The story

Peace of Berwick, 18 June 1639

Peace of Berwick, 18 June 1639



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Peace of Berwick

Treaty that ended the First Bishop's War between Charles I and the Scots. The treaty was negotiated after the two armies met before Berwick, but without and fighting. Neither side was entirely satisfied by the treaty, and the Second Bishop's War soon followed.

Myth Or Reality? Berwick Revisits Its 'War With Russia'

Berwick-upon-Tweed, England’s most northerly town, is technically at war with Russia. Or so the local legend goes. The town’s Borough Museum is planning to sort myth from reality at its forthcoming Berwick’s War With Russia Weekend.

Jim Herbert from the Berwick Borough Museum, joint organisers of the event, explained how the story originated:

“The myth started because the Treaty of Everlasting Peace [between Scotland and England in 1502] stated that Berwick was of England but not in England, so Berwick was always mentioned separately in Acts of Parliament.”

Using this logic, it was claimed that Britain’s declaration of the Crimean War against Russia in 1853 mentioned Berwick separately but that the 1856 Treaty of Paris that ended hostilities did not. A local myth thus developed saying that the market town of some 25,000 people was still technically at war with Russia.

The Berwick War With Russia Weekend will see a 'what if' enactment of the 'Battle of Berwick'. Photo courtesy Berwick Museum

The reality is somewhat different, however, and the forthcoming events in Berwick on September 9 and 10 2006, 150 years on from the end of the Crimean War, aim to both educate and to celebrate the legend itself.

“The declaration of war never actually mentioned Berwick at all,” explained Jim. “We think the myth was started in the early 20th century – a vicar was giving a lecture or talk and mentioned it and it started from there. And who are we to put down a good myth?”

The churchman was one Archdeacon William Cunningham (1849-1919), also a knowledgeable historian, and it is still not known why such a respectable figure should start such a story.

Like all good stories Berwick’s ‘war with Russia’ tale has grown over the years and it was claimed that a Russian diplomat finally signed a ‘peace treaty’ with the mayor of Berwick in the 1960s.

Acclaimed Russian group Koshka will be playing on the Saturday night of the War With Russia Weekend. Photo courtesy Berwick Museum

“There was supposedly a peace treaty made out at the time but we haven’t been able to find any sign of it,” said Jim.

The only evidence that it happened is from the accounts of older residents. “We can find nothing about it from local newspapers of the time,” he continued.

The then mayor, Robert Knox, is reputed to have said, “Tell the Russians they can sleep easy in their beds”, but there is no record of this in the council’s minutes either.

Whatever the exact details, the legend certainly adds to Berwick’s rich history. Along with an exhibition the Borough Museum will be showing a specially made film. There will also be an imaginative staging of ‘The Battle of Berwick’ and a Russian band will play at Berwick Parish Church.

For more details about Berwick’s War With Russia Weekend call the museum via Berwick Council on 01289 330044.


Berwick, treaty of

Berwick, treaty of, 1560. The years 1558� were critical in Anglo-Scottish relations. The death of Mary Tudor in 1558 placed a protestant on the English throne. Mary, queen of Scots, became queen of France in 1559, with her mother Mary of Guise as regent for her in Scotland. Her catholicizing policy was opposed by the lords of the Congregation, a group of noblemen, supported by the zeal of John Knox. The regent held the port of Leith, vital for communication with France. By the treaty of Berwick of February 1560, Elizabeth I undertook to support the rebellious lords. In June 1560 Mary of Guise died and later in the year Mary, queen of Scots, was widowed. Though one must be careful before hailing the treaty as the turning-point towards a protestant Scotland and union with England, there is little doubt that it turned the scales in the struggle between the old and new religions.

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

JOHN CANNON "Berwick, treaty of ." The Oxford Companion to British History. . Encyclopedia.com. 16 Jun. 2021 < https://www.encyclopedia.com > .

JOHN CANNON "Berwick, treaty of ." The Oxford Companion to British History. . Retrieved June 16, 2021 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/berwick-treaty-0

Citation styles

Encyclopedia.com gives you the ability to cite reference entries and articles according to common styles from the Modern Language Association (MLA), The Chicago Manual of Style, and the American Psychological Association (APA).

Within the “Cite this article” tool, pick a style to see how all available information looks when formatted according to that style. Then, copy and paste the text into your bibliography or works cited list.


Historical Events In June - 18

0618 On June - 18 coronation of the Chinese governor Li Yuan as Emperor Gaozu of Tang, the new Emperor of China, initiating three centuries of the Tang Dynasty's rule over China.

0741 Leo III de Isaurier, Byzantine Emperor (717-41), dies on this day in history.

0860 Swedish Vikings attack Constantinople on this day in history.

1155 On this day in history pope Adrian IV crowns Frederick I Barbarossa Roman-German Emperor

1178 Proposed time of origin of lunar crater Giordano Bruno on this day in history.

1264 The Parliament of Ireland meets at Castledermot in County Kildare, the first definitively known meeting of this Irish legislature on June - 18.

1291 Alfonso III, King of Aragon (1285-91), dies on this day in history.

1316 Peace of Fexhe: prince-bishop Adolf II of Mark & Luikse towns on June - 18.

1464 Rogier van der Weyden, Flemish painter, dies at 65 on this day in history.

1511 On June - 18 bartolommeo Ammanati, Italian sculptor/architect

1529 Blackfriars begin: Henry VIII & Catharina of Aragon on this day in history.

1538 On this day in history treaty of Nice: ends war between Emperor Charles V & King French I

1541 On this day in history irish parliament selects Henry VIII as king of Ireland

1574 On June - 18 polish King Hendrik of Anjou secretly leaves Poland

1580 States of Utrecht forbid catholic worship on June - 18.

1580 Juliana van Stolberg, Engraver of Nassau, dies on this day in history.

1581 On this day in history thomas Overbury, poet (baptized)

1583 Richard Martin of London takes out 1st life insurance policy, on William Gibbons, premium was £383 on June - 18.

1588 Anna, daughter of prince Willem I/Anna van Saksen, dies at 24 on June - 18.

1629 Sea battle at Dungeness: Piet Heyn vs Dunkerk Cape on this day in history.

1629 On this day in history piet Heyn, lt-admiral (Spanish silver fleet), dies in battle at 51

1639 Treaty of Berwick: End 1st Bishop war on this day in history.

1643 On June - 18 skirmish at Chalgrove Field: Prince Rupert parliamentary armies

1667 On this day in history louise Henriette, daughter of Frederik Hendrik, dies at 39

1669 On June - 18 abraham Crijnssen, Swiss admiral, conquered Suriname, dies

1681 On this day in history feofan Prokopovich, theologian, archbishop of Novgorod, westernizer

1682 William Penn founds Philadelphia, US on June - 18.

1686 Johann Quirsfeld, composer, dies at 43 on this day in history.

1716 On June - 18 joseph M Vien, French (court)painter

1723 On this day in history giuseppe Scarlotti, composer

1726 On this day in history michel-Richard Delalande, composer, dies at 68

1740 Karel van Poucke, Flemish sculptor on this day in history.

1744 On this day in history augustin Holler, composer

1757 On June - 18 battle at Kolin Bohemia: Austrian army beats Prussia


Berwick History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms

The surname Berwick was first found in Berwickshire in Scotland and Northumberland in England, where "this surname is derived from the famous Border town of the same name. Rather curiously the surname is not uncommon at the present day in Fife. John de Berwic was rector of Renfrew in 1295, and in the year following Geoffry of Berewick, Burgess of Roxburgh, rendered homage [to King Edward I of England]. " [1]

Further to the south in England, John de Berewyk (d. 1312), was an English judge, who "was entrusted with the charge of the vacant abbey of St. Edmund, 1278-1279, and of the see of Lincoln during the interval which elapsed between the death of Benedict, otherwise Richard, de Gravesend, 1279, and the appointment of his successor in the episcopate, Oliver Sutton, 1280-1281." [2]

In Wiltshire, there were two early listings in the Hundredorum Rolls of 1273: Sampson de Berwyk and Philip de Berwyke. [3]

Moving further north again, the Yorkshire Poll Tax Rolls of 1379 listed Johannes de Berwyk as holding lands there at that time. [3]

Coat of Arms and Surname History Package

$24.95 $21.20

Early History of the Berwick family

This web page shows only a small excerpt of our Berwick research. Another 77 words (6 lines of text) covering the years 1476, 1615, 1628, 1629 and 1728 are included under the topic Early Berwick History in all our PDF Extended History products and printed products wherever possible.

Unisex Coat of Arms Hooded Sweatshirt

Berwick Spelling Variations

The name, Berwick, occurred in many references, and from time to time, it was spelt Berwick, Bewick, Berwicke, Bewicke and others.

Early Notables of the Berwick family (pre 1700)

More information is included under the topic Early Berwick Notables in all our PDF Extended History products and printed products wherever possible.

Berwick migration +

Some of the first settlers of this family name were:

Berwick Settlers in United States in the 17th Century
  • Richard Berwick, who landed in Maryland in 1639 [4]
  • Daniel Berwick, who arrived in Annapoligi, Maryland in 1652 [4]
  • John Berwick, who landed in Virginia in 1664 [4]
Berwick Settlers in United States in the 18th Century
Berwick Settlers in United States in the 19th Century
  • Thomas Berwick, who landed in Louisiana in 1805 [4]
  • James Berwick who settled in New Orleans in 1821
  • Max Berwick, aged 28, who arrived in Boston, Massachusetts in 1848 [4]
Berwick Settlers in United States in the 20th Century
  • Joseph Berwick, aged 28, who immigrated to the United States from Newcastle on Tyme, in 1904
  • Elizabeth Berwick, aged 56, who immigrated to America from Walker-on-Tyne, in 1906
  • Agnes Berwick, aged 22, who immigrated to America from Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1907
  • Clara Berwick, aged 48, who settled in America from Southampton, England, in 1908
  • Frederick L. Berwick, aged 27, who immigrated to the United States from London, England, in 1909
  • . (More are available in all our PDF Extended History products and printed products wherever possible.)

Berwick migration to Canada +

Some of the first settlers of this family name were:

Berwick Settlers in Canada in the 18th Century
  • Robert Berwick, who arrived in Nova Scotia in 1750
  • Robert Berwick, who landed in Nova Scotia in 1774
  • George Berwick, who landed in Nova Scotia in 1774
  • Mrs. Berwick, who landed in Nova Scotia in 1774
  • Ann Berwick, who arrived in Nova Scotia in 1774

Berwick migration to Australia +

Emigration to Australia followed the First Fleets of convicts, tradespeople and early settlers. Early immigrants include:


Alexander Keirincx

This view of York was commissioned by Charles I as part of a group of ten paintings of towns and castles in the north of England and Scotland. It is dominated by the west front of York Minster. As the political situation deteriorated in the run-up to the Civil War, Charles I travelled north to confront hostile Scottish rebels at Berwick in May 1639. The artist may have accompanied him on this expedition. Keirincx was born and trained in Antwerp, later moving to Utrecht. He worked in Britain from 1638 to 1641, living in Orchard Street in Westminster.

Gallery label, February 2016

Does this text contain inaccurate information or language that you feel we should improve or change? We would like to hear from you.

Catalogue entry

Alexander Keirincx 1600–1652

Distant View of the City of York
c.1639
Oil on oak panel
529 x 687 x 6 mm
Inscribed ‘AK’ in monogram centre right foreground in pale, partly transparent paint branded with royal cipher – ‘CR’ surmounted by a crown – on reverse of panel
Purchased (Grant-in-Aid) 1986
T04168

Ownership history
Probably one of a set of four views of northern towns by Keirincx recorded in van der Doort’s catalogue (completed 1639¿–40) of Charles I’s pictures at Whitehall … probably part of a set of ten views ‘of the King’s houses and townes in Scotland’ by Keirincx at Oatlands palace, sold in two lots at the Commonwealth sale on 3 May 1650 (39, two works) and 3 May 1651 (44, eight works) both bought by Remigius van Leemput … F. Quinones of Palma, Spain (who also owned lot 3, View of an English Royal Castle by Keirincx in the same sale) sold Christie’s, London, 11 April 1986 (2, as View of Pontefract from the East, Yorks) bt Leggatt on behalf of Tate.

Exhibition history
Royalist Refugees: The Rubenshuis Years of William and Margaret Cavendish, 1648–1660, exhibition catalogue, Rubenshuis, Antwerp 2006, p. 154, no.34 reproduced (colour).

References
M.Whinney and O. Millar, English Art 1635–1714, Oxford 1957, p.261, n.1 O. Millar, ‘Abraham Van der Doort’s Catalogue of the Collections of Charles I’, Walpole Society, vol.37, 1960, pp.159, 160 O. Millar, ‘The Inventories and Valuations of the King’s Goods, 1649–1651’, Walpole Society, vol.43, 1970, p.278 Y. Thiery and M.K. de Meerendre, Les Peintres flamands de paysage du XVIIe siècle, Brussels 1987, pp.54–5, reproduced The Tate Gallery 1986–88: Illustrated Biennial Report, London 1988, p.127 (as Distant View of a Town (called ‘Pontefract’) R.P. Townsend, ‘Alexander Keirincx 1600–1652’, unpublished thesis, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 1988, pp.22–35 and n.103 R.P. Townsend, ‘The One and Only Alexander Keirincx: Correcting the Misconceptions’, Apollo, vol.38, October 1993, pp.220–3, fig.1 Tate Gallery: Illustrated Catalogue of Acquisitions 1986–88, London 1996, pp.40–2 Richard P. Townsend, ‘Alexander Keirincx’s Royal Commission of 1639–1640’, in Juliette Roding and others (eds.), Dutch and Flemish Artists in Britain 1550–1800, Leiden 2003, pp.137–50.

This work once belonged to King Charles I, and his crowned ‘CR’ cipher is branded on the back of the panel.

In the late 1620s the painter Alexander Keirincx, who was born and trained in Antwerp, moved to Utrecht where he first collaborated with Cornelis van Poelenburch. From 1638 to 1641 both artists were working in London, living alongside each other in Orchard Street, Westminster. Subsequent references reveal that at this time King Charles I commissioned ten landscape views from Keirincx. At present the locations of only six of these are known. This is one of these works, all of which are painted on wooden panel, are of roughly the same dimensions, and bear Charles I’s monogram on the back. All present a distant view of a castle or town in the north of England or in Scotland, set in its surrounding countryside.

The present work, which is signed in monogram ‘AK’, was acquired by Tate at auction in 1986, as a view of Pontefract in Yorkshire. With the assistance of Richard Green, formerly of York City Art Gallery, it was subsequently identified as a view of the city of York.1

Charles I’s commission for this group of landscapes seems to have arisen from the deteriorating political situation in his kingdom. In February 1639, the Scots responded to Charles I’s imposition of governmental and liturgical changes by drawing up a Covenant which affirmed the identity of the Church of Scotland and the right to political self-rule. Charles set off with an army to subdue the rebels. Humiliatingly outnumbered, he confronted them at Berwick on 28 May 1639. On 18 June 1639 the Treaty of Berwick was signed, which resulted in the disbandment of both armies and the restoration to Charles of his royal castles.

Richard Townsend has suggested that Keirincx travelled in Charles’s retinue on this expedition north. The artist and engraver Wenceslaus Hollar is certainly known to have down so.2 If so, Keirincx would have toured the various northern sites during May and June 1639 and begun work on his paintings in July or August. This and the three other views of Yorkshire must have been delivered by the end of the year, because they are recorded then as hanging at Whitehall Palace by Charles I’s curator Abraham van der Doort (‘ffower lanskipp pecees of one Bigness Being the Nordron towne . ’).3

However, as curator Elizabeth Einberg pointed out in her 1988 entry on this work, there are a number of details in this representation of York that are vague or inaccurate, and difficult to reconcile with the known topography. She therefore proposed that Keirincx, who was in any case primarily a painter of picturesque landscapes rather than of topographic views, may never have visited York but based his view on topographical drawings supplied by someone else. A hint that this could be so is given in Van der Doort’s catalogue of the collections of Charles I, completed towards the end of 1639. A draft list of the contents of the Cabinet Room at Whitehall records as ‘in Store in severall places and . yet unplaced’ a number of paintings which include ‘baeht bij te king au M karings / Item ffower lanskipp pecess of one Bigness / Being the Nordron towne paynted. Bij stalbents drauwings’.4 This could mean that the set of four landscapes of northern towns bought from Keirincx by the King were stored next to drawings by Stalbemt, or that these were paintings by Stalbemt bought from Keirincx. However, it could also signify that the paintings were made by Keirincx after drawings supplied by Adrian van Stalbemt (1580–1662). This Flemish painter is known to have worked at the court of Charles I, and although nothing is known about his movements outside London, he could have accompanied the King on his journey that year to Scotland to be crowned, visiting York en route.

Six views belonging to the same set turned up on the art market towards the end of the twentieth century. Five of them are now identified as views in Scotland and Yorkshire, suggesting that Keirincx may indeed have accompanied the King on his journey to Scotland in 1639. The three other securely identified views, Falkland Palace, Fife and Seton Palace and the Forth Esturary (both Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh) and Richmond Castle, Yorkshire (Yale Center for British Art, New Haven), are thought to be accurate representations of their localities. The View of an English Royal Castle offered in the same sale as the Tate picture, but not sold, is now thought to represent Helmsley Castle in Yorkshire (it was offered again at Christie’s, London, on 8 May 1987, lot 155, reproduced, bought in and again at Sotheby’s, Amsterdam, 14 November 1988, lot 225, reproduced). It is also possible that Keirincx either for some reason did not visit all of the sites of which paintings were required, or perhaps lost the sketches he made, and thus had to resort to drawings made earlier by Stalbemt. It should be added that no relevant drawings by Stalbemt are known.

Landscape painting was at this date only very rarely practised in Britain, and this commission appears to have been unique. Charles I is, however, known to have owned a considerable number of imported Netherlandish landscapes.

In summer 1649, following the execution of Charles I, Parliament instructed a team of Trustees to make an inventory of all the King’s possessions and to value them in preparation for their sale to pay the King’s debts and to raise money for the Commonwealth. This was done in 1649–50, and the sales were held over the next two years. It seems reasonable to assume that the four pictures listed by Van der Doort resurface as part of a set of ten views of Scotland by Keirincx in the inventory of works at Oatlands Palace, in Surrey.5


Thomas Musgrave, Marshal of Berwick

Sir Thomas Musgrave was the son of Nicholas Musgrave and wife Margaret Colville-Tilliol. He was born at Hayton Castle, Hayton, Cumberland, England. He married Elizabeth Dacre and had 9 children. He died Februrary 23, 1532 at Hayton. An inquisition of his estate was called that lasted until 1536.

Sir Thomas was appointed Constable of Bewcastle, a castle and village near Carlisle. This was a lawless period for the borders, and castles such as this and the nearby Askerton and Naworth would have been sanctuary for the locals during large raids by the Scottish. The 16th century saw tenancy by the Musgraves, who defended it against their sworn enemies, the Grahams and Armstrongs. By the beginning of the 17th century, lack of maintenance had led to a partial ruin. Though the Earl of Cumberland's men held the castle briefly in 1639, they did much damage when they left. It is said that the final wasting was done by Parliamentary batteries during the civil war.

Sir Thomas was appointed Marshal of Berwick. Berwick was a castle and village on the eastern coast of England, at the border with Scotland. The castle's location in the hotly disputed border country between England and Scotland made it one of the most important strongholds in the British Isles, and it enjoyed an eventful history. As a major tactical objective in the region, the castle was captured by both the English and Scots on a number of occasions and frequently sustained substantial damage Edward I used it as his headquarters during his invasions of Scotland. The castle also changed hands in less violent circumstances when the English King Richard I (the Lionheart) sold the castle to the Scots, to help fund the Third Crusade. The castle finally fell into English hands in the last week of August 1482. After invading Scotland following a pact with the Duke of Albany, Richard, Duke of Gloucester captured the castle from Patrick Hepburn, Lord Hailes.

Children of Sir Thomas Musgrave and wife Elizabeth Dacre:

  • Sir William Musgrave, 1518-1597, served as Justice of the Peace, Sheriff of Cumberland and Member of Parliament. He married Isabel Martendale.
  • Isabel Musgrave, married John Crakenthorpe
  • Leonard Musgrave, Deputy Constable of Bewcastle, died October, 1607.
  • Elizabeth Musgrave, died after 1534. She is not mentioned in her father's will, but is mentioned in the Inquisition of her father (ꍀ towards her marriage). 12 OCT 1534
  • Humphrey Musgrave, died c.1588, served as Deputy Warden to Henry Lord Scrope.
  • David Musgrave, died after 1532, as he is mentioned in the will of father Thomas Musgrave
  • John Musgrave, died after 1532, as he is mentioned in the will of father Thomas Musgrave
  • Thomas Musgrave, died after 1566, as he is mentioned in the will of John Dacre, 3 Mar 1566.
  • Janet Musgrave, married Thomas Salkeld

Links to additional material:

Constable of Bewcastle Sir Thomas Musgrave was the son of Nicholas Musgrave and wife Margaret Colville-Tilliol. He was born at Hayton Castle, Hayton, Cumberland, England. He married Elizabeth Dacre and had 9 children. He died Februrary 23, 1532 at Hayton. An inquisition of his estate was called that lasted until 1536.

Sir Thomas was appointed Constable of Bewcastle, a castle and village near Carlisle. This was a lawless period for the borders, and castles such as this and the nearby Askerton and Naworth would have been sanctuary for the locals during large raids by the Scottish. The 16th century saw tenancy by the Musgraves, who defended it against their sworn enemies, the Grahams and Armstrongs. By the beginning of the 17th century, lack of maintenance had led to a partial ruin. Though the Earl of Cumberland's men held the castle briefly in 1639, they did much damage when they left. It is said that the final wasting was done by Parliamentary batteries during the civil war.

Sir Thomas was appointed Marshal of Berwick. Berwick was a castle and village on the eastern coast of England, at the border with Scotland. The castle's location in the hotly disputed border country between England and Scotland made it one of the most important strongholds in the British Isles, and it enjoyed an eventful history. As a major tactical objective in the region, the castle was captured by both the English and Scots on a number of occasions and frequently sustained substantial damage Edward I used it as his headquarters during his invasions of Scotland. The castle also changed hands in less violent circumstances when the English King Richard I (the Lionheart) sold the castle to the Scots, to help fund the Third Crusade. The castle finally fell into English hands in the last week of August 1482. After invading Scotland following a pact with the Duke of Albany, Richard, Duke of Gloucester captured the castle from Patrick Hepburn, Lord Hailes.

Children of Sir Thomas Musgrave and wife Elizabeth Dacre:

Sir William Musgrave, 1518-1597, served as Justice of the Peace, Sheriff of Cumberland and Member of Parliament. He married Isabel Martendale. Isabel Musgrave, married John Crakenthorpe Leonard Musgrave, Deputy Constable of Bewcastle, died October, 1607. Elizabeth Musgrave, died after 1534. She is not mentioned in her father's will, but is mentioned in the Inquisition of her father (ꍀ towards her marriage). 12 OCT 1534 Humphrey Musgrave, died c.1588, served as Deputy Warden to Henry Lord Scrope. David Musgrave, died after 1532, as he is mentioned in the will of father Thomas Musgrave John Musgrave, died after 1532, as he is mentioned in the will of father Thomas Musgrave Thomas Musgrave, died after 1566, as he is mentioned in the will of John Dacre, 3 Mar 1566. Janet Musgrave, married Thomas Salkeld


Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, James (1606-1649)

HAMILTON, JAMES, third Marquis and first Duke of Hamilton in the Scottish peerage, second Earl of Cambridge in the English peerage (1606–1649), born on 19 June 1606, was the son of James, second marquis [q. v.], and of his wife, Anne Cunningham, fourth daughter of the Earl of Glencairn. In his fourteenth year he was married to Mary Feilding, daughter of Lord Feilding (subsequently first Earl of Denbigh) and of Susan Villiers, sister of the Duke of Buckingham ( Douglas , Scottish Peerage). He was then sent to Exeter College, Oxford, where he matriculated on 14 Dec. 1621. On his father's death on 2 March 1625, he became, in his eighteenth year, Marquis of Hamilton and Earl of Cambridge, and the accession of Charles I shortly afterwards brought him into court favour. After the king's coronation on 2 Feb. 1626, his private affairs took him to Scotland. Later in the year he thought of taking part in Lord Willoughby's naval expedition, though he soon abandoned his intention (Giffard to Buckingham, 29 Aug. 1626, State Papers, Dom. xxxiv. 52), and did not return to England until 1628. He reached London on 20 Oct. (Mead to Stuteville, 1 Nov. 1628, Court and Times of Charles I, i. 419), and on 7 Nov. succeeded to Buckingham's office of master of the horse (Sign-Manuals, ix. 64). He also became gentleman of the bedchamber and a privy councillor in England and Scotland. Towards the end of 1629 he offered, to join Gustavus Adolphus in his approaching intervention in Germany, and on 30 May 1630 the king of Sweden agreed to take him into his service on condition of his bringing with him a force of six thousand men. Gustavus landed in Germany in June, and in August Hamilton received the necessary permission from Charles to levy soldiers. In March 1636 Charles gave him 11,000l. towards the expenses of the levy, and to this a further sum of 15,015. was subsequently added ( Gardiner , Hist. of Engl. vii. 178). In the same month Hamilton went to Scotland to collect his men, but could not induce more than four hundred to follow him. In his absence Lord Reay brought forward a charge which never ceased to pursue him as long as he lived. Hamilton was the next heir to the throne of Scotland after the descendants of James VI, and Reay now declared that he intended to use his levies to seize it for himself. To this charge Charles, always faithful to his favourites, gave no ear, and, upon Hamilton's return to England, insisted upon his sleeping in the same room with himself, as an expression of his confidence. Hamilton not being able to find volunteers in England had recourse to official pressure, and at last, on 16 July, he sailed with six thousand Englishmen, by no means of the best quality. By this time one thousand recruits had been obtained from Scotland, so that he carried seven thousand men with him. The number was, however, reduced to six thousand on 3 Aug., on which day he had completed his landing near the mouth of the Oder.

The whole enterprise failed signally. Hamilton was sent to guard the fortresses on the Oder while Gustavus fought Tilly at Breitenfeld. His men were swept away by famine and plague. His diminished forces were then employed in the blockade of Magdeburg, which he entered after it had been abandoned by the enemy. By this time his army had almost ceased to exist. He had reason to believe that Gustavus distrusted him, fearing lest he should use in the special ​ service of the elector palatine any power that he might acquire. In September 1634 he therefore returned to England. Possibly any other man might under the circumstances have failed equally, but Hamilton had certainly not displayed any of the qualities which go to make either a successful general or a successful statesman.

After his return Charles took Hamilton as his adviser in all matters relating to Scotland. His hereditary influence was great in that kingdom, and, what was of special importance in a country where the nobility were of more weight than they were in England, a considerable number of the nobles attached themselves to him from considerations of interest. When the king visited Scotland in 1633, the collection of a taxation granted by parliament was placed in Hamilton's hands, with leave to repay himself out of it for the expenses of his German expedition. For some time little is heard of him, though he seems, as was natural for a Scotsman, to have opposed Charles's policy of allying himself with Spain. He had his share in the good things which Charles had to give away. In 1637 he became licenser of hackney coaches, and in 1638 he gained 4,000l. a year from the payments exacted from the Vintners' Company.

By far the most important part of Hamilton's life commenced when, in May 1638, Charles selected him as the commissioner to be sent to Scotland to pacify the country after the disturbances consequent upon the attempted introduction of the new prayer-book had culminated in the signature of the national covenant. Hamilton's conduct during the remainder of his career has been variously estimated. His character seems to have been devoid of intellectual or moral strength, and he was therefore easily brought to fancy all future tasks easy and all present obstacles insuperable. Accordingly, whenever he found himself engaged in a piece of work more than usually surrounded with difficulties, his instinct led him to turn back and to seek some way of escape. Add to this that, though he was personally attached to Charles, and was incapable of entertaining those designs upon his life and crown which were attributed to him, he was never whole-hearted in his devotion, and was disinclined to serve him beyond the point at which his own interests would be imperilled by more chivalrous conduct. He had property both in England and Scotland, and he could never persuade himself so to play his part as to bring heavy losses upon himself in either kingdom. He was at all times an advocate of compromises, because he had no interest in the higher religious or political issues of the strife.

Already, before he started, Hamilton anticipated evil. His countrymen, he declared, 'were possessed by the devil.' He arrived in Scotland on 4 June. On the 7th he informed Charles that it would need an army to force the Scots to abandon their demands. On the 8th he entered Edinburgh amidst a hostile population. On the 15th he wrote that it was useless to negotiate on terms short of the calling an assembly and parliament which would be certain to require the reversal of the king's ecclesiastical policy. He was by this time thoroughly cowed, and on the 24th he offered to the covenanters to return to England to urge the king to give way. Fresh orders from Charles interrupted his movements, and on 4 July he had to order the reading in public of a royal declaration to the effect that the prayer-book and canons would not be pressed except in a legal way. A declaration of this kind served only to exasperate the Scots, and Hamilton had to return to England to persuade Charles to yield more completely to the covenanters, as he had failed in inducing the covenanters to yield to Charles. It is said, and on good evidence, that before he left he tried to curry favour with the covenanting-leaders by encouraging them to stand firm in their resistance ( Guthry , Memoirs, p. 40).

On 27 July Hamilton received instructions from Charles to go back once more to Edinburgh, and to allow the election of an assembly and a parliament. He was to protest against any proposal to abolish episcopacy, but might assent to any plea for making bishops responsible to future assemblies. On 10 Aug. he arrived in Edinburgh. He was at once involved in a controversy upon the mode of electing the promised assembly, and on the 25th he again returned to England. On 17 Sept. he appeared for the third time in Edinburgh, bringing with him a revocation of the obnoxious prayer-book, canons, and high commission, and also a new king's covenant less offensive to Charles than the national covenant was. To this he attempted to obtain signatures, but it found only a few supporters.

The assembly met in Glasgow Cathedral on 21 Nov., with Hamilton presiding as the royal commissioner. On the 28th, upon its declaring itself competent to judge the bishops, Hamilton dissolved it. It, however, continued its sittings in spite of the dissolution, and Hamilton returned to Charles to give an account of his mission.

On 15 Jan. 1639 he told his story to the English privy council. Charles was now resolved on war, and Hamilton was chosen ​ to lead an English force to take possession of Aberdeen. Suspicions were abroad that he had acted as a traitor in the preceding year, and Dorset openly charged him with treason. Aberdeen having been lost to the royalists, Hamilton was ordered in April to transfer his expedition to the Forth, where he would threaten the rear of the Scottish army, while Charles faced it on the borders. Seizing Scottish shipping on the way, he reached the Forth on 1 May, only to find that Leith had been fortified and that the country was too hostile to give him a chance of success. He again wrote despairing letters to the king. After a short time he was recalled, and on 7 June he was in Charles's camp, once more urging him to give way to the covenanters.

After the signature of the treaty of Berwick (18 June 1639) Hamilton was sent to instal Patrick Ruthven as governor of the castle, and was there received with derisive shouts of 'Stand by Jesus Christ,' and treated as an enemy of God and his country. On 8 July he resigned his commissionership. Hamilton was always ready to take part in an intrigue, and on 16 July Charles authorised him to open friendly communications with the covenanters with the object of betraying their plans. Later in the year he supported Wentworth's proposal to summon the Short parliament. He took care, however, to ingratiate himself with the queen, and advocated the claims of her candidate for the secretaryship, the elder Vane. True to his dislike of violence, he persuaded Charles to attempt to conciliate the Scots by setting Loudoun free in June 1640, though it is said that he recommended the seizure of the Spanish bullion in the Tower to be used to .supply funds for the new expedition against Scotland, which had by that time been resolved on.

Hamilton was again designed for service on the east coast of Scotland. His troops, however, broke out into mutiny in consequence of the appointment of catholic officers to command them, and were disbanded before the end of August. It is not likely that he felt any good-will to the organisers of an expedition which threatened to bring him for a second time into collision with the bulk of his countrymen. Early in August he had dissuaded the king from going to York to take the command of the English army. After the rout of Newburn he offered to Charles to go among the covenanters, apparently as a friend, in order to betray their secrets. Charles accepted the proposal, and Hamilton had therefore an excellent opportunity of passing himself off as a friend of both parties. When the Long parliament met, Hamilton was anxious to be on friendly terms with the parliamentary leaders, whose policy of an alliance with the Scots exactly accorded with his own wishes. It was believed in Strafford's family that he joined with the elder Vane in sending for Strafford in order to work his ruin. At all events, in acting against Strafford he may have fancied himself to be reconciling patriotic with loyal sentiments, and to be aiming at the removal from the king's councils of the man who was most forward in injuring both the king and the Scots by stirring up enmity between them. Moreover, if he knew of the intention of the parliamentary leaders to add his own name to the list of those whom they proposed to impeach, his knowledge can only have served to drive him to make his peace with those who had such a terrible weapon at their disposal. He soon made his peace with Strafford's enemies, and in February 1641 it was upon his advice that Charles admitted their leaders to the privy council. Though he took no active part in bringing Strafford to death, there can be no doubt that he had no friendly disposition towards him.

Men of Hamilton's character never fail to find enemies among the generous and outspoken, and Strafford was no sooner dead than Hamilton found a fresh opponent in Montrose, with whom he had already come into collision [see Graham, James , first Marquis of Montrose ]. When Walter Stewart was captured on 4 June 1641, a paper, which apparently emanated from Montrose, was found upon him, in which the king was warned against placing confidence in Hamilton. Hamilton in fact was busily employed on a scheme for reconciling Charles with Rothes and Argyll, apparently on the basis, on the one hand, of a complete acceptance of presbyterianism by the king, and on the other of armed assistance to be given by the Scots to Charles against the English parliament. He had, in short, already sketched out the design which brought his master and himself to the scaffold in 1649. On 10 Aug., when Charles set out for Scotland, he was one of the few who accompanied him.

At Edinburgh Hamilton attached himself entirely to Argyll, even when he found that any real understanding between Charles and Argyll was impossible. This desertion of the king was an object of bitter comment. On 29 Sept. Lord Ker challenged him. Hamilton gave information to Charles, and extracted an apology from Ker. He soon discovered that Charles himself was displeased with him on account of the course which he had taken, and had spoken of him to his brother ​ the Earl of Lanark as being 'very active in his own preservation.' Montrose wrote to Charles offering to prove Hamilton to be a traitor. Then came the discovery of the plot, known as the Incident, to seize Argyll and the two Hamilton brothers, and if necessary to murder them. On 12 Oct. all three fled from Edinburgh. Charles had to plead ignorance of the whole affair. After some little time Hamilton returned to Edinburgh, and accompanied the king when he left Scotland. On 5 Jan. 1642, when Charles went into the city of London, after the failure of the attempt on the five members, Hamilton was with him in his coach.

During the spring of 1642, for some time after the king left London, Hamilton was ill. In July, after subscribing to raise sixty horse for the king's service, he went to Scotland in the hope of being able to induce the Scots to abstain from an intervention on the parliamentary side in the approaching civil war. This mission produced no result except a breach between Hamilton and Argyll. In the spring of 1643 certain Scottish commissioners prepared to wait on the king with a petition urging him to allow them to appear as mediators in England, with the intention of driving the king to assent to the establishment of presbyterianism in England. On this Hamilton tried to gain a hold upon Loudoun, who was the principal of them, by getting up what was known as 'the cross petition,' in which the king was asked to abandon the annuities of tithes which had been granted him by act of parliament. Hamilton in fact knew that Charles had sold these annuities to Loudoun, so that their abandonment would strike him, and not the king. As this petty trick did not succeed, and Loudoun was not to be frightened into taking the king's part, Hamilton then asked Charles to send to Edinburgh all the Scottish lords of his party to counteract Argyll, and to keep Scotland from interfering in England, by outvoting Argyll in the Scottish parliament. This advice at once aroused the indignation of Montrose, who was with the queen at York, and who, believing that the Scots would certainly send an army across the border, wished to anticipate the blow by a military rather than by a political operation. Upon this Hamilton betook himself to York, and induced the queen to countenance his scheme rather than that of Montrose. He held that if Charles would only convince the Scots that their own presbyterian church was out of danger, they would not trouble themselves about the fortunes of the English church. This, however, was precisely what Charles was unable to do. When on 10 May a Scottish convention of estates was summoned without the king's authority, Hamilton attempted to hinder its meeting under such circumstances but on 5 June, finding his opposition useless, he dissuaded Charles from prohibiting it. Before the elections were held news arrived of a plot of a combined movement of English and Irish against the Scottish army in Ulster, and for a joint invasion of Cumberland if not of Scotland itself. Under these circumstances, when the convention met it was found that Hamilton's supporters were in a minority.

Though success was evidently hopeless Hamilton's influence with the king was still so great that Charles refused again to listen to Montrose's plan of attacking the Argyll party while they were still unprepared. Events soon justified Montrose's prescience. There was no longer room for parliamentary royalism in Scotland, and in November Hamilton and his brother were compelled to leave Scotland upon their refusal to sign the solemn league and covenant. On 16 Dec. they arrived in Oxford. Every royalist at court was open-mouthed against them, and Charles could no longer resist the tide. Lanark escaped, but Hamilton, in the beginning of January 1644, was sent as a prisoner to Pendennis Castle.

In July 1645 Hamilton, being still a prisoner, had an interview with Hyde, and confidently professed his assurance that if he were allowed to go to Scotland he would be able to induce the Scots either to mediate a peace in England or to declare for Montrose ( Clarendon , ix. 152-7). To this entreaty Hyde gave no heed, and later in the year Hamilton was removed to St. Michael's Mount (ib. ix. 158), where he was liberated by Fairfax's troops when the fortress surrendered on 23 April 1646. Soon after the king reached Newcastle Hamilton waited on him, and was urgent with him to abandon episcopacy in England so as to be secure of the support of a Scottish army in regaining his crown. Early in August he went to Scotland, where he used his influence to induce the covenanters to come to terms with Charles, and in the early part of September reappeared at Newcastle at the head of a deputation charged with a message to Charles, urging him to accept the propositions of the English parliament. As, however, these included the establishment of presbyterianism in England, the deputation proved a failure, and Hamilton returned to Scotland. On 16 Dec. the Scottish parliament under his influence voted to urge the English parliament to allow the king to go to London, but Argyll and the clergy were too strong for him, and conditions were added which it was impossible for Charles to accept. ​ The Scottish army left England the following year, and Charles was transferred to the English parliament.

In 1647 the seizure of the king by Joyce, and his consequent transference to the custody of the army and the independents, brought about a revulsion of feeling in Scotland. On 2 March 1648 a new parliament met at Edinburgh, in which Hamilton, who favoured the intervention of a Scottish army in England, was secure of a majority of thirty or thirty-two votes over Argyll, who with the more severe of the clergy was opposed to this intervention (Montreuil to Mazarin, March 8-18, 14-24, Arch. des Aff. Étrangères, Angleterre, vol. Ivi.) All through the early part of the year there was a network of plots with the object of a combined rising in England of the royalists and presbyterians, and of the arrival of the Prince of Wales in Scotland to place himself in the army with which Hamilton was to cross the border. It was not till 8 July, after the English risings were occupying theEnglish army, that Hamilton entered England at the head of a force numbering about twenty thousand. Lambert, who was opposed to him with a much inferior force, kept him in check till Cromwell came up. In the second week in August Cromwell joined him, but even then the English army counted not much more than nine thousand, while the Scots had been raised by reinforcements to twenty-four thousand. Hamilton, however, had never conducted any operation of life with success, and he was not likely to succeed in war. He allowed his regiments to scatter over the country, while Cromwell, who kept his men well in hand, dashed successively at each fragment of the Scottish host. In three days (17-19 Aug.) the whole of Hamilton's army was completely beaten, in the so-called battle of Preston, and the duke himself surrendered on 25 Aug.

On 21 Dec. Hamilton saw the king at Windsor, as he passed through on the way to his trial. He did not long survive his master. An attempt at escape failing, he was brought to St. James's, and on 6 Feb. 1649 he was put upon his trial before the high court of justice. On 6 March he was condemned to death, and was executed on the 9th.

Mary Hamilton (1613-1638), duchess of Hamilton, wife of the above, was married when only seven years of age. Her husband was at first averse to keeping the contract, and for some years they were on bad terms. She was lady of the bed"chamber to Henrietta Maria, and enjoyed the confidence both of the king and the queen. Burnet describes her as a lady of great and singular worth,' and Waller wrote his ' Thyrsis Galatea' in her praise ( Colville , Warwickshire Worthies, pp. 272-4). She died 10 May 1638, leaving three sons, who died young, and three daughters, Mary (died young), Anne, and Susanna. In 1651, on the death of her uncle, William, earl of Lanark and second duke of Hamilton [q. v.], who succeeded his brother by special remainder, the Scottish titles reverted to Anne as eldest surviving daughter of the first duke [see under Douglas, William , third Duke of Hamilton ], while the earldom of Cambridge became extinct.

[The leading authority for the life of the duke is Burnet's Lives of the Hamiltons, which contains a large number of original documents. Though allowance must be made for the zeal of a biographer, the general accuracy of the book bears the test of a comparison with letters in the Hamilton Charter Chest, which have recently been published by the Camden Society, under the title of the Hamilton Papers.]


Welcome to the Church of the Brethren

We are a body of Christians committed to continuing the work of Jesus peacefully and simply, and to living out our faith in community. See a list of some of our ministries. We have about 99,000 members in nearly 1,000 congregations across the United States and Puerto Rico, with sister churches in Brazil, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominican Republic, Haiti, India, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Sudan, Spain, and Venezuela.

Based in the Anabaptist and Pietist faith traditions, the Church of the Brethren is a Historic Peace Church. We celebrated our 300th anniversary in 2008.

Annual ConferenceJune 30 – July 4, 2021

Click the logo above for conference information

Conference registration is still open


2022 Reenactment and Living History Events

Jan 7-9, PA, Newville. Winter Immersion Event, Caesar Krauss Great War Memorial Site. Info: www.great-war-assoc.org

Feb 18-20, PA, Newville. Winterline Campaign, Italy, Caesar Krauss Great War Memorial Site. Contact Brad Busch [email protected] for details www.great-war-assoc.org

March 16-20, TX, Ruidosa. North African Campaign WWII Immersion event. Info: Facebook page

March 18-20, PA, Newville. Russian Front Event. Great War Association Battlefield. Info: www.great-war-assoc.org

March 19-20, MI, Kalamazoo. Kalamazoo Living History Show, Kalamazoo County Expo Center, Kalamazoo County Fair Ground, 2900 Lake Street. Info: Leslie Martin Conwell, P.O. Box 2214, West Lafayette, IN 47996(765) 201-5019: [email protected] www.kalamazooshow.com/

March 25-27, MO, St Charles. Weldonkrieg 2022 (non-public event), Weldon Spring Training Site, 7301 Highway 94 (South). Info: http://soldierboy440.wixsite.com/weldonkriegofficial

April 8-10, TN, Saltillo. Tennessee River History, Heritage & Weaponry Festival. Sponsored by the City of Saltillo, 47680 TN-69, Saltillo, TN 38370

April 15-17, PA, Newville. Spring Tactical. Great War Association Battlefield. Info: www.great-war-assoc.org

May 20-23, PA, Newville. Okinawa 1945 Reenacted. Great War Association Battlefield. Info: www.great-war-assoc.org

May 28, KY, Elizabethtown. World War II Battle Reenactment. 1900 Ring Road. Info: Larry Vance 270-763-3223 http://etownwwii.com/wp/

July 15-16, PA, Newville. Vietnam Tactical. Great War Association Battlefield. Info: www.great-war-assoc.org

July 26-30, ENGLAND, Paddock Wood, Kent TN12 6PY. The War and Peace Revival, Europe’s Largest Military & Vintage Lifestyle Show. The Hop Farm, Info 011 44 1258 857700 www.thewarandpeacerevival.co.uk

Nov 4-6, PA, Newville. Fall Tactical. Caesar Krauss Great War Memorial Site. Info: www.great-war-assoc.org

CONFIRM ALL INFORMATION WITH SHOW PROMOTER BEFORE TRAVELING. THE TIME, DATES, AND/OR LOCATION MAY HAVE CHANGED!

To submit a show listing to be included in our calendar of events, send show date(s), location, and contact information to: John Adams-Graf, 5225 Joerns Drive, Suite 2, Stevens Point, WI 54481 or email to [email protected] Include “Reenactment Listing” on the subject line.

Look for more information in the advertisements in this issue of any show listings in bold and italics. Support our advertisers, they support the hobby!


Watch the video: What were the Bishops Wars? The Scottish Prelude to the English Civil War (August 2022).