Transcriber's Note:
Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as
possible, including non-standard spelling and punctuation. Some
changes have been made. They are listed at the end of the text.
Italic text has been marked with _underscores_.
OE ligatures have been expanded.
[Illustration]
The Victoria University of Manchester.
LIBRARY EXCHANGE.
WITH THE COMPLIMENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY COUNCIL.
Acknowledgments and publications sent in exchange should
be addressed to
THE LIBRARIAN,
THE UNIVERSITY,
MANCHESTER.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
HISTORICAL SERIES, No. X
_The Great Civil War in Lancashire_
SHERRATT & HUGHES
Publishers to the Victoria University of Manchester
Manchester: 34 Cross Street
London: 33 Soho Square W.
[Illustration]
The Great Civil War in Lancashire
(1642-1651)
BY
ERNEST BROXAP, M.A.
MANCHESTER
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1910
UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER PUBLICATIONS
NO. LI.
To
ASPHODEL
CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface ix
Authorities xi
Introduction 1
Chapter I. Preliminaries 9
" II. The Leaders on Both Sides 23
" III. The Siege of Manchester 37
" IV. First Operations of the Manchester Garrison 53
" V. The Crisis. January-June, 1643 67
" VI. Remaining Events of 1643: and the First Siege of
Lathom House 89
" VII. Prince Rupert in Lancashire 115
" VIII. End of the First Civil War 135
" IX. The Second Civil War: Battle of Preston 159
" X. The Last Stand: Battle of Wigan Lane: Trial and
Death of the Earl of Derby 177
Index 205
MAPS AND PLANS
Map. Lancashire, to illustrate the Civil War. _Frontispiece_
PLANS IN TEXT.
I. Manchester and Salford in 1650 see page 43
(_Reproduced from Owens College Historical Essays, p. 383_).
II. The Spanish Ship in the Fylde, March, 1642-3 see page 72
III. The Battle of Whalley, April, 1643 see page 82
IV. Liverpool in 1650 see page 128
(_Reproduced from Transactions of the Historic Society of
Lancashire and Cheshire, Session 6, 1853-4, Vol. 6, p. 4_).
V. The Campaign of Preston, 1648 see page 164
VI. The Campaign of Wigan Lane, 1651 see page 191
PREFACE
There has not hitherto been a separate History of the Civil War in
Lancashire, and I venture to think that the present study, by a native
of the County, may suitably find a place in the publications of the
University of Manchester. It is merely intended to be an account of the
Civil War within the borders of the County, religious and social
questions and the general course of the war being touched on only so
much as is necessary to make the narrative intelligible. The principal
sources of information are detailed below, and need not be further
referred to here. It only remains to be said that some care has been
taken with topography, and above all I have tried to give an impartial
narrative of the events. Contemporary writers on both sides naturally
display much prejudice, and it is often difficult to arrive at an exact
knowledge of the facts.
The plan of Manchester is taken from the Owens College Historical Essays
(1902) and my acknowledgments are due to Messrs. Longman & Co. for
permission to reproduce it here. The plan of Liverpool is reprinted from
Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, Session
6, 1853-4, vol. 6, p. 4. The map of Lancashire, and the other plans,
have been specially prepared for the present volume, but the plan of the
Preston Campaign in 1648 is based on that given in Gardiner's "Great
Civil War," vol. 3, p. 431.
I take this opportunity of thanking the authorities at Lathom House,
Hornby Castle, Thurland Castle, and elsewhere, for their courtesy in
allowing a personal inspection of those places to be made. My sincere
thanks are due to Professor T. F. Tout and Professor James Tait of
Manchester, for constant assistance. I share the gratitude felt by so
many of their old pupils for their keen and practical interest in the
work to which their teaching was the first incentive. Professor Tout's
advice has been of great service in preparing this book for the press.
But especially I am indebted to Professor C. H. Firth of Oxford. It was
really at his suggestion that the present work was begun nearly four
years ago, and he has at all times since been ready to give invaluable
help with the utmost kindness. Without his suggestion and help the task
would probably not have been accomplished.
ERNEST BROXAP.
WESTCLIFF, HR. BROUGHTON,
MANCHESTER,
_March 25th, 1910_.
AUTHORITIES
There has hitherto been no separate account of the Civil War in
Lancashire. The two best accounts in more general works are in Edward
Baines' "History of Lancashire" and in Halley's "Lancashire Puritanism
and Nonconformity." Baines is a capable historian of sound judgment, but
there are now available sources of information which he could not use,
and which subsequent editors could not very well include; and the latter
book is written from a particular standpoint. The last edition of
Baines' work was edited by J. Croston in 5 vols. 1889-93. The Civil War
is dealt with in vol. i, chap. 15, pp. 283-321. The other histories of
Lancashire by Butterworth, Corry, Britton and others are of no value for
the present subject. The few pages devoted to the Civil War in the
"Victoria County History of Lancashire" (vol. ii, pp. 232-240) are
hurried and inaccurate.
The first main source upon which this work is based is the publications
of the local antiquarian societies, the Chetham Society, the Lancashire
and Cheshire Record Society, and the Historic Society of Lancashire and
Cheshire. The first of the three is the most important; and two books in
this series, the "Civil War Tracts" (No. 2), edited by Mr. Ormerod, and
the "Discourse of the Warr in Lancashire" (No. 62), edited by Mr.
Beamont are invaluable. The editing of the Chetham Society books varies
considerably, and it is a great advantage that these two are very ably
done. Mr. Ormerod's "Civil War Tracts," published more than 60 years
ago, is a most exhaustive collection from contemporary pamphlets and
newspapers. In the "Discourse" we have a singularly impartial account
of the local war, written by one who himself fought in it; and Mr.
Beamont's notes to the narrative add greatly to its value. Other volumes
of the Chetham Society which contain material for the Civil War are the
"Autobiography of Adam Martindale" (No. 4), the "Moore Rental" (No. 12),
the "Farington Papers" (No. 39), the "Shuttleworth Accounts" (Nos. 35,
41, 43 and 46), the "Lancashire Lieutenancy," Part 2 (No. 50), and the
"Stanley Papers," Part 3 (Nos. 66, 69 and 70); and some others in a less
degree.
All the above numbers refer to the Old Series of the Society's
Publications. Where the New Series is mentioned in the following pages
the fact is indicated; the later books of the Chetham Society, however,
do not contain much material for the purpose.
In the Record Society's Publications (Nos. 24, 26, 29 and 36) are four
volumes of extracts from the Composition Papers of the local Royalists.
These books contain some valuable details of general information.
The Historic Society Transactions for 1852 give an account of the Siege
of Warrington in 1643 by Dr. Kenrick, and the New Series, Volume 5, an
article on the Earl of Derby by Mr. F. J. Leslie.
Next come the Public Records, the "Journals of the House of Lords" and
the "Journals of the House of Commons," and the "Calendars of Domestic
State Papers," which connect the local history with the general course
of events. The "Reports of the Historical MSS. Commission" also contain
a great deal of very important though scattered information, chiefly in
the form of letters. Most valuable are the Denbigh MSS. (Report 4),
Sutherland MSS. (Report 5), the "Moore Papers" in Capt. Stewart's MSS.
(Report 10, app. 4) and the Portland MSS., vols. 1, 2 and 3. The
contemporary Diary of the Siege of Manchester in the Sutherland MSS. (p.
142) is perhaps the best existing account of the Siege. The Kenyon MSS.
give much information as to the condition of Lancashire in the 17th
century, though not bearing directly on the Civil War.
Clarendon's "History of the Great Rebellion" presents the Royalist
standpoint, and amongst other contemporary or nearly contemporary
authorities may be mentioned Rushworth's "Historical Collections" (1692
edition in 7 volumes), Whitelock's "Memorials" (1732 edit.),
"Autobiography of Captain John Hodgson" (Brighouse, 1882), Seacome's
"House of Stanley" (2nd ed. Manchester, 1767), and Hughes' "Boscobel
Tracts" (ed. 1830). More modern biographical works are: E. G. B.
Warburton's "Prince Rupert" (3 vols. 1849), Léon Marlet's "Charlotte de
la Tremoille Comtesse de Derby" (Paris, 1895), and the "Life of the Earl
of Derby" prefixed by Canon Raines to his edition of the Stanley Papers
(Chetham Society, Nos. 66, 69 and 70). Seacome had the use of the papers
of Bishop Rutter, the chaplain of the Stanley family, and gives valuable
information not elsewhere obtainable, but he is very inaccurate and
biassed. Canon Raines is a violent partisan and quite uncritical. There
are notices in the "Dictionary of National Biography" of the Earl of
Derby and of the Countess of Derby by Professor A. F. Pollard, and also
of a few other local leaders: and of some of the more prominent
Lancashire Roman Catholics in Mr. Joseph Gillow's "Dictionary of
Catholic Biography."
In the British Museum are some Tracts and Newspapers which escaped Mr.
Ormerod's notice. The Tracts are nearly all in the Thomason Collection,
which have recently been made much more accessible by the Catalogue in
two volumes, issued in 1908. References in the following pages has
always been made to the Civil War Tracts where possible, and to the
British Museum Catalogue only when the Tract or Newspaper has not been
reprinted anywhere. The principal newspapers are the Royalist
"Mercurius Aulicus": and "Perfect Diurnall" (which has several issues),
"Certaine Informations, Continuation of Certaine Speciall and Remarkable
Passages," and "Letters from Scotland," &c. on the other side. The last
mentioned, which belongs to 1648 and gives a great deal of local
information, is not quoted at all by Mr. Ormerod. None of the Newspapers
are very reliable but the "Mercurius Aulicus" is hopelessly inaccurate.
Of MSS. in the British Museum, the Rupert MSS. contain letters referring
to the invasion from Ireland, and Prince Rupert's march north in 1644;
the Brereton MSS. deal with the relations between Lancashire and
Cheshire. They concern us mainly in the Spring and Summer of 1645, when
the two counties co-operated against the projected royalist march
northwards; and afterwards later in the same year, when Lancashire help
was needed to complete the reduction of Chester. The Rupert MSS. are
Additional MSS. 18980, 18981: the Brereton MSS. Additional MSS. 11331,
11332, 11333.
Other MSS. Collections are the Tanner MSS. and the Carte MSS. in the
Bodleian Library. The former contain some letters of the local
parliamentarian committee to the Speaker, and some royalist ones dealing
with the campaign of 1651. With these must be mentioned the reprints
from the Tanner MSS. in Cary's "Memorials of the Great Civil War"
(1842). The Carte MSS. being mostly Ormonde Papers, relate to the
landing of troops from Ireland in December, 1643, and the events of the
following Spring and Summer; and many letters of the Earl of Derby to
Ormonde of later date, throwing light on the royalist leader's
retirement in the Isle of Man.
Gardiner's History is always valuable to the student of the period, even
in so local a subject as the present. Naturally the references to
Lancashire are, however, few, and errors of detail sometimes occur.
The following abbreviations have been used:--
C.J.--Commons' Journals.
L.J.--Lords' Journals.
C.S.P.--Calendar of State Papers (Domestic).
C.W.T.--Civil War Tracts of Lancashire.
Discourse.--The Discourse of the Warr in Lancashire.
C.S.--Chetham Society.
R.S.--Record Society.
INTRODUCTION
The Civil War in Lancashire is an exceedingly interesting and perhaps
the most stirring chapter in the history of the county. It was a real
struggle; it is sufficiently complete in itself to be studied as a
separate subject; while at the same time it illustrates the leading
ideas of the Civil War as a whole, and it had a not unimportant bearing
upon the course of the war in the North of England.
In some counties either King or Parliament had a sufficient majority of
supporters either to prevent fighting, or where there was fighting to
make the result certain; but in Lancashire there was a keen struggle for
supremacy between the two parties. Lancashire was one of the first
counties to take up arms, as it was one of the last to lay them down;
and it was for some time doubtful which side would win.
Geographical conditions were most important and must be described at
some length. Lancashire was in the 17th century an isolated, remote, and
backward part of England. The eastern counties were then the richest and
most populous, and the political centre of England was for long after
this in the south. Lancashire lay aside from the main lines of
communication. It had no great river and no considerable port, Liverpool
being still a very small town. The soil is not fertile, and before the
opening up of the coalfields and the development of the cotton trade
made Lancashire one of the richest parts of England, it was a poor and
thinly populated county. Much of it was and still is barren moorland;
much of it was then marsh land which has since been drained. A glance at
the map will show that the words 'moor' and 'moss' in place names occur
dozens of times. Moreover the natural boundaries are very sharply
defined. Lancashire consists roughly of a coast plain divided into two
by the estuary of the Ribble, and a higher eastern portion rising toward
the border of the county. Its shape can be roughly contained in an
acute-angled triangle, the two longer sides being the west and east. The
west is coast line, the east is an almost continuous range of hills,
forming part of the Pennine Chain. From the Lune valley in the north to
the extreme south-east of the county there is only one good natural
entrance into Lancashire. This is by the Ribble valley, a smaller break
in the hills to the south of the Forest of Pendle joining the Ribble
valley lower down. Between the Lune and the Ribble are Burn Moor and
Bowland Forest; and south of the Ribble Trawden Forest, the Forest of
Rossendale, and Blackstone Edge stretch almost to the south of the
county. It was by the Ribble valley that Prince Rupert marched out of
Lancashire on his way to York in 1644; and it was by this road that
Cromwell entered the county in pursuit of the Scots in 1648. All the
moors are fairly high; the eastern border of Lancashire is seldom lower
than 1000 feet above sea level, and rising in places to 1700 and 1800
feet. Along the southern and most accessible side of Lancashire the
boundary is formed by the river Mersey, which is a considerable stream
for much of the border; and the low-lying land to the north of the river
was in the 17th century mostly undrained marsh, forming a strong
barrier. Thus Lancashire was effectually isolated by its natural
boundaries from the neighbouring counties.
These geographical conditions had two great effects on the war in
Lancashire. In the first place they enabled the issue to be decided
within the county without help or hindrance from outside. There was of
course some connection with Yorkshire and Cheshire, but mostly in the
later years of the war; at first the war was fought out by local troops
within the county itself. This is no drawback to the study of our
subject, for the Civil War was very largely a local war and can best be
studied locally. It was not, like the Wars of the Roses, a dynastic
struggle, in which the nation generally had no direct interest; but its
causes, political, religious and social, went down to the primary
divisions of opinion among Englishmen which have existed ever since, and
to some extent do so to-day. The course of the Civil War in Lancashire
shows the working out on a smaller stage of the main principles of the
period. The religious question was of course very prominent. The local
royalists were either in sympathy with the King's ecclesiastical policy,
or they were Roman Catholics. Lancashire had been conservative in
religion, and there was a very large Roman Catholic population;
particularly the west coast and the Fylde adhered, as to some extent
they still do, to the ancient faith. And though at first Catholics were
not openly included in the royalist armies, and indeed Lord Strange's
first warrants definitely excluded them,[1] the exclusion was only
temporary. A petition of the Lancashire recusants to the King to bear
arms 'for their own defence' was granted, and paved the way for their
admission to the royalist ranks. Some of the most prominent of the
Lancashire royalist leaders were Roman Catholics. The Puritan element
was strongest in the east and south-east of the county, especially in
Manchester and in Bolton, 'the Geneva of the North'; and it was these
places which formed the stronghold of the Parliament's cause in
Lancashire. The Hundreds of Salford and Blackburn were the only two out
of the six Hundreds of the county which were on the popular side in
1642. But a distinctive development took place in the later years of our
period. The Lancashire Parliament men were Presbyterians; indeed so
strong was Presbyterianism as to produce in this county the most
completely organized system in England of Presbyterian church
government. This development occurred after the end of the first Civil
War. The Parliament therefore had the steady support of the Lancashire
leaders in the early part of the struggle; but with the growth of
Independency, they became more and more out of sympathy with the ruling
powers. By 1648 the relations between the two had become so strained
that there was some doubt about the support of Lancashire being
forthcoming against the Scotch Invasion. Eventually the differences were
overcome because the invaders were Scots, and the Lancashire troops
rendered valuable service at the battle of Preston. But there was no
common ground for the Presbyterians and Cromwell; and in 1651, when
Charles II. marched through Lancashire, the county was really in his
favour. The Earl of Derby, Charles' general in Lancashire, had an
interview with the leading Presbyterians, and it was only the
impossibility of reconciling their opinions, and the exhaustion of the
county after nine years of war which prevented Lancashire from being
completely raised in Charles' favour.
The side of the war from which it appears as a class struggle is also
illustrated in Lancashire. The head of the local royalists was James
Stanley, seventh Earl of Derby, representing the great house of Stanley
which had been for generations all-powerful in the north-west of
England; the leaders on the other side were the lesser gentry who stood
to gain by the weakening of his power, and behind them was the awakening
spirit of the towns. The first event of the war in September, 1642, was
Derby's unsuccessful siege of Manchester; the hardest fought engagement
was the royalist capture of Bolton in 1644; the last scene, seven years
later, was Derby's own execution in Bolton market place. These things
are significant of the place which the towns were beginning to take.
And with the Earl of Derby in 1651 died the last of feudalism in
Lancashire.
The geographical conditions had another effect in that as the two
parties were divided the Parliament held in this respect the advantage.
Their territory was the south and south-east of the county which was the
most accessible part of it. Thus the royalists were cut off from the
neighbouring counties, and once at least, in August, 1644, when
Newcastle had overrun all Yorkshire and sent from Halifax a summons to
Manchester, the moorland barrier saved the Lancashire Parliamentarians
from having an invasion to face. Blackstone Edge was fortified and the
difficulty of the ground was enough to secure the safety of the county.
Yet although the war in Lancashire was mostly fought out locally, the
result had a considerable effect on the war in the north of England
generally. This has been too much neglected in the general text books.
The north-west of England was in 1642 mainly Royalist; so was the
neighbouring district of North Wales; and in 1642 Lancashire was mainly
royalist too. The King's party thought themselves and their opponents
thought them the stronger side. Yet in less than twelve months after
Edgehill the Royalist party in Lancashire was completely defeated; and
though Prince Rupert's hurricane descent on the county on his way to
York in 1644 changed things for a little while, it was only a temporary
change, and had no permanent result on the war in Lancashire. This
meant much, for it was in the summer of 1643, when the Lancashire
Parliamentarians were carrying all before them in their county, that the
King's cause generally was at its height; and not only in the south of
England but even in Yorkshire and Cheshire. In the spring of 1643 Sir
Wm. Brereton was holding his own in Cheshire with difficulty; after
Newcastle's victory over the Fairfaxes at Adwalton Moor in July all
Yorkshire except Hull was royalist territory. If the royalists had kept
Lancashire in 1642 as they expected, or had regained it afterwards as
they were always hoping to do, the King would have been supreme in the
north of England, and the war might have been considerably prolonged.
In mere numbers the royalists in Lancashire were probably at all times
equal to their opponents; it may be doubted whether the supporters of
the Parliament ever counted a numerical majority in the county. Their
success was due partly to the fact that their attention was concentrated
on Lancashire, while the royalist leaders were concerned also with other
parts of the country. The soldiers first raised by the Earl of Derby
were withdrawn to swell the regiments of the royalist army at Edgehill;
and several royalist gentlemen raised troops of horse for the King from
among their tenants in Lancashire. No Parliamentarian troops were ever
marched out of the county until the issue at home was decided. But when
this allowance has been made it must be acknowledged that the
Parliament's success was due to the greater ability of its supporters.
Derby was no leader though personally brave; no one could supersede him
on account of his rank, and the conduct of the war in Lancashire for the
King demanded far more ability than he possessed. On the other hand it
happened that the Parliamentarian leaders, Assheton, Shuttleworth,
Moore, Rigby and others were if not brilliant generals at least capable
men. And not only had the Parliament the advantage in leaders but in the
rank and file. Its soldiers were better led but they were better
soldiers also. Clarendon's words on this subject may be quoted:--
"the difference in the temper of the common people of both sides
was so great that they who inclined to the Parliament left nothing
unperformed that they might advance the cause, and were incredibly
vigorous and industrious to cross and hinder whatsoever might
provoke the King's; whereas they who wished well to him thought
they had performed their duty in doing so, and that they had done
enough for him that they had done nothing against him."[2]
This judgment of the relative zeal of the two parties is true at any
rate of Lancashire.
Small as Lancashire is it is not very easy to connect in one plan
the necessarily somewhat scattered incidents of the war. On the
whole, however, its course at first shows a gradual advance by the
Parliamentarian party northwards and westwards from their base at
Manchester. They first met successfully an attack in their own quarters;
the remainder of 1642 saw them fighting mostly on the defensive in
Salford and Blackburn Hundreds; but early in 1643 they began to extend
their lines until all the county was gradually conquered. The next two
years were occupied in reducing the last royalist strongholds, in
meeting Rupert's invasion, and after he had gone in doing over again the
work which his coming had undone. During the remainder of the period the
outstanding military events are the coming of the Scots in 1648 and the
rising when Charles II. invaded England in 1651. With the defeat and
death of the last royalists at Wigan Lane, and the execution of the Earl
of Derby the Civil War in Lancashire may be said to end.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] "A Copy of Lord Strange's Warrant," 669, f. 3 (74).
[2] Clarendon (Macray), Vol. 2, p. 472 (bk. 6, par. 273).
CHAPTER I.
Preliminaries.--Petitions.--Seizure of Magazines.--The Array and
the Militia.--First Skirmish at Manchester.
The actual fighting of the civil war was preceded by some months during
which both parties attempted to seize stores of arms and to win over the
local troops; this again followed a long series of proclamations by the
King and by Parliament. Many petitions and memorials were presented to
both from different parts of the country. A number of these petitions
came from Lancashire. The first was presented to the Houses of
Parliament in February 1641-2, and represents the wishes of their
supporters in the county. It praises the work already done in the reform
of civil government and the church, the disposal of the Militia, and in
other ways. As far as Lancashire is concerned it is asked that recusants
be disarmed and the number of 'preaching ministers' increased, also that
provision should be made for the crowds of destitute refugees from
Ireland who were daily arriving in the county; and that a fleet of small
ships be sent for the defence of the coast. As evidence of the natural
but exaggerated fear produced by the Irish rebellion the petitioners
described themselves as "seated in the mouth of danger," and evidently
expected an invasion from the other side of the channel. This petition
was presented to the House of Commons on February 10th, 1642, and the
House promised to take it into consideration.[3]
Two petitions were also sent to the King at York in April and May
respectively. The first merely urged his return to Parliament, but the
other which is much longer and more elaborate, was drawn up by Richard
Heyrick, warden of the Collegiate Church at Manchester, and contained
nearly 8,000 names. It professes great loyalty to the King's person, and
gives him credit for the reforms which had already been carried through;
but asks him to find out some way for an accommodation with the
Parliament. The signatories of this petition afterwards became the
Presbyterian party in the county and five years later they presented the
petition to the Parliament for the establishment of Presbyterianism in
Lancashire.
A few months after this the Recusants in Lancashire petitioned Charles
for permission to take up arms for their own safety, which was very
readily given. Recusants were, however, as yet forbidden to serve in the
Royal armies.[4]
The next step was the raising of the local trained bands, the winning
over of men of influence, and seizing magazines of arms which had been
collected in various places in view of the rebellion in Ireland. The
famous Militia Ordinance, which was the first exercise of Parliament's
claim to legislate without the King's consent, was made on March 5,
1641-2; the King's proclamation forbidding any of the trained bands of
the kingdom to obey the Ordinance was dated at York, May 27th, 1642.
Parliament replied on the following day with their Order beginning
"Whereas it appears that the King seduced by wicked Councell intends to
make War against the Parliament." The King's Commissions of Array were
sent out early in June, and afterwards the raising of troops was pushed
forward by either side.[5] Parliament had early in the year appointed
its own list of Lords Lieutenant of all the counties in England, the
King also naming his own representatives. In the list presented to the
House of Commons on February 10, 1641-2 Lord Wharton is put in for
Lancashire in place of Lord Strange who had previously been Lord
Lieutenant; but curiously enough Lord Strange was nominated by the
Houses for Cheshire. On March 18, however, Sir William Brereton informed
the Commons that his lordship desired to be excused, and the desire
being repeated a week later his name was removed and that of Lord Say
substituted. Lord Strange was made Lord Lieutenant of both Lancashire
and Cheshire by the King.[6] Parliament also appointed a long list of
Deputy-Lieutenants for Lancashire which was afterwards added to during
the ensuing month.[7]
During the summer Commissions of Array were voted to be illegal, and the
House of Lords appointed a Committee to devise means to prevent their
going out; 9000 copies of a Declaration to this effect were printed and
circulated, and the Judges on circuit were each given a copy and ordered
to publish it.[8] (July.)
In the preceding month the Lancashire members of Parliament had been
sent down to form with the Deputy Lieutenants a county Committee for
putting the Militia Ordinance into operation. Their instructions were to
put the Ordinance in force, to collect trained bands, to publish the
Declarations of both Houses, to disarm recusants and see that they
confined themselves to their own houses. It was expressly stated that no
evil was intended to the King, whose greatest danger lay in separating
himself from his Parliament.[9] Active preparations now began on both
sides in Lancashire as in other parts of the country. It is rather
surprising and testifies to the extreme reluctance to begin a war of
which no man could see the end, that the Militia and the Array did not
come to blows before they did. The royalists were the first to move.
Lord Strange returning from a visit to the Court at York called a
meeting of his supporters on Fulwood Moor near Preston in accordance
with a letter from the King to Sir John Girlington, High Sheriff; the
ostensible purpose being to hear read Charles' two Declarations and his
answer to the Lancashire petition. This gathering though by no means so
large as the corresponding royalist demonstration on Heworth Moor,
near York, nevertheless numbered about 5000 people; but if the
Parliamentarians are to be believed it was not at all unanimous in
favour of the King. Rigby and the elder Shuttleworth hearing of the
summons on their way to Lancashire hastened on towards Preston,
hindering as many people as possible from obeying it as they went. At
Standish they deprived the Constable of his warrant, which had that day
been published by the Vicar in church. (Sunday, June 19.) Reaching
Preston the same night they attempted though without success to prevent
the meeting being held; and the following day they attended the meeting
themselves. Lord Strange was accompanied by his eldest son Charles, a
boy of 14, Lord Molyneux, Sir George Middleton, Sir Alexander
Radcliffe, Mr. Tyldesley of Myerscough, Mr. Farington of Worden, and
other prominent Lancashire royalists. The King's Declarations were read
by the Sheriff, the Under Sheriff and others in different parts of the
crowd, and most of the people dispersed. Rigby, however, attempted to
read the Votes of Parliament in answer to the King and demanded
Girlington to deliver up his Commission of Array; whereupon 400 of the
more ardent royalists rode up and down the moor shouting, 'For the King,
For the King.' The remainder stayed and shouted 'For King and
Parliament,' and Rigby declared that the royalists could only count on
the support of a small minority of those present and that they had in
reality lost more than they had gained by the demonstration. On hearing
of the occurrence Parliament summoned Sir John Girlington, Sir George
Middleton, and Sir Edward Fitton to attend as delinquents.[10] Meanwhile
under cover of the excitement on the Moor a servant of Mr. Farington's,
William Sumpner, seized part of the magazine in the town of Preston,
conveying it away secretly on packhorses as ordinary merchandise. The
magazine, which consisted of 13 barrels of powder and some match, had
been mostly collected by Farington and stored in a private house. Early
next morning the remainder was removed by order of the Sheriff. Rigby
hearing of what had taken place again protested, but to no purpose; and
he was not in a position to use force.[11] This was part of a royalist
plan for securing all the ammunition in the county. Considerable stores
had been established by Lord Strange when Lord Lieutenant, the principal
centres being Preston, Warrington, Liverpool and Manchester. Warrington
was royalist in sympathy and that also was seized by the King. Strange
in person secured most if not all of the powder at Liverpool. Rigby,
however, warned Mr. Assheton of Middleton in time to save the magazine
at Manchester.[12] When the royalist design became known in Manchester a
petition was addressed to the Committee asking them if necessary to
remove the magazine to a more secure place. The answer refers to great
levies of money made by Lord Strange, much of which had been spent in
providing ammunition in various places. But there were in Manchester
only 10 barrels of powder and a few bundles of match; they were kept in
the then disused College of the Church which had been granted to the
Earl of Derby by the Crown. This building was afterwards purchased by
the executors of Humphrey Chetham from Charles, eighth Earl of Derby,
and is still the Chetham College. The royalist Commissioners of Array,
Sir Alexander Radcliffe and Mr. Prestwich, with Mr. Nicholas Mosley and
Thomas Danson, the Under Sheriff, endeavoured to seize these stores as
they had seized the others; but Assheton and Sir Thomas Stanley, another
Deputy Lieutenant, prevented them. Judging, however, that the powder was
not safe on Lord Strange's property, it was removed to other parts of
the town.[13] Lord Strange was very angry at the rebuff and threatened
to attack the town. He collected troops at Bury and more than 1000 armed
volunteers came in for the defence of Manchester. These outnumbered the
royalists, and negotiations were thereupon entered into for the disposal
of the magazine. Two or three Deputy Lieutenants visited Lord Strange at
Bury; but his offer to replace the magazine in the College in the joint
keeping of the Parliament men and of Robert Holt, one of his own Deputy
Lieutenants, was refused. (June 23.) Next day the forces were dismissed;
but Lord Strange, having received fresh instructions from York, called a
second muster at Bury and caused an order to be published at Manchester
Cross for the removal of the magazine, part to Rochdale and part to
Bury, only a small part to be left in Manchester.
It was now evident that actual hostilities could not be long delayed.
The Parliamentarians sent to London for help from Lord Wharton. Lord
Strange was required to redeliver that part of the county magazine which
he had seized.[14] On Saturday, June 25, Sir William Brereton was in
Manchester, and reported to the Speaker that he found the townsmen "up
in arms in defence of their magazine," and most of the shops shut. A
Journal, of the first week in July, by a Preston man who accompanied
Rigby to Manchester, relates that 7000 or 8000 militia armed with
muskets and pikes were being daily trained there. On the other hand
reports were brought of royalist musters numbering 4000 at Preston, and
600 on Knutsford Heath in Cheshire.[15] A letter about royalist
movements from Sir Edward Fitton to Sir Thomas Aston at York was
intercepted and sent to London. News came of the King's siege of Hull.
But no one was anxious to strike the first blow in Lancashire, and
relations were not yet so strained between the leaders but that Rigby,
going to see Sir Gilbert Hoghton about a letter of his which had been
seized, could not be asked to stay to dinner. While he was there a Mr.
Dawton who was a recusant came in, and Rigby with characteristic
rudeness told his host that "he should like him better if he were not so
familiar with Papists." In royalist Preston, however, it needed a report
that Lord Wharton was on his march with 20,000 men to make it possible
for "honest men to go through the streets without scoffing at them and
calling them Roundheads." (Friday, July 8.) And a man who directed the
Sergeant coming to deliver a message from Parliament to Lord Strange's
house had his head broken by the royalists.[16]
A week later the first actual bloodshed of the war in Lancashire took
place at Manchester (Friday, July 15), the occasion being a visit of
Lord Strange and some of his supporters to the town. There is an account
of a previous skirmish on July 4, when it is stated that Lord Strange
attempted to force his way into the town and was repulsed with loss; but
this is usually thought to be false.[17] Lord Strange's visit on July
15 was in response to an invitation. Apparently negotiations were still
in progress about the Manchester magazine, and some of his lordship's
supporters, of whom there were a good many in the town, wished to
entertain him at a banquet in the house of Mr. Alexander Green, in order
that the negotiations might be completed. Green was a vintner and lived
on the Conduit, now the bottom of Market Street.[18]
The condition was made that Strange should come peaceably with his own
attendance; but in the excited state of affairs it was almost impossible
that the occasion should end peaceably, especially as Lord Strange had
earlier on the same day called a muster of troops at Bury which was
attended by about 2000 men from the immediate neighbourhood of
Manchester. There are several accounts of what happened, and as may be
expected the two sides give very different views. The royalists describe
the expression of joy by the inhabitants, "continued acclamations,
bonfires, the streets strewed with flowers, &c.," as Lord Strange
entered Manchester in his coach with his ordinary attendants only; the
other side represent him as coming in a warlike manner attended by many
horsemen, "with cocked pistols and shouts that the town was their own."
The local militia under Captain Birch and Captain Holcroft was, however,
in Manchester, and the surprising thing is not that an affray occurred,
but that it was not a great deal more serious than it turned out to be.
Hardly had the Royalists sat down to dinner when word was brought that
Birch and Holcroft accompanied by Sir Thomas Stanley of Bickerstaffe[19]
were marching their men about the streets. The Sheriff immediately ran
downstairs, mounted Lord Strange's horse, and near the Cross met
Holcroft, whose men he endeavoured unsuccessfully to disperse. Alarmed
at Girlington's non-return Strange himself followed him, and missing his
horse pushed his way on foot through the crowd to the end of the street.
The attitude of the townspeople was very threatening and Lord Strange
was several times fired at from houses. As he and the Sheriff were
returning they met Birch who ordered his men to fire, but the rain put
out their matches. To avoid a general skirmish the royalists decided to
leave the town. In the melée, however, a royalist gentleman was knocked
off his horse and the assailant was shot; this was Richard Perceval, a
linen weaver of Kirkmanshulme; he was buried at the Parish Church on
July 18. Lord Strange proceeded for the night to Sir Alexander
Radcliffe's house at Ordsall Hall;[20] and he never entered Manchester
again. Next morning, twenty-five gentlemen of the town, including Green
and Nicholas Mosley, the Boroughreeve, waited on him at Ordsall to
apologize for what had taken place, and declared Stanley, Holcroft and
Birch to be disturbers of the peace; but that they did not speak for a
majority of the townsmen subsequent events were to show.[21]
It has been very commonly stated that this July 15th skirmish was the
first bloodshed of the whole Civil War; the statement is made by Mr.
Gardiner and is repeated in so recent a work as the "Cambridge Modern
History," but is almost certainly incorrect. It is not of course
the fact that Lancashire was before any other county in hostile
preparations. In the months of June and July 1642, the two factions in
arms were facing each other all over England and it was really an
accident rather than otherwise in which county the first blow was
struck. On June 4, the King wrote to Lord Willoughby of Parham
forbidding him to raise the trained bands of Lincolnshire, and in the
same week the Earl of Warwick put the Militia Ordinance into force in
Essex. In Leicestershire a fortnight later bloodshed was narrowly
averted. On June 21, Mr. Hastings, son of the Earl of Huntingdon, who
was a royalist, arrived at Loughborough and marched on Leicester; but
finding a superior force under the Earl of Stamford in possession, he
retreated and most of his men were disarmed. There was an affray in
Dorsetshire in August at which some lives were lost. It would seem,
however, that actually the first blood of the war was shed at Hull. The
King in person was present at the siege of that town which began on
July 4. His troops were not close to the walls but in the following week
there had been three or four skirmishes, one of which lasted for several
hours and some lives must have been lost.[22] It is fitting that the war
should begin at Hull, for that was the city which was first seized for
the Parliament and which first offered defiance to Charles.
It might have been expected that the affray in Manchester would be
followed by further hostilities; but this was not the case, and two
months elapsed before fighting really began in Lancashire. The
intervening time was spent in active preparations by both sides; of the
two the royalists at first appeared to have the advantage. Manchester
had declared for the Parliament, but there was not much of the county
which that party could rely upon, and even Manchester was not unanimous.
Perhaps the majority of the crowd in the streets on July 15 were not
anti-royalists.[23] The immediate outcome of the affray was that
proceedings were begun against Mr. Tyldesley, who was reported to have
killed Perceval, and by the other side against Stanley, Birch and
Holcroft. Parliament stopped both actions. It was Birch who reported the
affair to the House of Commons, and the committee named to deal with
Commissions of Array was asked to consider it.[24]
In the following month there was a prospect of Lancashire being made
the centre of the Royalist operations. Several places were considered
for the raising of the royal standard, and the Earl of Derby suggested
Warrington as suitable. He promised to raise at once 3000 foot and 500
horse, and within three days to make up their number to 10,000 men.
After a few days' consideration Strange was sent back to Lancashire to
make preparations, but in his absence the place was altered to
Nottingham. It is suggested that court jealousy of Strange was
responsible for the alteration.[25] Whatever the reason, however,
Strange's loyalty was unwavering. He returned to Lancashire, and on
August 17 dated from Lathom a warrant to all knights, freeholders and
others able to bear arms (popish recusants excepted) to assemble at
Preston on August 23. A week later Lady Strange wrote to her cousin,
Prince Rupert, on his arrival in England, asking him to send a few
troops of horse into Lancashire for a few weeks to assist in raising
foot. Clarendon says that Strange was looked upon 'as of absolute power
over that people,' and as yet there seems to have been no doubt at
Lathom that this was the case.[26] Strange joined the King at Shrewsbury
with three troops of horse and three regiments of foot. Lord Molyneux
raised two regiments, one of horse and one of foot, and other Lancashire
royalists contributed to the main royal army in a lesser degree. This
draining of Lancashire of royalist troops, a process which was continued
later, was to have a disastrous effect on their cause within the county.
A week after the raising of the royal standard at Nottingham (August 22,
1642), the Commons set about the impeachment of Lord Strange. The
energetic Rigby was one of the five members appointed to prepare the
accusation, but it was nevertheless a fortnight before it was sent up to
the Lords, who agreed next day (September 15). The articles of
Indictment are the raising of forces at Manchester on July 15 and in
other places, the death of Perceval, and the being in actual rebellion
against the King, Parliament and Kingdom. It was, however, evident that
it would be much easier to publish such an impeachment than to have it
carried into effect "considering that if messengers be sent they will be
imprisoned, and if proclamation writs be sent down they will not be
sealed." Several conferences were held between the two Houses as to the
best means of executing the impeachment. On September 16, publication of
the charge was ordered to be made in all churches and chapels and in all
markets and towns; and all Sheriffs and other officers were urged to do
their best to secure Lord Strange's arrest and to send him up to
Parliament.[27] The impeachment no doubt had some effect on public
opinion in Lancashire, but it made no difference to the royalist
preparations which continued to be actively pushed forward.
FOOTNOTES:
[3] This petition is given in "C.W.T.," pp. 2-5. Cf. "C.J.," Vol. 2,
476. Lancashire being a Catholic county the Puritans were exceedingly
afraid of their probable action. Cf. "C.S.P.," 1641-3, p. 166.
[4] "C.W.T.," pp. 38-40. The petition and answer are also given in the
"Discourse," pp. 12-14. While taking stronger measures against the
recusants, Parliament ordered the documents to be printed in order to
arouse public opinion against the King. On Aug. 29 the King issued
instructions to the Commissioners of Array to disarm all "Popish
Recusants, all Brownists, Anabapists and other sectaries." "Rushworth,"
Vol. 4, p. 415.
[5] The Militia Ordinance and the King's Proclamation are printed in
Gardiner's "Constitutional Documents," pp. 166 and 169. For the
Parliament's Order of May 28, _v._ "C.W.T.," p. 7.
[6] "C.J." 2, pp. 424, 486, 496. Lord Strange was the royalist of
greatest influence in Lancashire and Cheshire and so could not be passed
over. But he was so unpopular at court that the appointment was an
unexpected one. Cf. "Hist. MSS. Com.," Rep. 9, app. 2, p. 391.
[7] "L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 178; Vol. 6, p. 125. "C.J.," Vol. 2, pp. 495,
499, 591, 598.
[8] "C.J.," Vol. 2, pp. 629, 650, 681.
[9] "L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 129. It was on June 9 that the Lancashire members
were directed by the Commons to go down ("C.J.," Vol. 2, p. 615), and
they must have started almost immediately. Several letters were received
before the end of the month both from them and from Sir W. Brereton. On
Saturday, July 16, a report from the Committee and Deputy Lieutenants
was received by the House of Commons, and referred by them to the
Committee for the Defence of the Kingdom. ("C.J.," Vol. 2, p. 676.)
[10] "C.W.T.," p. 14. "Discourse," p. 6. Rigby wrote a long letter
giving an account of the meeting to the Speaker from Manchester on June
24. He calls the majority of the 400 adherents of Lord Strange "popish
recusants." The "Discourse" implies that a majority of the meeting were
in favour of the King. Cf. "L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 166.
[11] For Rigby's Letter to the Speaker, _v._ "C.W.T.," p. 329. He
suggests that for so small an amount of powder it was not worth while to
use force; but it was a sufficient reason that he did not know where the
powder had been taken. On July 26th it was ordered by both Houses that
the removal of magazines might be resisted by force. ("L.J.," Vol. 5, p.
242. "C.J.," Vol. 2, pp. 692, 693.)
[12] The Committee's Letter to Lenthall on June 25 ("C.W.T.," p. 16)
states that Lord Strange took 30 barrels of powder and some match from
Liverpool. The "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," p. 111) implies that this
was all the magazine in Liverpool. The report that Strange was
intercepted at Liverpool by Mr. Moore ("C.W.T.," p. 332) is probably
false.
The Manchester petition and answer are given at length in the "Valley of
Achor" ("C.W.T.," p. 111). No other places are mentioned except
Manchester, Warrington, Preston and Liverpool, and apparently the
royalists secured all these except the first-named. Cf. A Copy of a
Letter from Chester, etc., 669, f. 6 (78), where it is stated that
Strange armed his troops at Chester with arms sent by the Parliament for
service in Ireland.
[13] "C.W.T.," pp. 16 and 112. Cf. "Hist. MSS. Com.," Vol. 5, p. 32; and
also a letter from Richard Radcliffe to Sir John Gell, July 1. 1642:
"Lord Strange threatens to procure aid from the King; but we think His
Majesty has not much to spare." ("Hist. MSS. Com.," Vol. 9, app. 2, p.
391.)
[14] "L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 166. Sir William Brereton (1604-1661) was the
son of William Brereton of Handforth, Cheshire, and of Margaret,
daughter and co-heiress of Richard Holland of Denton. He was the
Parliamentarian Commander-in-Chief in Cheshire, and was concerned in all
the military operations in that county. But he was also a Deputy
Lieutenant for Lancashire, having close relations with the leaders
there. There is a notice of Brereton, by Mr. T. F. Henderson, in the
"Dictionary of National Biography."
[15] "L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 174. Cf. a further letter to the Speaker in "H.
L. Cal." ("Hist. MSS. Com.," rep. 5, p. 31), written on June 24, in
which Brereton states that Lord Strange is prepared to enforce his
Commission of Array when Parliament does the Militia Ordinance. He
desires further instructions, for the Commission cannot be stopped
without violence, which "once begun may not be so easily composed."
[16] This "Journal" is given in "C.W.T.," p. 24. The writer seems well
informed and fairly impartial.
[17] The chief authority for this skirmish is a tract called "The
Beginning of Civil Warres in England, etc." ("C.W.T.," p. 24). It is a
circumstantial account giving the times at which the battle began and
ended and the number killed on both sides. But nevertheless it is almost
certainly an entire fabrication. None of the main authorities mention
it; and if any skirmish occurred at all on July 4 it would certainly
have been mentioned in Lord Strange's impeachment. Cf. also "C.W.T.,"
pp. 27 and 331. The "Victoria County History of Lancashire," referring
to this date, says: "Doubt has been cast on the truth of this report,"
but this statement is not strong enough (Vol. 2, p. 235).
[18] Green had given £1. 10s. to the building of Salford Chapel in 1634.
Judging from the amounts at which he was assessed in the levies made
upon the town during the war, he was a well-to-do man; the Conduit was
then one of the streets inhabited by the richer citizens ("Manchester
Municipal Records"). Green does not seem to have been an ardent
royalist, for he was not sequestered, but he afforded shelter to one
George Leigh of Barton-upon-Irwell, who at first supported the royalist
cause, but on Prince Rupert's invasion fled to Manchester ("Royalist
Composition Papers," Vol. 4, p. 82).
[19] Sir Thomas Stanley was the son of Edward Stanley of Bickerstaffe,
who was made a Baronet in 1627-8. He was a consistent, if rather
lukewarm, supporter of the Parliamentary cause. He was the direct
ancestor of the present Earl of Derby. ("Lancashire Lieutenancy," Pt. 2,
p. 246.)
[20] "C.W.T.," p. 33, note. Sir Alexander Radcliffe was committed to the
Tower for his part in this disturbance, and remained a prisoner until
the following year. Ordsall Hall, then about 1-1/2 miles from the town,
stands now in the midst of cottages and workshops. It is the property of
Lord Egerton, and was until recently used as an Anglican Training
College.
[21] There are a Parliamentarian paper describing the affray, two
royalist tracts and an account in the "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," pp.
29, 30, 31 and 113). The reference in the "Discourse," p. 6, may be
dismissed as worthless; that writer is not often well informed on
matters relating to Manchester. It is evident that the banquet was a
pre-arranged affair in spite of statements to the contrary ("C.W.T.," p.
30), and also that the rising of the townsmen was not wholly the result
of the Parliamentarian leaders' agitation. Probably each party in the
town made its own arrangements entirely neglecting their effect on the
other; and probably each side gave afterwards what it honestly thought
to be the statement of the facts. There is an account of this affray in
Burghall's "Providence Improved" (R.S., No. 19, p. 29); but it adds no
new details.
[22] "Rushworth," Vol. 4, p. 670, 676, 678. Cf. an article by the
present writer on the "Sieges of Hull during the Great Civil War," in
the "English Historical Review" (1905), Vol. 20, p. 464.
[23] The account given in the "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," p. 113)
suggests this. The statement that the other side were in a vast majority
is, however, made by both parties.
[24] The judges in Lancashire were ordered to stay proceedings against
Tyldesley, "who, as this House is informed, slew the man at Manchester,"
and other proceedings begun for the same reason. There is a similar
order concerning proceedings against Stanley, Birch and Holcroft
("C.J.," Vol. 2, p. 714). Assheton, Rigby and Moore were members of this
Committee ("C.J.," Vol. 2, pp. 689, 690). It seems probable that the man
actually responsible for the death of Perceval was Richard Fleetwood of
Rossall ("C.W.T.," p. 72).
[25] The authority for this statement is Seacome's "House of Stanley,"
p. 70-74. Though Seacome is very inaccurate, there seems to be no reason
for doubting his statement here.
[26] "A Copy of Lord Strange's Warrant," 669, f. 6 (74); Marlet's
"Charlotte de la Tremoille," pp. 76-7; "Clarendon" (Macray), Vol. 2, p.
342 (bk. 6, par. 67). Marlet is of the opinion that Prince Rupert would
have acceded to the request, but was prevented by the King.
[27] The Impeachment was moved in the House of Commons on August 29, and
Sir Robert Harley took it to the Lords on Sept. 14 ("C.J.," Vol. 2, p.
742; "L.J.," Vol. 5, pp. 353, 354, 355, 357). The order for publishing
the Impeachment and carrying it out was dated Friday, Sept. 16 ("L.J.,"
Vol. 5, p. 358). The Impeachment and Order are printed in "C.W.T.," pp.
35-37.