Study Sources B and C: Compare these Sources as evidence for the attempted Arrest of the Five Members
Both sources B and C share many differences as evidence for the attempted arrested of the Five Members, which comes down largely to the to the difference in tones between both the extracts. Source C takes a more radical tone, intent on attacking Charles actions during the attempted arrest through the use of emotive words such as “desperate”, and “ill-fated”. The provenance of Source C reduces its credibility somewhat, with Roger Hill known for being a more extremist Member of Parliament, and so therefore would be expected to attack the King in his report, and distort his account. This is in contrast to Source B, which written by a more moderate Member or Parliament (Sir Ralph Verney) takes a more formal and factual approach in the relaying of the event, with the reader being informed that the King came with “two or three hundred soldiers and gentlemen”, without emotive language, with the purpose of the source seemingly intended to inform the reader on what happened. This isn’t to say however, that Source C has no credibility at all; it gives the reader an insight on the shock and feelings of what Members of Parliament must’ve felt during the moment, and how far Charles went to try and arrest these members.
On the other hand, Sources B and C have some similarities when being considered as evidence for the attempted arrest of the Five Members, as the intended audience of both the sources are private, with both written as a “diary of the Long Parliament”. In this regard, both sources convey the actual feelings of members in Parliament, and the differences in attitude between the more moderate and more extremist MPs. Since they were intended for private use, there would be no need nor want for the entry to be written in order to inform or influence someone. In addition to this, both sources detail events of the Five Member Coup in a sequence of events that corroborate with each other, e.g. “the King came”, “with his…”, and the idea that arrest for the Five Members would be carried out. The similarities in the report suggest that the event did occur in this sequential manner, even if described differently.
In conclusion, I believe that Sources B and C both have credibility when it comes to providing evidence for the arrest of the Five Members, but Source B conveying what happened in a more moderate and factual manner, such as telling us that the Charles brought “two or three hundred soldiers and gentlemen”, which complements the Source C, which conveys the feelings of members of Parliament, in particular extremists, to help us comprehend on why Parliament felt so much shock and resentment towards Charles after the event. However, in terms of which source is more credible, Source B would have to be more trustworthy than Source C in terms of actual evidence, as it is a factual account of the event with a moderate, even neutral tone, whereas Source C has a more extremist tone and background, therefore the provenance of the source would be against Charles. In addition, while Sir Ralph Verney was with the Commons at the outset of war, he didn’t partake in later Parliamentary endeavours, such as the Solemn League and Covenant (1643) showing that he was capable of seeing the good and bad points of both sides, portraying him as even more of a moderate.