|
Aberystwyth Remained Loyal During Civil War
 | By Michael D. Greaney, World Coin News
September 03, 2009 |
In 1639 Charles had masterminded a grand design intended to bring the Scots to heel and teach the Covenanter rebels their place in his realm, spiritual and temporal. Unfortunately, matters did not quite work out as planned, in large measure due to the anxiety of Thomas Wentworth, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and chief advisor to the king, to prevent the Scots, the Catholics (and any other potential rivals), but especially Randall Macdonnell, earl of Antrim, from making any gains at his expense.
Since Wentworth was the perfect Malthusian, viewing anything anyone else had as taking something away from him, any gain by anyone was automatically at his expense. Consequently he prevented Antrim from carrying out a key operation in the king's plan to call Scotland to book. Rather than serving as a reserve to cut off the retreat of any southward-retreating Covenanter armies, Charles found his royal army in the position of the only effective force in the field.
This was, in the Newspeak of George Orwell, "double plus ungood." Fighting a defensive action is always easier than going on the offense, the defensive position typically multiplying the effectiveness of military resources many times over. Given that, the king would actually have been in a good position had the other operations been carried out: the Gordons attacking from the north, the duke of Hamilton from the east, and (especially) the earl of Antrim from the west. Being the only effective force in the field, however, and wise enough in this at least to understand that without the other three parts of his master plan to bring Scotland to heel in effect nothing except a slaughter of his troops could be accomplished, Charles could not but realize that there was no way he could go on the offensive. The best he could do was sit in York and await developments.
The king's dilemma would have been the perfect opportunity for the Covenanters to attack the royal army. Fortunately for the king, however, the Covenanters had troubles of their own. While Charles might not have been able to put his master plan into effect, he did manage to prevent the Covenanter army from receiving adequate supplies. An assault on York by the Covenanter army would have been as suicidal as an attack on Edinburgh by the royal forces. They decided to negotiate.
What resulted was an agreement known as "the Pacification of Berwick," reached June 18, 1639. Under the terms of the agreement, Charles was not forced to ratify the acts of the Scottish General Assembly of the preceding November, but he did agree that the Assembly could meet legally in the coming August, to be followed by a parliament. The First Bishops' War was over without either side having accomplished much of anything.
Effectively, this meant that Charles acquiesced in the abolition of the office of bishop, and accepted a broad reduction in the powers the king enjoyed in the civil sphere ... for the time being. Subsequent events revealed that, whatever Charles might have said, he had no intention of abiding by such an infringement of his divine right to rule Church and State. He was clearly only buying time so that he could regroup and implement a more effective military solution.
Consequently, Charles decided he needed his most effective advisor at his side in England, and in July recalled Wentworth to England. In 1640 he created Wentworth first earl of Strafford and (according to some authorities) promoted him to Lord Lieutenant. (There is disagreement on the timing of this promotion, some authorities putting it a few years earlier. I have arbitrarily decided to accept the earlier date, due to a lack of resources to research the facts in what, frankly, is a rather trivial matter in the greater scheme of things.)
Overall, the Pacification of Berwick that ended the First Bishops' War was worse than a wretched compromise. The king failed to exert any influence over Scottish affairs and his army was utterly humiliated. The Covenanters, despite the inspiring sermons and drilling that strengthened morale, had failed to secure a lasting acceptance of their reforms, whether political or religious. Both armies disbanded and went home, but it quickly became apparent that this was simply an informal furlough, the quiet before the awakening storm.
The Pacification (or Treaty) of Berwick, reached on June 18, 1639, was thus only a temporary respite in the conflict between the Covenanters and the king. While the armies were officially disbanded, the Covenanters kept their hired mercenary officers on the payroll and had them continue training and drilling their men in the Lowlands.
For his part, Charles attempted to regroup, planning another effort built around Wentworth's "New Army" of 8,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry to be raised in Ireland. The idea was that the new earl of Strafford would actually carry out the invasion of the west of Scotland originally assigned to the earl of Antrim. The Gordons and their allies would attack from the north and tie down the Covenanter armies in the Highlands, the southwest, and the northeast. Desperate by this time, Charles and Wentworth agreed to a force that was predominantly Catholic.
This was, all things considered, a relatively clever move, although neither Wentworth nor the king might have thought so. On the downside, a Catholic army to which the king was indebted for his throne would force Charles at long last to grant the Graces and make them effective. If the king refused, the army could simply refuse to fight until their demands were granted. On the upside, however, they would have much more incentive to fight for Charles than any of the other factions in the three kingdoms to regain their ancient rights. In view of the poor performances seen from English troops so far, this should have been considered a distinct advantage.
Nevertheless, Wentworth managed to botch the effort. He still categorically refused to allow Antrim's relatives, who were later to demonstrate that they were among the most effective military commanders in the Great Rebellion against the same Covenanter generals Charles now faced, to return to Ireland and serve the king. Senior officers could not be Catholic.
Further, the plan itself was nowhere near as sound as the previous one. The Gordons had already demonstrated that without modern arms and sufficient men they - while obviously valiant fighters were simply no match for a well-trained army equipped with firearms and modern artillery, however scantily provided for and supplied. As the Highlanders were to discover at Culloden a century later, claymores and courage were no match for gunpowder and cannon. There was also the fact that the Covenanters now held strong points throughout the country, and had heavily fortified the west against a possible invasion from Ulster, not to mention that local forces that might have risen in support of the king had been decimated in the First Bishops' War.
Not the least factor delaying Wentworth's formation of his New Army was the lack of funds. Charles was now unable to collect "ship money," previously an important source of revenue. Ship money was a special tax, formerly levied only on coastal areas, to raise money in times of national emergency to fund the navy. Years earlier Charles, partly in order to offset his inability to get adequate funds out of parliament, had extended the collection of ship money to all England and use the tax receipts for whatever the king deemed necessary, in effect decreeing a permanent state of emergency. Despite many protests and even lawsuits, ship money had been a lucrative source of revenue.
The ship money was now drying up, although authorities differ as to the reason. Some taxpayers, financially crippled by the worsening economic conditions, may simply have been unable to pay. Others may have felt that their responsibility was met by payment of the other extraordinary taxes Charles was levying to meet the cost of trying to raise, equip, and improve the army.
Another possibility was that, having demonstrated that he could raise money without the sanction of parliament, if the king reconquered Scotland, there would be no effective check on his absolutist tendencies1 democratically voted taxes, as Henry C. Adams was to point out a few centuries later2 - being the sole means the average citizen has of holding the State accountable for its actions. Non-payment of ship money could have been an early instance of a "taxpayer strike."
For some odd reason, none of this seemed to worry Charles' Privy Council. Part of this may simply have been a reflection of the king's own attitude, that all he need do was command and his people would obey. Nor was this entirely unrealistic. As one historian put it:
The lack of reaction to Charles's "personal rule" showed how docile the English had become. As far as England was concerned, it seemed that Charles was right to ignore opposition and to pay no heed to public opinion. Without the distraction of Parliament, he was able to retreat into an artificial world where all was order and peace. His court became more formal and more remote. Access was restricted, and the nobility and gentry were urged to leave London and live on their estates. The culture of the court was refined but also removed from reality. Court masques celebrated the love of the king and queen, which was shown calming storms and bringing order out of chaos. Policy debates were carried on with little reference to the wider public. The king assumed that he could command his people as easily as he commanded the elements in a masque.3
Thus, the Privy Council responded to widespread disobedience in the matter of non-payment of the ship money by simply asserting that there was no question that people would pay the tax, "there having been a public judgment passed for the king."4 Unfortunately, the disaffection prevalent in Scotland and perennial in Ireland had by this time spread to England.
The disaffection spreading through the three kingdoms is apparent in the provincial and civil war coinage issued at the time. The coins struck in Aberystwyth in Wales are of particular interest, as the area seems to have remained loyal to Charles throughout the Civil War. It's not entirely clear from my sources, but the mint in Aberystwyth may have been established by Thomas Bushell, who is credited with the foundation of several royal mints at this time.
Aberystwyth was an important center long before the 17th century. In the Middle Stone Age (Mesolithic) the area seems to have been a favorite place for making flint projectile points and other tools from the abundance of flint revealed as the glaciers retreated. There are remains of everything from Celtic and Roman fortifications to a rare example of early Medieval "ring fort." The noted invader of Ireland, Richard de Clare ("Strongbow"), built a castle in the area in 1109, while Edward I replaced the structure with a modern edifice in 1277 after the Welsh destroyed the original fortifications.
Owain Glyndwr surrendered this later castle to Prince Harry (later Henry V), and the town was in short order incorporated as "Ville de Lampadarn," a Norman-French corruption of the original name of Llanbadarn Gaerog, or "The Fort of Llanbadarn." (There was a Llanbadarn Fawr a mile away, so it was necessary to distinguish the two.) Henry VIII Tudor granted the town a royal charter as Ville de Lampadarn, but under Elizabeth the town acquired the name Aberyswyth, which it bears to this day.
Probably because of the strategic importance of the mint, which (thanks to Thomas Bushell) was prolific, although ceasing operations in 1642, parliamentarian forces destroyed the castle in 1647, leaving very little to draw modern tourists or numismatists. A complete male skeleton was found during excavations in the 1970s that is believed to be the burial of a "Cavalier," or royal adherent, and given the name "Charlie" in commemoration before taking up his eternal rest in the town museum.
In Article No. 62 in this series that gave an overview of Charles I's coinages, I mistakenly attributed an emergency 1 shilling 2 pence emergency issue to Aberystwyth that is actually the product of the Siege of Scarborough that lasted from July 1644 to July 1645. The actual denominations are the more standard halfpenny, and one, two, three, four, and six pence, one shilling, and halfcrown.
There are a significant number of varieties listed for all denominations, except for the halfpenny, which displays no legend, a rose on the obverse and a plume (the symbol of the Prince of Wales - the mint was in Wales) through a crown on the reverse. Probably because of the prominence of the plume on the reverse, tacitly identifying the mint, no mint seems to have been deemed necessary. The other denominations display a book mintmark, but also a plume and crown (a princely coronet instead of a royal diadem), with or without a band on the coronet, in the field in front of the king's portrait, and the mark of value in Roman numerals behind. Prices for the relatively scarce halfpenny start at around $75 in Very Good and go up to $900 in Very Fine. (Note that the Aberystwyth halfpenny listed in the Standard Catalog of World Coins bears the design of the Commonwealth under Cromwell, although not listed as such in Seaby's.)
There are four major varieties of the penny, bearing the standard left-facing portrait of the king on the obverse and a plume through a coronet on the reverse. Prices for all four varieties begin at around $30 in Very Good, and go up to around $450 in Extremely Fine.
The halfgroat - two pence - is, except for the larger size, virtually identical to the penny. There are three major varieties, with no listed variance in the price, regardless of the variety, beginning at $40 in Very Good, and going up to $600 in Extremely Fine.
The threepence has virtually the same obverse design, but the reverse displays a large shield with small plumes above. Seaby's lists six major varieties, again with little variation in the price, which begins at around $40 in Very Good and goes up to $500 in Extremely Fine.
The groat - four pence - has a similar obverse and reverse, and three major varieties. As we might expect from so prolific a mint, prices are similar (and reasonable) for all varieties, beginning at around $25 in Very Good, and going up to $425 in Extremely Fine.
The sixpence is larger, but has virtually the same design. The five major varieties are all reasonably priced, beginning at around $90 in Very Good, and going up to about $1,000 in Extremely Fine (note that when I say "reasonably priced," I mean relatively).
The shilling has almost the same obverse design and a somewhat more ornate shield on the reverse, and five major varieties. Prices begin at around $80 in Very Good to around $1,200 in Extremely Fine.
The halfcrown shows the king on horseback, facing left, and a reverse almost identical to the shilling. There are three major varieties, with prices beginning at around $225 in Very Good, and going up to around $3,500 in Extremely Fine, reflecting the greater popularity of the larger silver coins among collectors.
Still, the Covenanters, for all their sermons and show of military force and ardor, claimed to want to negotiate and were probably sincere in this. They asserted that they had nothing against the king or the English people, but that their quarrel was with the "Canterburian faction," a small number of influential church authorities who were leading Charles and the true church astray. This, in effect, meant William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
This led disaffected elements in England to chime in and declare that they believed the king to have been led astray by "evil counselors." They were not against the king, but the small number of influential advisors who were the root cause of all the troubles. This, in effect, meant Thomas Wentworth, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and earl of Strafford. The fact that Laud and Strafford were good friends and both clearly with tremendous influence at court only strengthened the charges.
Charles, however, was disinclined to listen to complaints, nor was he amenable to negotiating with those whom he regarded as rebels, both against the king as divinely-appointed head of civil society, and God, in the person of Charles as head of the Church of England. He was absolutely convinced that he was right without question and had a mission given to him personally by God. That the Covenanters were also convinced that they were the ones on a divine mission was only an instance of their trouble-making tendencies and heresy.
None of this was calculated to increase tax revenues. Further, Charles had pretty much exhausted all possibilities to finance the abortive First Bishops' War. Another plan that the taxpayers could only view as more of the same would hardly inspire any confidence. Not only that, one of the sources for funding the previous expedition had been raised by organizing a special collection among the English Catholics, a group that had the most to fear if the Covenanters and Puritans managed to make common cause against the king.
The king might be superficial and a liar, but at least he didn't look at Catholics as much more than a lucrative source of revenue through the imposition of fines for non-attendance at official State church functions. They might be a somewhat unreliable element in the State, but they were more or less easily controlled by manipulation of the recusancy laws.
Puritans and Covenanters, however, looked on Catholics as being virtual Satan worshipers, witches and warlocks bent on the utter destruction of the Godly (meaning the Puritans and the Covenanters), and working to put the country wholly in the power of the Antichrist, as they liked to call the pope. Unfortunately (a word that seems to occur quite a lot when writing about the Stuarts), word of the collection got out, confirming in the minds of the Puritans at least that the Jesuits were secretly controlling the king.
When to this you added the fact that the English people had pretty much been promised a spectacular victory over the detested Scots, the enthusiasm for another tax levy to pay for another abortive campaign that did nothing other than waste money was at a very low level. That Charles could hardly be held personally to blame for the paranoid actions of his Lord Lieutenant, and that he had been put in an untenable military position through the failures of others did not occur to anyone. True, the king was legally responsible for all acts committed in his name, and he could have countermanded Wentworth's orders that emasculated Antrim's operation, but it's doubtful that would really have had any effect, other than to undermine the authority of the Lord Lieutenant.
Still, none of this was putting any money in the exchequer. Thus, when Charles developed another plan to subjugate the Covenanters, he was desperate for ways to raise money. He even attempted to raise a contribution from the City of London. Charles either had very poor short term memory, or he was unaware that the City might have any reason to be angry with him. Unfortunately (that word again), the City was still smarting over the loss of its lands in Derry, and saw no reason to give Charles anything other than a curt refusal.
There was nothing for it. Charles had gone to war the previous year without summoning parliament, the first time that had been done since 1323, during the reign of Edward II. This had caused considerable outrage, but Charles was prepared to risk it again - had he had the money. Obviously he didn't have the money, so he called parliaments in England and Ireland to get some.
ENDNOTES
1John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer, ed., The Civil Wars, A Military History of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 1638-1660. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1998, 23.
2Henry C. Adams, Public Debt, An Essay in the Science of Finance. New York: Appleton and Company, 1898.
3John Miller, The Stuarts. London: Hambledon Continuum, 2006, 87.
4Ibid., 88.
Add to: del.icio.us digg
With this article: Email to friend Print
Something to add? Notice an error? Comment on this article. | |