Royalist Agents, Conspirators and Spies: Their Role in the British Civil Wars, 1640–1660 (review)

The British Civil Wars have been the subject of countless studies, but until the 1970s a bias existed towards parliamentarians and the New Model Army. In recent years there has been a rebalancing to ensure that royalists are given as much prominence in the scholarly literature. Smith’s latest book, Royalist Agents, is an important contribution to this growing interest in royalism during the Civil Wars and the Interregnum period. Smith’s approach is distinguished from earlier studies by its emphasis on royalist supporters below the ranks of royal ministers, privy councillors, generals, and courtiers. The aim of his study is to understand how the royalist war effort was directed, and how important the activities of royalist agents were to the survival and ultimate success of the King’s party in 1660.

The book is divided into ten chapters and follows a sensible chronological structure. The study begins with the army plots of 1641, which marked the first venture of Charles I’s supporters into secret meetings and conspiracies, and ends with the restoration of Charles II in 1660.Smith adopts a practical approach to the material by focusing on a select number of prominent agents with long-serving careers, for whom good primary sources survive.

The narrative is sophisticated and well-structured, making it easy to follow the details of the many plots, factions, and eventful careers of individual agents. Each chapter delivers a helpful balance between contextualization of the broader military, political, and diplomatic issues confronting royalists, and thrilling accounts of the changing fortunes and roles of particular agents.

Royalist Agents also fills in some gaps in the largely unexplored area of early modern intelligence gathering and espionage. Smith successfully demonstrates that diplomatic missions to foreign princes, political coups, and conspiracies became increasingly important as attempts at either political or military victory failed. The responsibility of keeping lines of communication open, and for passing on royalist policies was left to plotters, spies, envoys, couriers, intelligencers, and journalists. Smith joins the likes of Alan Marshall in demonstrating the availability of sources and the possibilities of study in this area of early modern British history.

Smith identifies a number of shortcomings in the royalist camp that help to shed light on the nature of the Civil Wars. He points out that the Commonwealth and Protectorate regimes were more powerful and better resourced than the exiled royal court. The royalist leadership was factional, unstable, and constantly short of money. Royalist agents also typically served the interests of their individual patrons or factions, and sometimes changed their allegiances to the Protectorate. Importantly, royalist agents lacked a powerful and enthusiastic figure to coordinate and direct their activities. Smith rightly cautions against comparing Secretary of State, Sir Edward Nicholas, too unfavourably with the reputations of Cromwell’s secretary John Thurloe, or Elizabeth I’s ruthless spymaster Sir Francis Walsingham. Nicholas was director of intelligence under highly unusual and challenging conditions. Smith’s admiration for the relentless efforts of royalist agents in the face of so many hardships and frequent defeats is apparent throughout the book, and makes for a compelling read.

Smith concludes persuasively that, although the various plots and insurrections planned by royalists had failed, the tireless activism of royalist agents had been significant for the survival of royalism. The irrepressible activities of royalist agents had helped to ensure that the Commonwealth and Protectorate were never able to feel secure, and that traditional monarchist loyalties did not disappear.

Less convincing or clear is Smith’s claim that the status of royalist agents was transformed by the defeat of the King’s army in the first English Civil War. Smith argues that royalist agents, whether envoys in Copenhagen or journalists in Oxford, saw themselves as legally accredited envoys of their rightful ruler, Charles I. He further claims that these agents were accepted, or at least tolerated, by...