639)

Royal Mobilization and Logistical Challenges

Charles I initiated mobilization for the First Bishops' War in early 1639, arriving in on March 30 to personally oversee the assembly of forces against the Scottish . Without a , he relied on a special levy of 6,000 foot and 1,000 horse, supplemented by 4,000 men from northern trained bands and contingents of armed horsemen summoned from nobles. By June, the numbered approximately 18,000 men, concentrated around and advancing toward the border. The forces comprised largely raw conscripts and from trained bands, many equipped with outdated weapons such as bows and arrows rather than modern firearms, reflecting the decay in England's readiness since the early seventeenth century. Training was inadequate, with veteran officers like Sir Jacob Astley, the infantry commander, criticizing the troops' lack of and proficiency. Leadership compounded these issues; the Lord-General, , and second-in-command, Earl of Holland, were inexperienced in large-scale command, while reluctance among the to commit fully stemmed from widespread sympathy for the ' resistance to perceived Laudian innovations in worship. Logistical strains arose primarily from chronic underfunding, as Charles avoided summoning and depended on irregular revenues like , which proved insufficient for provisioning, pay, and transport. Preparations lagged, delaying the army's cohesion and exposing vulnerabilities in supply lines to , where local resources were stretched thin. deteriorated en route to Berwick, fueled by rumors of Scottish numerical superiority and leading to significant desertions among the unpaid and ill-equipped ranks. A parallel naval expedition of 5,000 untrained men under the Marquis of Hamilton failed to disembark in due to adverse weather and organizational failures, further highlighting the campaign's overextended ambitions. These deficiencies prevented decisive action, culminating in the Pacification of Berwick without battle.

Covenanter Organization and the Berwick Standoff

The rapidly organized their military forces in early 1639 following King Charles I's of a commission of lieutenancy for on 28 , which signaled preparations for armed enforcement of royal ecclesiastical policies. Local shire committees of war, established under the authority of the Glasgow General Assembly of , coordinated the levying of troops across , enabling the swift assembly of an army estimated at 20,000 men by spring, including a significant contingent of veterans from the . These committees managed , provisioning, and fortifications, drawing on the ideological commitment fostered by the to ensure high motivation and minimal internal resistance. Alexander Leslie, a battle-hardened officer who had risen to in Swedish service, was appointed of the Covenanter forces, leveraging his expertise to structure the army into disciplined infantry brigades supported by cavalry and artillery. Under Leslie's direction, initial operations in March secured key strongholds, including the bloodless capture of on 26 March through subterfuge, where a small party exploited the garrison's complacency. Concurrently, Covenanter forces neutralized royalist opposition in the northeast, defeating Marquis Huntly's supporters at the Battle of the Brig of Dee on 18-19 June and compelling Aberdeen's submission, thereby consolidating control over north of the Tay River. By late May, the main Covenanter army, numbering around 12,000-15,000 effectives under Leslie, advanced to Duns Law near the Anglo-Scottish border, entrenching in a strong defensive position overlooking Berwick-upon-Tweed. Opposing them, Charles I assembled an English force of approximately 18,000-20,000 men at Berwick by early June, comprising hastily raised county levies, militia, and noble retinues, but plagued by inadequate training, supply shortages, and desertions. The standoff ensued as incessant rains turned the ground to mud, eroding English morale—exacerbated by reports of mutinies and refusals to advance—while the Covenanters, buoyed by religious fervor and superior cohesion, refused to disband without concessions on their demands for Presbyterian governance. No major engagement occurred during the Berwick confrontation from to August 1639, as , wary of risking defeat against a professionally led foe, opted against assaulting the fortified Scots position, instead initiating negotiations that highlighted the ' strategic leverage despite their nominal status as rebels. The demonstrated remarkable logistical efficiency, maintaining supply lines from and foraging effectively, which contrasted sharply with the English forces' disarray and underscored the organizational advantages derived from decentralized yet unified committee structures. This bloodless impasse preserved Covenanter strength for potential future conflict while exposing the limitations of 's unprepared mobilization.

Pacification of Berwick and Its Terms

Negotiations between the opposing forces began on 11 June 1639 near , where the royal army under Charles I confronted the larger force commanded by Alexander Leslie. Scottish representatives, including John Leslie, Lord Rothes, Archibald Johnston of Wariston, and Alexander Henderson, met with royal commissioners such as the and to avert open battle. The talks reflected mutual reluctance for combat, with the demonstrating superior organization and the English troops suffering from low morale and desertions. Charles I, constrained by inadequate finances to sustain a prolonged campaign and lacking confidence in his army's reliability, prioritized de-escalation over risking defeat. The Pacification of Berwick was concluded and signed on 19 June 1639, formally ending the First Bishops' War without a decisive engagement. The treaty's core provisions mandated the disbandment of both armies to restore pre-war conditions, with Charles agreeing to summon a free General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh commencing 6 August 1639, followed by a parliamentary session to deliberate religious matters. Grievances over innovations such as the 1637 Book of Common Prayer, new canons, and the episcopal structure were deferred to the Assembly's judgment, effectively suspending royal enforcement of Anglican practices in Scotland pending resolution. While the Covenanters interpreted these terms as yielding to their demands for presbyterian reform and the curbing of perceived popish influences, Charles viewed the pacification as a temporary expedient to rebuild his position, fostering underlying mistrust that undermined lasting peace.

Interwar Developments (1639-1640)

Failed Negotiations and Royal Finances

The Pacification of Berwick, signed on 18 June 1639, stipulated that both sides disband their armies and that Charles I would summon a free General Assembly of the Scottish Kirk and a Scottish Parliament to deliberate on religious and civil grievances. The General Assembly convened in Edinburgh on 6 August 1639, where it endorsed the prior Glasgow Assembly's 1638 decisions to abolish episcopacy, remove the Book of Common Prayer, and restore presbyterian governance, declaring bishops incompatible with Scotland's reformed faith. These acts were subsequently ratified by the Scottish Parliament from 2 June to 11 June 1640, which enacted legislation enforcing presbyterianism, prohibiting innovations in worship, and asserting parliamentary rights against royal alterations without consent. Charles I rejected the 1639 Assembly's proceedings as unlawful, insisting it lacked authority to dissolve the episcopal structure he viewed as essential to monarchical and ecclesiastical order. Negotiations between and Scottish commissioners, including figures like Archibald Johnston of Wariston, faltered primarily over the status of bishops. The king dispatched commissioners to in late 1639 to oversee implementation of the Pacification, but insisted on retaining episcopacy as a divinely ordained institution linking church hierarchy to royal supremacy, rejecting presbyterian demands for its total eradication as a threat to uniform governance across his realms. representatives, empowered by the , refused compromise, viewing bishops as a conduit for Arminian and Laudian influences antithetical to Calvinist doctrine. By early , with the 's acts deepening the rift, talks in collapsed; prorogued the without granting assent to its reforms, prompting leaders to mobilize anew and fortify their position. This deadlock stemmed from irreconcilable views on ecclesiastical authority, with prioritizing absolutist control and the defending confessional autonomy. The First Bishops' War's expenditures severely depleted royal finances, as Charles had mobilized an of around 20,000 men without parliamentary approval, relying on loans from merchants, advances from crown revenues like , and sales of monopolies and offices. These measures, which had sustained eleven years of , proved insufficient; the campaign's logistical demands— including arms procurement, troop transport, and supply lines from to the border—exhausted accumulated surpluses and incurred debts estimated in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. Anticipating renewed conflict after the failed talks, Charles faced an inability to reassemble forces without new funds, as ordinary revenues covered peacetime needs but not wartime escalation. This fiscal crisis compelled him to summon the on 13 April 1640, the first English assembly since 1629, primarily to secure subsidies for a second campaign against .

The Short Parliament's Demands

The , summoned by Charles I on 13 April 1640 to secure funds for the impending Second Bishops' War against , immediately prioritized the redress of accumulated grievances over granting subsidies. Members of the , led by figures such as , insisted that parliamentary privileges, financial impositions, and religious policies be addressed before any financial aid, viewing the king's request for twelve subsidies as premature amid eleven years of without legislative consent. This stance reflected widespread resentment over the failure to convene Parliament since 1629, with MPs forming committees to investigate royal actions rather than debating supply. Central to the demands was the abolition or legal challenge to extraparliamentary taxation, particularly , the coastal levy extended inland by writs from 1634 onward and ruled lawful in the 1638 judgment against . On 17 April, Pym's extended speech cataloged grievances including this tax's perceived illegality, alongside monopolies, arbitrary imprisonments, and breaches of privilege, arguing they undermined liberty and property rights essential for loyal support of . MPs specifically called for reinvestigation of Hampden's case and cessation of such levies, rejecting Charles's offer to suspend ship money collections as insufficient without broader reforms. Religious grievances featured prominently, with criticism directed at Archbishop William Laud's innovations—such as altar rails, the Book of Sports, and perceived popish tendencies—which MPs linked to the Scottish unrest precipitating the wars. Debates questioned the king's ecclesiastical policies as provocative, with some expressing sympathy for the ' resistance to imposed uniformity, dismissing royal claims of their French treason as unconvincing. Royal advisors faced scrutiny, including demands for accountability from Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, for his role in escalating the Scottish crisis through aggressive mobilization, and from Lord Keeper John Finch for defending unpopular fiscal measures. No substantive bills or subsidies materialized, as the Commons conditioned cooperation on tangible redress, leading Charles to dissolve Parliament on 5 May 1640 after three weeks of impasse. This refusal exacerbated the king's financial straits, forcing reliance on loans and benevolences ill-suited to sustain the against a well-organized Scottish . The episode underscored Parliament's assertion of fiscal control, prioritizing constitutional principles over immediate military exigency.

Renewed Military Buildup on Both Sides

Following the dissolution of the on 5 May 1640, Charles I resolved to suppress the by force, initiating a renewed mobilization of English forces despite parliamentary refusal to grant subsidies. He summoned Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, from as his principal military adviser, who advocated coercive fundraising, including extracting funds from Irish resources. A new levy was raised across , with troops concentrated in and under Viscount Conway as northern commander, while the nominal commander-in-chief, the , remained sidelined by illness. Efforts included fortifying and attempting foreign loans from , , and even the Papacy, though these proved unsuccessful; logistical strains were evident in unpaid, poorly equipped levies plagued by desertions and mutinies due to shortages of pay and provisions. By late August, the assembled force comprised roughly 1,500 horse and 3,000 foot, reflecting chronic inadequacies in training, discipline, and supply that undermined royal effectiveness. In response, the Scottish , governed by the Committee of Estates, accelerated their own military reorganization to counter perceived English threats, retaining veteran regiments from the First Bishops' War while raising fresh levies through local assessments and plunder. General Alexander Leslie commanded the main army, bolstered by contingents such as 5,000 Campbells under the Earl of and forces led by Robert Monro; operations included suppressing Royalist strongholds in the Highlands, occupying , and besieging to secure the western approaches. By early August 1640, this buildup yielded an army of approximately 20,000 men equipped with 60 artillery pieces, funded autonomously via covenanting levies rather than royal exchequer dependence. Supply vulnerabilities, however, prompted a preemptive invasion of on 20 August, as the sought to seize resources and strategic ground before English forces could fully coalesce. These parallel efforts highlighted divergent capacities: English mobilization suffered from financial improvisation and elite reluctance, exacerbating Charles's overreliance on Strafford's harsh methods, while Covenanter efficiency stemmed from ideological cohesion and decentralized funding, enabling a more cohesive and proactive stance.

Second Bishops' War (1640)

Covenanter Offensive into

The Covenanter leadership, facing renewed English mobilization under King Charles I, authorized a preemptive invasion to secure negotiating leverage and address supply shortages in . On 20 August 1640, General Alexander Leslie led an army of approximately 20,000 men, including substantial artillery with 60 guns, across the River Tweed at into , bypassing fortified . This force comprised experienced troops, many veterans of continental wars, organized into disciplined brigades supported by and field pieces, enabling rapid maneuver despite the terrain. The advance proceeded with minimal opposition, as English preparations under Viscount Conway remained incomplete and defensively oriented toward direct border crossings. columns marched southward through , exploiting gaps in dispositions to outflank static positions. By 27 August, the reached the outskirts of , a vital and economic hub, with intentions to encircle it by controlling key river crossings along the Tyne. The offensive's strategic focus on Newcastle aimed to disrupt English and coal exports, pressuring economically while avoiding prolonged engagements. Logistically, the invasion relied on foraging and local requisitions in , supplemented by Covenanter supply trains, though the army's artillery-heavy composition slowed progress slightly amid August rains. Scottish propaganda efforts, disseminated via pamphlets, framed the incursion as defensive against royal aggression, garnering some sympathy among English discontented with Charles's policies. The ' tactical superiority in training and cohesion allowed them to position for a decisive crossing at Newburn Ford without significant skirmishes en route.

Defeat at Newburn Ford

The Scottish Covenanter army, commanded by Alexander Leslie, 1st Earl of Leven, advanced southward into in late August 1640, reaching positions north of the River Tyne near by 27 August. This offensive aimed to pressure King Charles I into concessions on religious and constitutional matters, following failed negotiations and the English monarch's renewed mobilization. Leslie's force numbered approximately 20,000 troops, including seasoned infantry, cavalry, and artillery detachments drawn from the well-organized Covenanter militia and veterans of the . To defend the strategic Tyne crossings and protect Newcastle—a key coal-exporting port vital to English finances—King Charles dispatched Viscount Conway with around 4,500 men, comprising roughly 3,000 infantry (many raw recruits), 1,500 cavalry, and limited artillery. Conway positioned his troops on the south bank at Newburn Ford, fortifying the site with earthworks and cannons to block a Scottish crossing. English was low due to inadequate training, supply shortages, and recent reports of Scottish scouting parties, exacerbated by heavy overnight rain on 27-28 August that turned the terrain into mud, hindering mobility. The engagement commenced at dawn on 28 August 1640, with Scottish opening fire from the north bank, targeting English positions and causing initial disarray. Leslie ordered probes across the ford, supported by assaults and maneuvers to outflank Conway's lines. English and volleys repelled the first waves, but Scottish reinforcements—bolstered by disciplined pikemen and sustained bombardment—overwhelmed the defenders. Panic spread among English units, particularly the , leading to a disorganized retreat; some troops drowned in the swollen river while fleeing. Casualties were minimal, with English losses estimated at 20-30 killed and around 400 captured, while Scottish fatalities numbered fewer than a dozen. The rout at Newburn Ford represented a decisive Scottish , exposing English military unpreparedness under I's command structure, which relied on pressed levies and noble-led detachments lacking cohesion. By abandoning the ford, Conway's forces ceded control of the Tyne, enabling Leslie's army to cross unopposed and compel Newcastle's surrender on 30 August without further resistance. This outcome accelerated the collapse of English defenses in the north, forcing to seek armistice terms and highlighting the ' superior logistics and resolve in enforcing their against perceived royal encroachments on Presbyterian worship.

Treaty of Ripon and Scottish Occupation Costs

The Treaty of Ripon, concluded on 26 October 1640, imposed a truce that concluded active fighting in the Second Bishops' War, with King Charles I acquiescing to Scottish Covenanter demands amid his army's collapse at Newburn Ford on 28 August. The agreement permitted the Scottish force of roughly 20,000 men, under General Alexander Leslie, to maintain occupation of the English counties of and Durham—key northern territories captured during their advance to Newcastle-upon-Tyne—pending formal peace negotiations to be ratified by the and a future English assembly. This occupation secured Covenanter leverage, as their troops controlled vital supply routes and resources, while prohibiting English forces from reentering the without consent. Central to the treaty's financial stipulations was Charles's commitment to subsidize the Scottish army's upkeep at £850 per day, retroactive from 30 September 1640, to offset the costs of their English incursion and deter disbandment that might weaken their bargaining position. This daily indemnity—equivalent to funding a beyond Scotland's borders—arose from the ' prior expenditures on , including , , and assembled since spring 1640, which had strained Scottish resources despite internal levies and loans. By the treaty's terms, payments were to continue until a definitive settlement, with English commissioners at advancing initial sums from reserves and local assessments, though full reimbursement relied on parliamentary approval Charles lacked without convening the Short Parliament's successor. The occupation's fiscal toll escalated rapidly, accumulating approximately £229,500 over nine months until Scottish withdrawal in August 1641 following the Treaty of London, which formalized a £300,000 "brotherly assistance" for pre-October expenses alongside arrears from the Ripon indemnity. These outlays—drawn from ad hoc English taxes, plate seizures, and loans—exacerbated the crown's insolvency, as Charles's since 1629 had depleted treasuries through prior failed campaigns and refused ship money yields, rendering the £850 daily rate an unsustainable drain equivalent to half the annual peacetime budget. Covenanter records, including committee ledgers, substantiate the payments' role in sustaining troop morale and , such as and munitions, without which the risked or retreat. The arrangement thus not only reimbursed Scottish advances but entrenched their strategic dominance, compelling Charles to dissolve the on 5 May 1640 and summon a new one in November to secure funds, thereby initiating broader constitutional confrontations.

Immediate Aftermath

Dissolution of the Short Parliament and Convening of the Long Parliament

Following the inconclusive Pacification of Berwick in June 1639, Charles I faced mounting financial pressures to prepare for renewed conflict with the , prompting him to summon after an eleven-year interval without one. The assembled on 13 April 1640, but members, reflecting widespread discontent over the , prioritized debate on grievances such as the abolition of , the release of political prisoners like , and perceived religious innovations imposed by Archbishop William Laud, rather than granting the king's requested subsidies for military campaigns. Charles I, viewing these demands as preconditions that challenged , prorogued the assembly on 5 May 1640 without securing funds, dissolving it entirely thereafter. This abrupt dissolution exacerbated England's vulnerabilities, as Charles resorted to expedients like plate sales and loans, which proved insufficient against the Covenanters' mobilization. The ensuing Second Bishops' War culminated in the royalist defeat at Newburn Ford on 28 August 1640, forcing Charles to negotiate the Treaty of Ripon on 26 October 1640, a temporary truce allowing Scottish forces—comprising approximately 20,000 and 2,000 —to occupy and Durham counties while receiving daily payments of £850 from the English until a final settlement. These occupation costs, equivalent to over £25,000 weekly, rendered Charles's financial position untenable without parliamentary taxation, compelling him to issue writs for a new in early September 1640. The convened on 3 November 1640 at Westminster, initially focused on authorizing funds to disband the Scottish army and stabilize the northern frontier, but quickly expanding into broader constitutional confrontations. Unlike its predecessor, this assembly—dominated by figures opposed to the , including and Oliver St. John—refused supply until grievances were redressed, leading to the Triennial Act, the execution of the in May 1641, and the erosion of Laudian episcopacy. The convening marked a pivotal shift, as the ongoing Scottish occupation costs, totaling around £300,000 by early 1641, underscored the crown's dependence on parliamentary consent, transforming the Bishops' Wars' fiscal aftermath into a catalyst for English political upheaval.

Episcopacy's Abolition in Scotland

The General Assembly of the , meeting in from 21 November to 20 December , initiated the abolition of episcopacy by condemning the office of bishop as unlawful in the and restoring as the sole form of church government. On 8 December 1638, the Assembly formally voted to nullify episcopal jurisdiction, excommunicate all bishops individually for alleged derelictions including innovation in worship and abuse of canonical processes, and annul royal acts since 1610 that had supported hierarchical structures. These decisions, numbering over 40 acts, directly challenged King Charles I's imposition of Anglican practices, framing episcopacy as a incompatible with Scotland's reformed established under . The royal commissioner, James Hamilton, Marquess of Hamilton, dissolved the Assembly on 20 December, but Covenanter delegates reconvened and persisted, defying dissolution and asserting the kirk's independence from civil interference. Charles I rejected the proceedings, leading to the First Bishops' War in 1639, yet the Pacification of Berwick treaty compelled him to authorize a new General Assembly in Edinburgh, which convened from 6 March to 29 July 1639 and ratified the Glasgow acts, including the permanent exclusion of bishops from ecclesiastical authority. This 1639 Assembly, attended by over 300 ministers and elders, further prohibited lay patronage interference and mandated presbyterian ordination standards, solidifying the shift amid ongoing military tensions. In June 1640, the , convening despite Charles's attempts, confirmed the 1639 Assembly's decrees, abolished the bishops' estate as a voting order in (ending their legislative role since 1560), and stripped remaining temporal jurisdictions from former bishops, aligning state structures with presbyterian principles that separated clerical and civil spheres. The Second Bishops' War's outcome, culminating in the Treaty of Ripon on 26 October 1640, reinforced these reforms; Scottish forces' occupation of and Charles's financial concessions precluded any royal counter-restoration, entrenching abolition as controlled kirk governance through assemblies and the Committee of Estates until the 1650s. This de facto constitutional revolution prioritized scriptural kirk discipline over monarchical oversight, averting immediate episcopal revival despite later Stuart attempts in 1661.

Financial Strain on the English Crown

The Treaty of Ripon, signed on 26 October 1640 following the Scottish victory at Newburn Ford, imposed immediate and onerous financial demands on the English Crown to sustain the Covenanter army's occupation of and Durham. Under its terms, I's government committed to paying £850 daily for the maintenance of a Scottish force numbering around 20,000 men until a definitive treaty could be ratified by an English . This subsidy, intended as a temporary measure, quickly escalated into a crippling liability, with payments commencing retroactively and arrears accumulating as the king's depleted treasury struggled to comply. The Crown's pre-existing fiscal vulnerabilities amplified the crisis. During the Personal Rule (1629–1640), Charles had augmented ordinary revenues to approximately £600,000–£800,000 annually through innovations like ship money and composition fines for knighthoods, but these fell short of the extraordinary costs of the Bishops' Wars, which included mobilizing an English army of up to 15,000 for the 1640 campaign alone. The Scottish occupation added a layer of ongoing expenditure equivalent to funding a parallel hostile force on English soil, draining resources faster than prerogative levies could replenish them and sparking local resentments over billeting and requisitions in the occupied counties. To bridge the shortfall, Charles resorted to ad hoc expedients, including loans from merchants totaling around £200,000, appeals to foreign courts such as and , and domestic collections via privy seals demanding contributions from and corporations. Efforts to melt church plate for coinage and pawn royal jewels yielded limited relief, as creditor confidence waned amid the king's military setbacks and the Short Parliament's earlier refusal of war subsidies in April–May 1640. By late 1640, the cumulative burden—exacerbated by unpaid wages for English troops and logistical failures—neared £150,000 in immediate obligations, eroding the Crown's credit and compelling the召集 of the in November to secure taxation, thereby exposing Charles to political demands that further constrained .

Long-Term Consequences

Prelude to the Wars of the

The Treaty of Ripon, signed on 26 1640, ended the Second Bishops' War by allowing the Scottish Covenanter army of approximately 20,000 men to remain in occupation of and until a final peace could be negotiated, with required to pay £850 for their maintenance—a sum totaling over £200,000 by early November. This indemnity, atop the £300,000 already disbursed to disband the prior English mobilization and the costs of a failed campaign, rendered Charles I's financially untenable after eleven years without parliamentary grants. Lacking alternatives after the Short Parliament's dissolution in May 1640 for refusing supply without reforms, Charles issued writs for a new on 24 , which convened as the on 3 November. The , dominated by critics of royal policy, conditioned fiscal aid on addressing long-standing grievances, including the abolition of (declared illegal by statute in 1641), the dismantling of courts like and Court of High Commission in July 1641, and the trial and execution of Thomas Wentworth, , for alleged treason in May 1641. These measures eroded Charles's fiscal and judicial autonomy, while the Grand Remonstrance of November 1641 cataloged royal abuses and demanded parliamentary oversight of appointments, alienating moderates and prompting Charles's abortive arrest of five MPs on 4 January 1642—an act that inflamed public opinion and led to his withdrawal from . By August 1642, failed negotiations and control disputes ignited the , transforming domestic constitutional strife into armed conflict. In , the wars reinforced Covenanter hegemony, with the Glasgow General Assembly abolishing episcopacy entirely on 6 December 1639 and the ratifying Presbyterian governance in 1640, fostering a allied against perceived Erastian threats. This institutional entrenchment positioned to intervene southward via the of September 1643, supplying 21,000 troops to the English Parliamentarians in exchange for religious uniformity commitments, thereby federalizing the Wars of the across intertwined realms. The fiscal and military precedents of the Bishops' Wars thus catalyzed a cascade of resistance, rendering royal absolutism untenable without broader upheaval.

Impact on English Governance and Royal Prerogative

The Second Bishops' War's outcome, sealed by the Treaty of Ripon on October 26, 1640, imposed severe financial demands on Charles I, requiring him to pay the £850 per day to maintain their 20,000-strong army in occupation of and Durham until a final settlement. This indemnity, totaling over £300,000 by early November, compounded the crown's exhaustion of extraordinary revenues like and coat and conduct money, which had proven insufficient for even the limited campaigns of 1639–1640. Unable to meet these costs or finance a new army without recourse to taxation, Charles dissolved the on May 5, 1640, after it conditioned grants on religious and reforms, but the ongoing crisis necessitated recalling on November 3, 1640—the first since 1629. This reversal undermined the king's long-asserted prerogative to rule independently through personal authority and non-parliamentary levies, revealing the monarchy's structural reliance on parliamentary supply for extraordinary expenditures like war. The Long Parliament's sessions intensified scrutiny of royal , with MPs leveraging the king's desperation to enact measures curbing prerogative powers, including the abolition of in December 1640 and demands for accountability in military finance. These developments shifted the balance toward shared , as the crown's inability to unilaterally enforce religious uniformity or fiscal policies in exposed the limits of absolutist claims, fostering precedents for ary oversight that persisted beyond the immediate conflict.

Military and Strategic Lessons

The Bishops' Wars highlighted the critical importance of rapid mobilization and disciplined forces in . Scottish , under the command of experienced general Alexander Leslie, assembled an army of approximately 20,000 men by mid-1639, incorporating veterans from continental conflicts, which enabled swift suppression of internal threats and a professional posture that deterred direct engagement. In contrast, English forces, numbering around 18,000 by June 1639, consisted largely of untrained conscripts and with inadequate equipment and low morale, underscoring the limitations of improvised levies without sustained funding or training. Strategic maneuvering proved more decisive than numerical superiority, as evidenced by the avoidance of fortified English positions. In the First Bishops' War, Leslie's buildup at Duns created an impression of overwhelming strength, prompting King Charles I to negotiate the Pacification of Berwick on 19 June 1639 without a major battle, despite English advantages in planned numbers. This bluffing tactic exploited English hesitancy and logistical strains, revealing the psychological and demonstrative value of visible military readiness over offensive risks. Artillery dominance and terrain utilization emerged as key tactical lessons in the Second Bishops' War. At Newburn Ford on 28 August 1640, Leslie's forces, equipped with 60 guns, bombarded English entrenchments from higher ground and a church tower observation point, causing the defenders—about 5,300 men with only four light pieces—to abandon positions and flee across the River Tyne, allowing unopposed Scottish occupation of Newcastle by 30 August. English failures stemmed from poor of vulnerable crossings and reliance on raw troops prone to , emphasizing the need for integrated defensive strategies and reliable supply lines to counter pre-emptive invasions. These engagements illustrated that superiority, combined with discipline, could larger or equivalently sized forces lacking cohesion. Overall, the wars exposed the English crown's vulnerability to financially constrained efforts, as unpaid and mutinous troops undermined operational , while the ' committee-led organization facilitated efficient resource allocation and sustained campaigns. The outcomes influenced subsequent conflicts by validating the efficacy of professionalized armies and strategic patience, principles Leslie later applied in the .

Historical Assessments

Royalist Perspectives on Legitimate Authority

Royalists upheld the doctrine of the , positing that I's authority as monarch derived directly from God, rendering him accountable solely to divine judgment rather than to subjects or assemblies, and empowering him to govern both state and church without limitation. This principle justified 's imposition of episcopacy and the 1637 in , which royalists defended as necessary for uniformity, through bishops, and prevention of the religious anarchy they associated with presbyterian models. resistance, including riots in on 23 July 1637 against the , was framed by royalists as defiance of the king's paternal role as supreme governor of the church, akin to a child's against parental command. The , signed en masse beginning 28 February 1638 at in , epitomized this perceived illegitimacy in eyes, as it bound subscribers to resist perceived innovations while implicitly challenging the to and elevating presbyterian structures over . responded with proclamations, such as the one issued at Newcastle on 14 May 1639, denouncing unauthorized troop raisings and assemblies as invasion and rebellion, ordering his forces to treat levies as rebels and authorizing their destruction if they approached within ten miles of the English border. , including Scottish loyalists like the who mobilized against in the northeast, argued that such measures restored order under the king's undivided , rejecting covenanting claims to popular or contractual limits on monarchical power as subversive innovations absent historical precedent in Scottish kingship. During the First Bishops' War in 1639, royalist strategy emphasized rapid enforcement of authority to quell sedition before it spread, with Charles advancing to Berwick-upon-Tweed by 30 August to project strength and negotiate from position of dominance, while promising to address grievances only after obedience ensured the restoration of legitimate hierarchy. This paternalistic view extended to viewing presbyterian demands for general assemblies and kirk sessions as erosions of the king's judicial and spiritual oversight, which royalists contended preserved the realm's stability against factional disorder, as evidenced by their support for episcopal retention despite tactical concessions in the Pacification of Berwick on 18 June 1639.

Covenanter Justifications and Presbyterian Resistance

The Covenanters framed their opposition to Charles I's religious policies as a defense of Scotland's confessional settlement established during the , particularly the affirmed in the acts of the General Assembly of 1592. The , signed en masse starting on February 28, 1638, at in , renewed the Negative Confession of 1581 against popery and committed signatories to resist ecclesiastical innovations introduced since 1583, including the Five Articles of Perth (1618) and the 1637 , which they viewed as prelatic and Arminian corruptions threatening the Kirk's purity. Over 300,000 Scots ultimately subscribed, interpreting the document as a patriotic that upheld royal authority while asserting the Kirk's spiritual independence from civil overreach. Theologically, Presbyterians contended that episcopacy lacked explicit scriptural foundation, arguing that New Testament terms like episkopos (overseer) and presbuteros (elder) denoted interchangeable roles without hierarchical superiority of bishops over presbyters, as evidenced in passages such as Acts 20:17–28 and 1:5–7. They rejected claims of for prelates, positing instead a parity of ministers governed by synods and presbyteries as the primitive model, which aligned with the Kirk's post-Reformation and avoided what they deemed popish lordship structures. This stance culminated in the General Assembly of November–December 1638, where delegates, elected by presbyteries rather than royal nomination, condemned the Service Book and Canons as unlawful, tried and deposed all bishops for scandal and breach of covenant, and abolished episcopacy ab officio as incompatible with Presbyterian discipline. Covenanter resistance drew on Reformed doctrines of the two kingdoms, maintaining that the civil magistrate could not dictate spiritual governance contrary to 's word, invoking Acts 5:29—"We ought to obey rather than men"—to justify non-compliance with tyrannical edicts. Influenced by continental Calvinist theories, including those from French and Dutch thinkers, they articulated a limited right of resistance for subjects, particularly the and , to defend fundamental laws and religion when the sovereign violated covenanted oaths, without extending to popular rebellion absent ecclesiastical sanction. In the context of the Bishops' Wars (1639–1640), this manifested as the formation of the Tables—committees for public safety—and the mobilization of a 20,000-strong army under Alexander Leslie, framed not as but as defensive measures to deter royal invasion and preserve the Covenant against forcible reimposition of bishops. emphasized national unity under providential duty, portraying the conflict as a holy cause akin to biblical covenant renewals rather than mere political defiance.

Modern Scholarly Debates on Causality and Avoidability

Historians adopting the "multiple kingdoms" framework, notably Conrad Russell, interpret the Bishops' Wars as arising from the inherent instabilities of Stuart , where Charles I's pursuit of religious uniformity across , , and generated conflicting loyalties and fiscal strains rather than a singular English . This approach contrasts with earlier emphases on Charles's personal absolutism or Laudian innovations as isolated triggers, instead highlighting how the 1637 introduction of the Scottish ignited presbyterian backlash, formalized in the of 28 February 1638, amid broader British-wide tensions that rendered isolated royal concessions untenable. Debates on causality further pivot on the interplay of religious ideology and pragmatic politics, with Mark Charles Fissel underscoring logistical unpreparedness in —such as inadequate supply lines and untrained levies—as amplifying the ' defensive advantages, turning what began as a into mutual exhaustion by 1639. extends this to cross-kingdom politics, arguing that Scottish noble mobilization under the Covenant exploited Charles's overreliance on English revenues from controversial expedients like , which had already eroded domestic support without building effective military capacity. Revisionist scholars like Russell caution against overattributing causality to long-term religious polarization, positing instead that contingent events, including the Glasgow General Assembly's abolition of episcopacy on 6 December 1638, escalated a manageable dispute into open conflict due to failed . On avoidability, consensus emerges that the First Bishops' War concluded inconclusively with the Treaty of Berwick on 18 June 1639, yet Charles's refusal to dismantle Scottish episcopacy—insisting on bishops' retention despite presbyterian demands—foreclosed lasting peace, as evidenced by renewed Scottish incursions in summer 1640. Russell contends this impasse stemmed from the king's ideological commitment to jure divino episcopacy, intertwined with fears of unraveling authority across kingdoms, though earlier compromises like the Five Articles of Perth's partial rollback in 1638 suggest tactical flexibility was possible but overridden by advisors like . Post-revisionists, including Scott, argue avoidability hinged on Charles addressing fiscal-military weaknesses proactively, as the wars' 1640 denouement at the Second Treaty of —costing England £850 daily occupation payments—exposed how royal intransigence, rather than inexorable forces, precipitated the召集 of the on 3 November 1640.

References

  1. https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/british-civil-wars
  2. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/the-english-civil-wars-history-and-stories/the-english-civil-wars/
  3. https://schoolhistory.co.uk/early-modern/bishops-wars/
  4. https://museeprotestant.org/en/notice/protestantism-in-scotland/
  5. https://museeprotestant.org/en/notice/english-protestantism-in-the-xviiith-century/
  6. https://www.wscal.edu/resources/article/reformation-in-scotland-on-the-freedom-of-the-church-under-the-word/
  7. https://www.episcopalhistory.org/17th-century
  8. https://reformationhistory.org/fivearticlesofperth.html
  9. https://www.royal.uk/charles-i
  10. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/civil-war-people/civil-war-person-puritan/report-to-archbishop-laud/
  11. https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/90/249/506/5603565
  12. https://academic.oup.com/book/33708/chapter/288302926
  13. https://academic.oup.com/book/7281/chapter/151994188
  14. https://tornveil.org/Gloria/ChurchHistory/lessons/65-Scottish-Covenanters.pdf
  15. http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Scotland/BCP_1637.htm
  16. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/religion/collections/common-prayer/scottish-objections/
  17. https://scottishhistorysociety.com/the-national-covenant-1637-60/
  18. https://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/history/covenanters/anglican_prayer_book_leads_to_riots/
  19. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/union/features_union_covenanters.shtml
  20. https://greyfriarskirk.com/history/the-national-covenant/
  21. https://www.stgilescathedral.org.uk/the-national-covenant
  22. https://bcw-project.org.uk/military/bishops-wars/first-bishops-war
  23. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/first-bishops-war
  24. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/1631/1/John_Young_The_Scottish_Parliament_and_the_War_for_the_Three_Kingdoms.pdf
  25. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-Leslie-1st-earl-of-Leven
  26. https://www.britannica.com/event/Bishops-Wars
  27. https://www.scotland.org.uk/scotland-in-the-seventeenth-century/the-bishops-wars-of-1639
  28. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/charles-i-and-the-aristocracy-16251642/aristocracy-and-the-bishops-wars-16391640/3508C43449C66CBA42A5949ACD8FA862
  29. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/overview/personal-rule/
  30. https://bcw-project.org.uk/church-and-state/crisis-in-scotland/short-parliament
  31. http://www.johnhampden.org/1/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/shortparl.pdf
  32. https://bcw-project.org.uk/military/bishops-wars/second-bishops-war
  33. https://bcw-project.org.uk/military/bishops-wars/
  34. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryMagazine/DestinationsUK/The-Battle-of-Newburn/
  35. https://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/battleview.asp?BattleFieldId=29
  36. https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/listing/battlefields/newburn-ford/
  37. https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Newburn
  38. https://www.historyofwar.org/articles/treaty_ripon.html
  39. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/article/english-funding-of-the-scottish-armies-in-england-and-ireland-16401648/7C645C66488A6C1F343D272855ED1EE5
  40. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100422265
  41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40264191
  42. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/research/parliaments/parliaments-1640-1660
  43. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/key-dates/1603-1640/
  44. https://blog.historicenvironment.scot/2023/11/general-assembly-1638/
  45. https://bcw-project.org.uk/church-and-state/crisis-in-scotland/glasgow-assembly
  46. http://www.covenanter.org.uk/glasgow_assembly.html
  47. https://bcw-project.org.uk/timelines/the-bishops-wars
  48. https://reformationhistory.org/secondbishopswar.html
  49. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ripon-treaty
  50. https://historyofparliament.com/2022/08/23/charles-i-in-search-of-friends/
  51. https://quizlet.com/gb/899382063/personal-rule-financial-religious-policy-ireland-scotland-flash-cards/
  52. http://www.olivercromwell.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023.pdf
  53. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/key-dates/1640-1660/
  54. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/overview/longparliament/
  55. http://www.olivercromwell.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2021.pdf
  56. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:340701/s41741744_mphil_submission.pdf
  57. https://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usbiography/monarchs/charlesi.html
  58. https://www.worldturnedupsidedown.co.uk/transcripts/how-far-was-charles-i-responsible-for-causing-the-civil-war/
  59. https://www.historyhit.com/why-did-charles-i-believe-in-the-divine-right-of-kings/
  60. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/civil-war-people/civil-war-person-scottish-covenanter/proclamation-by-charles-i/
  61. https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/important-documents/the-national-covenant-1638/
  62. https://www.truecovenanter.com/natcov.htm
  63. https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/publications/covenanting-exchanges-with-the-french-court-during-the-wars-for-t
  64. https://purelypresbyterian.com/2021/08/09/episcopacy-refuted-scriptural-arguments/
  65. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/10.3366/shr.2014.0198
  66. https://www.jhiblog.org/2019/11/20/the-scottish-covenanters-and-catholic-political-thought/
  67. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26211777
  68. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/article/covenanter-propaganda-and-conceptualizations-of-the-public-during-the-bishops-wars-16381640/732583B772C5A1CD8CA97808121D3505
  69. https://treeandtheseed.com/the-glasgow-assembly-1638-and-the-abolition-of-episcopacy/
  70. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v13/n16/blair-worden/conrad-russell-s-civil-war
  71. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/hlq.2015.78.4.615
  72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2124680
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321876037_Politics_and_War_in_the_Three_Stuart_Kingdoms_1637-49
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.