As even the Covenanting Baillie wrote, "to this day no man in England has been executed for bearing arms against the Parliament." The preachers argued that to keep the promises of quarter which had been given to the prisoners was "_to violate the oath of the Covenant_." {186b} The prime object of the English opponents of the king was now "to hustle the Scots out of England." {187} Meanwhile Charles, not captured but hopeless, was negotiating with all the parties, and ready to yield on every point except that of forcing presbytery on England--a matter which, said Montereuil, the French ambassador, "did not concern them but their neighbours." Charles finally trusted the Scots with his person, and the question is, had he or had he not assurance that he would be well received?
If he had any assurance it was merely verbal, "a shadow of a security," wrote Montereuil.

Charles was valuable to the Scots only as a pledge for the payment of their arrears of wages.

There was much chicanery and shuffling on both sides, and probably there were misconceptions on both sides.

A letter of Montereuil (April 26, 1646) convinced Charles that he might trust the Scots; they verbally promised "safety, honour, and conscience," but refused to sign a copy of their words.

Charles trusted them, rode out of Oxford, joined them at Southwell, and, says Sir James Turner, who was present, was commanded by Lothian to sign the Covenant, and "barbarously used." They took Charles to Newcastle, denying their assurance to him.