The End of the First Civil War.
There was now no longer a royalist army in Lancashire; the only places
which still held out were Liverpool, Lathom House and Greenhalgh Castle.
Clitheroe Castle had been deserted by its garrison a few weeks after the
battle of Marston Moor; but Skipton, over the Yorkshire border, was for
some time longer a source of apprehension to the Parliamentarians in
Blackburn Hundred. After the defeat of the royalists at Ormskirk,
Meldrum at once laid siege to Liverpool; but the fortifications were
strong, and the town resisted for ten weeks, being at last surrendered
on Friday, November 1st. Colonel Rosworm directed the ordnance at the
siege, and Colonel Moore commanded some ships from the river. But
Meldrum was called away for service in North Wales, and during his
absence the siege was not conducted with any vigour. "I have had much
ado," he wrote to the Committee of Both Kingdoms from Liverpool on
October 2nd, "to bring back the Lancashire foot to their quarters before
Liverpool, in regard to their want of obedience even to their own
officers, the unseasonableness of the weather, and the time of harvest.
They have had no pay for 18 weeks, and have been much pinched for want
of victuals ever since they have been under my charge, the country being
so wasted and spoiled by Prince Rupert's two journeys through
Lancashire.... During my being abroad the enemy has taken divers of our
men while sleeping upon their guard, and by what is intercepted I find
them reduced to great extremities by inviting the garrison of Lathom
House, consisting of 200 horse and 300 foot under Colonel Vere, who
since the rout at Ormskirk hath been there, to fall upon some of our
quarters upon Thursday next and in the meantime those within the town
resolved to fall desperately upon some of our quarters and to make their
retreat to Lathom House."[161] The Earl of Derby was also reported to be
gathering troops in Cheshire for the relief of the town; but he was
defeated by Sir William Brereton, and the intended attack from Lathom
House never took place. But no breach could be made in the walls of
Liverpool, and in the end it was starved into surrender. The
circumstances were peculiar. In the last days of October 60 English
soldiers of the garrison escaped, driving away with them some of the
cattle, and surrendered to the besiegers, many of them taking service
under the Parliament. The officers in the town realising that resistance
was useless after this occurrence, attempted to make their escape by sea
as Colonel Moore had done when Liverpool was captured by Prince Rupert.
But the remainder of the garrison, who were Irish troops, feared that
they would be excepted from quarter; they therefore secured their
officers, and opened the gates to the Parliamentarians on promise that
their own lives should be spared. Colonel Clifton and 20 other officers
with many arms were captured; Clifton was taken to Manchester and
afterwards died. The capture of Liverpool was important enough to be
made the occasion of a public thanksgiving on November 4th.[162]
Differences, however, again broke out among the Lancashire leaders, and
it was difficult to find a Governor for Liverpool who would be generally
acceptable. Meldrum himself was in favour of leaving the town in the
hands of Colonel Moore, of whose ability he had evidently formed a high
opinion. Moore seems to have acted as Governor for a time, but in May,
1645, John Ashhurst, now Major, was appointed. There was at first some
doubt about the continuance of the garrison. The Committee of Both
Kingdoms were of opinion that the works had better be demolished on the
ground of expense, though it would be necessary to keep a small vessel
to guard the harbour. But the position of Liverpool as a port forbade
its being left without a garrison, and a force of 300 foot and 1 troop
of horse was ordered to remain there. In March, 1646, the House of
Commons ordered that the Liverpool garrison should consist of 600
foot.[163]
The siege of Greenhalgh Castle was entrusted to Col. Dodding and Major
Joseph Rigby, younger brother of the better known Colonel Rigby. It was
garrisoned by a number of royalist refugees, the Governor being Mr.
Anderton, probably Christopher Anderton of Lostock. The castle stood on
a little hill about half a mile south-east of Garstang; it was very
strongly built, and having only one entrance was difficult of approach.
Probably only a few troops were told off for the siege, for the garrison
could sally out to plunder the countryside, and for a time at least had
the better of the Parliamentarians. The sandy nature of the soil made
mining operations difficult, and on one occasion the garrison
countermined and captured five barrels of powder. At length Anderton
died, and the garrison surrendered on promise of their liberty. The
Castle was demolished and all the timber sold; only a part of one tower
now remains.[164] (June 10th, 1644).
During the autumn of 1644 negotiations were opened with the Earl to
induce him to surrender. These were conducted by Sir John Meldrum, who
employed as his agent Major Ashhurst, the only Parliamentarian officer
at the first siege of Lathom House for whom the royalists had a good
word to say. In October Meldrum wrote twice to Derby, and early in the
following month William Farington and John Greenhalgh came into
Lancashire under safe conduct to discuss terms. What exactly the
propositions were is not stated, but Meldrum told the Committee of Both
Kingdoms that he would only begin to treat on condition that Lathom and
Greenhalgh were surrendered. In spite of this, however, he was of
opinion from notes of a private interview which Ashhurst had with the
Earl, that Derby would be "found inclinable to any course which may give
the Parliament contentment." A fortnight later he writes more decidedly:
"I find the Earl inclinable to give all satisfaction to both Houses
of Parliament, if he may have the least testimony under the hands
of the Earls of Pembroke and Salisbury that upon demolishing the
fortifications and removal of the garrisons of Lathom House and
Greenhalgh Castle, he may expect to have fair and noble dealings."
(Nov. 21st, 1644.)
Later still it seemed as if an agreement had nearly been reached.
Meldrum writes:--
"I desire to know your pleasure whether the Earl after the full
accomplishment of the Treaty may not begin his journey to London,
and stay at St. Alban's till he shall receive an order from both
Houses or from your Lordships to come to London." (Dec. 16th,
1644.)
It is not quite clear what led to the breaking off the negotiations; but
the Parliament would be almost sure to ask more than Derby was willing
to yield, and the longer the strongholds in Lancashire held out the more
severe might the Parliament terms be expected to become. Twelve months
later they made a proposal which could only have been intended as an
insult. He was required as the price of his reconciliation to give up
Lord Digby, the Earls of Nithsdale and Carnwath, Sir Marmaduke Langdale,
Sir William Huddleston, and other royalists who had found refuge in the
Isle of Man when the King's cause in England was entirely lost,
"otherwise your Lordship is not to expect from us any further
invitation." As might have been supposed, Derby returned an indignant
refusal.[165]
The defeat of Rupert at Marston Moor completely destroyed the King's
chances of victory in the Civil War, but less than two months later his
triumph over Essex at Lostwithiel, where all the Parliamentarian foot
were obliged to surrender, gave his cause a new lease of life in the
south of England. The winter was passed in fruitless negotiations; when
they had broken down the New Model Ordinance was passed through
Parliament, and in the spring of 1645 the toils began to close round
the King who left Oxford and marched northwards with Rupert.
Thus once more Lancashire was brought into the general course of events.
It was feared that Charles would try to break through to join the Earl
of Montrose in Scotland; instead of advancing Leven retreated,
notwithstanding remonstrances from Sir Thomas Fairfax. The Fairfaxes
themselves were at York, and thus Lancashire was left completely
undefended. The leaders were in great consternation. Already in the
middle of March, 1645, it was feared that the King would march on
Shropshire and Cheshire, and the Committee of Both Kingdoms wrote to Sir
George Booth to be careful to guard Warrington.[166] Two months later
the danger was acute; if the King could enter Lancashire he might
indefinitely increase his forces. Charles penetrated into Cheshire in
May, and obliged Sir William Brereton to raise the siege of Chester and
draw his men into garrisons. Fairfax promised to send 1,500 men in order
to hinder the King's advance, and the Lancashire leaders were urged to
keep careful watch over all the passes into that county, and to have 200
horse and 1,000 foot ready to send to any rendezvous which Fairfax and
Leven might appoint. Colonel Assheton's regiment was recalled in haste
from Cheshire. The ford at Hale was guarded by 1,100 foot and 4 troops
of horse, and the general rendezvous was appointed at Barlow Moor,
near Manchester, on Thursday, May 19th. The Lancashire troops,
however, attended in small numbers. They were greatly disorganised
and the county much wasted by three years of war; and they complained
of the place chosen for the rendezvous as being too near to
plague-stricken Manchester. Lathom was still a thorn in the side of the
Parliamentarians of the county, and they were obliged to leave some
troops at Ormskirk to continue the siege; there remained only one
company of foot to defend both Liverpool and Warrington, and one of
Egerton's regiments flatly refused his order to march. On May 22nd the
Lancashire Committee wrote to London that they had obeyed the orders
regarding the disposition of troops, "but it is more difficult to defend
the country near Manchester, the river being shallow, and the Scots and
Cromwell both marching further off than was expected." Next day Sir
William Brereton wrote from Manchester, giving a very gloomy picture of
affairs. "The forces assigned for the passes are inconsiderable, the
passes many and indefensible." All the men he could spare were on the
borders of Cheshire but they were quite inadequate to oppose the King if
he should try to enter Lancashire. A few days before the Earl of
Callander had sent a letter to the Scotch Commissioners in London to the
same effect. "If we should abandon Yorkshire to go into Lancashire, this
county would lie open to the King, and York will probably be lost; if we
stay here the King is at liberty to enter Lancashire and increase his
army, because of the many disaffected persons in that county. It is
impossible to defend both places which is a line of 80 miles, at once,
the ways and passages also between those counties being such as the
forces in one county cannot without very great difficulty and marching a
long way give assistance to the other."[167]
All this may have been exaggerated, but there is no doubt that
Lancashire was in a state of great distress. Fortunately for the
Parliamentarian party, however, the King's position was even worse than
their own. Weak as they were, he was in no condition to force an
entrance into hostile territory. The resistance offered may have been
inadequate, but the appearance of force was enough to turn him in
another direction. On May 21st he was at Whitchurch, 'not 24 miles from
Hale Ford'; but he came no nearer to Lancashire than Market Drayton, but
turned eastwards into the Midlands, and on May 31st took Leicester by
storm.[168]
There were further fears of Charles in September when he was in
Cheshire; but his defeat at Rowton Heath disposed of that danger. Even
in October when he was at Welbeck, it was feared that his plan was to
march northwards to relieve Skipton and Lathom, and to recruit his foot
in Lancashire, "where Manchester will be as easily entered as
attempted"; but the defeat of Langdale, near Pontefract, removed this
danger too.[169]
Meanwhile the siege at Lathom House dragged on. During the winter of
1644 the garrison was practically unmolested, so that they were able to
make little plundering expeditions, riding out after nightfall and
returning to the house before daylight. Sometimes they even ventured
further afield into the Fylde country. So great was the nuisance
occasioned by their plundering and that of the royalists at Greenhalgh,
that in December a local "cessation" was effected; but the Parliament
promptly annulled it. At length the Committee at Manchester decided to
re-form the siege, and Colonel Egerton was chosen for command.
(January, 1644-5.) Troops were provided out of all the county, but no
serious attempt was made to storm, the object being rather to starve out
the garrison. In the House were a numerous garrison under Colonel
Rawsthorne and Colonel Vere, who had with them Charnock, Key, Molyneux
Radcliffe, Farington and other Captains who had taken part in the first
siege. There seem to have been three divisions of the royalists, the
main guard being in Lathom itself, and others at New Park; while the
third division consisting of the Irish troops who had been at Liverpool
during the previous summer occupied the Lodge.
The Parliamentarian engineer was Colonel Morgan, who had also taken part
in the first siege. No trenches were made close to the house, but under
his direction a deep ditch was drawn round the wall at some distance,
and the attacking force lay on the outer side of that. There would only
be fighting when the garrison sallied out for stores. The siege made
very slow progress. On March 25, 1645, Egerton writes very despondently
to the Speaker concerning the state of the siege and the discipline of
his troops. It was now nearly three months since he had first advanced,
and in spite of promises his force was so small that he dared not
approach nearer than four or five miles from the House. Most of the
troops had been got together by his own efforts. He had at first
advanced to within two miles, but finding that he could not stop the
garrison plundering, he had retired again and spread out his men, who
only numbered 100 foot and 400 horse. Even these were constantly
deserting, and trying to take their colours with them.[170] Some months
before this Meldrum had written that the Colonels of three regiments
"told me plainly that if I should press the soldiers to an approach
which would require them to lie in the trenches without shelter, where
there was neither money nor victuals, they would all be gone do what we
could to prevent it."[171]
By the middle of July, however, the Parliamentarian troops had made a
considerable advance, for they carried the Lodge by storm, forty of the
defenders being killed and sixty taken prisoners; and soon afterwards
the garrison at New Park also surrendered, after which the royalists
were confined to Lathom itself. In August, two of the Earl of Derby's
servants named Sharples and Moreau, came over from the Isle of Man, and
were captured in trying to get through the besiegers' lines. Sharples
was sent into the House that he might explain the hopelessness of
resistance, but in vain. The garrison refused to be convinced, and
Sharples was allowed to return to the Earl of Derby. For three months
more the royalists held out. But it was an unnecessary display of
courage, and was bound to have disastrous results for Lathom House. This
second siege was very different from the first. The glamour of Lady
Derby's presence was gone. Instead of a numerous garrison well armed and
provisioned, making successful sorties at intervals, and hopeful of
release from without, there were only a few irreconcilables being
gradually starved into submission. And they had nothing to gain by
prolonging the war, for after the Battle of Naseby the royalist cause
was dead.
After the defeat of Charles at Rowton Heath in September, 1645, he sent
word to Lathom that there was no longer any prospect of relief from him,
and the garrison had better therefore surrender. It would appear,
however, that negotiations had already been entered into. Very
favourable terms were at first offered. The House with all its contents
were of course to be surrendered; but the garrison might freely depart,
and Lady Derby and her children were to be allowed to live at Knowsley
House with one-third of the Earl's estate for their support. Seacome
states that these terms were freely offered by Egerton, and were only
broken off by the obstinacy of one of the royalist Commissioners, who
absolutely refused to agree unless the cannon were allowed to remain at
Lathom for its defence. Actually, however, it would seem that the
Committee of Both Kingdoms interfered, and forbade the conclusion of the
negotiations. If suitable terms should be proposed, they professed to be
willing to consider them.[172]
By the middle of November the shortage of provisions of the garrison had
become so great that another parley was requested. A place was
appointed, and the two sides again met; but even now they could not
agree, the royalists refusing to accept any terms except those which
they themselves proposed. The conference was broken off and they
returned outwardly confident to Lathom; but their action was really just
as much a piece of bluff as Rigby's last demand for surrender during the
first siege in May, 1644. The tables were now turned, and it was Rigby's
shrewdness which perceived how desperate the condition of the garrison
was. When they were gone, Colonel Alexander Rigby said to the rest of
the Colonels and Commanders then present that "he was persuaded that
notwithstanding their seeming stoutness and highness of stomacke they
could not hold out long, the smell and taste of their garments bewraied
it."[173] Nevertheless the garrison did hold out for three weeks longer,
and it was the beginning of December before the great House was at last
starved into surrender. The final agreement was made between Colonel
Booth on one side, and Colonel Nowell, Colonel Vere, and two others on
behalf of the royalists. The terms were as follows:--The House with all
its plate and furniture, and all the horses and arms of the garrison
were to be delivered up to the Parliament; only the Governor might take
his horse and pistols and £10 in money. Officers above the rank of
Lieutenant were allowed their swords, but all below that rank and all
the common soldiers were to depart unarmed. Convoy was to be provided
for them to Aberconway, which was the nearest royalist garrison not
besieged.[174]
There were said to be about 200 common soldiers still remaining in
Lathom, but few of them took advantage of the opportunity to lay down
their arms 'being old blades and mercenaries.' Some 15 guns and 400
smaller arms were captured, with some ammunition and stores of provision
of several kinds. It was chiefly the deficiency of bread which had
compelled the garrison to surrender. Lathom was finally given up to the
Parliament at 3 p.m. on December 3rd, 1645, and the King had now no
garrison left in Lancashire.
"This evening," says the "Perfect Diurnall" of December 6th, "after the
House was up, they came letters to the Speaker of the Commons House of
the surrender of Lathom House in Lancashire belonging to the Earl of
Derby." All the newspapers for that week are full of references to the
event.[175] At Castle Rushen, when at length the news reached the Isle
of Man, there was great distress. Lord Derby's "Book of Private
Devotions" contains _A Meditation which I made when the Tidings were
brought to me of the Delivering up Lathom House to the enemy_, which
consist of a long series of texts chiefly from the book of Job and from
Jeremiah.
"Oh that I were as in months past, as in the days when God
preserved me." (Job 29, v. 2.)
"But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose
fathers I would have disdained to set with the dogs of my flock."
(Job 30, v. 1.)
"Oh how sits the city solitary which was full of people? How is she
become a widow? She that was great among the nations, and princess
among the provinces, how is she become tributary."[176] (Lam. 1, v.
1.)
It is impossible not to fully share his grief for the destruction of
this magnificent fortress, "a little town in itself." "It was the glory
of the county," wrote one who fought against the Earl in the civil war.
This great House, whose Lords had enjoyed almost royal power for
centuries was now a ruin. Splendid in loyalty, supreme among the
nobility of the North of England, generous to their tenantry, the Lords
of Lathom had a great record of honour and service. This was now at an
end. The demolition of their House was complete. Everything moveable and
saleable was stripped off and sold, the walls were cast down into the
ditch; and it was never rebuilt.[177] And with old Lathom House
departed much of the glory of the House of Stanley. Before the end of
the civil war the Earl of Derby was beheaded at Bolton, and his
descendants never recovered the state which had been his. In the
following century the direct male line of his House died out, and the
title passed to another branch.
This ended the fighting in Lancashire for the present; but the King's
standard still floated over a few isolated towns and fortresses, and one
of these was Chester, which had long been invested by Sir William
Brereton, but still held out. The Cheshire Committee appealed to the
neighbouring county for assistance in the autumn of 1645, but there was
little help to spare from Lancashire then. In October, however, when
there was a prospect of a royalist attempt to raise the siege of
Chester, 200 horse and all the forces of Lonsdale Hundred were sent to
Brereton's help. But he still appealed for more men (Oct. 27), and on
November 7th more troops of horse were despatched under Major Clarkson
and Major Robinson. Five hundred men had recently gone out of Lancashire
to assist in the blockade of Skipton Castle, and the siege of Lathom
House was still a heavy drain on the resources of the county. When
Lathom fell, the troops there were set free for other service, but so
wearied and insubordinate were they that they would not move without a
fortnight's pay, and pay Brereton had none to give. Protests were of no
use. At length Colonel George Booth was sent to Bolton to negotiate with
the Lancashire Committee and succeeded in persuading their troops to
march by promising them 'the same pay as other auxiliaries.' On
December 11th the Lancashire Committee issued an order for all the
available men to march, the horse under Colonel Nicholas Shuttleworth,
Colonel John Booth and Colonel Assheton to command their own regiments
of foot; and companies of foot not in either of these regiments might
choose in which they would serve. The commanders at Chester, however,
had still to endure some delay. Colonel Assheton had only just returned
from London, and his regiment was very late in starting. Shuttleworth,
with nine troops of horse, reached Tarporley about December 21st, and
the others followed soon after.[178] The Lancashire horse were kept
before Chester to strengthen the siege, and the foot, together with the
Cheshire foot, were sent out to Whitchurch to intercept a possible
royalist advance. When the royalists retreated all were brought back to
the siege. Loud complaints were made by the Cheshire Committee of the
insubordination of the Lancashire troops, but as they were paid more
than any of the other auxiliaries they were probably more valuable.
Brereton, however, continued to send appeals for help into Lancashire
until nearly the middle of January, but on February 3rd, 1645-6, Chester
was finally surrendered. The Lancashire troops returned home and were
mostly disbanded; there were now no soldiers in arms in the county
excepting the garrison at Liverpool.[179]
There was now some years' quiet in Lancashire, and the stricken county
was able to recover slowly from its devastation and misery. The general
course of affairs was briefly as follows. After Sir Thomas Fairfax had
beaten Goring at Langport in July and Rupert had surrendered Bristol in
September, the royalist resistance was practically at an end though
Raglan Castle held out until August, 1646. The King surrendered to the
Scots at Southwell in May, 1646, and was sent to Newcastle; and there
then began the long series of negotiations in which Charles showed all
the duplicity and untrustworthiness and lack of judgment which was the
worst side of his nature. First the joint offer of the Scots and
Parliament was refused because the King would not abandon episcopacy;
when the Scots went home in January, 1646-7, he continued to play off
the Independents against the Presbyterians. Circumstances favoured him
to an extraordinary degree, but it was only a waste of time because he
never really desired to come to any agreement, but continued to believe
that he could regain his position by refusing all the terms which were
offered. Then followed the open breach between Parliament and the army,
the carrying off of the King from Holmby House, and the extremely
moderate demands made by the Army in the Heads of the Proposals. These
provided by far the best solution of the difficulty if only both sides
could have accepted and kept them. In all this Lancashire had no part.
The leaders were interested, particularly in Ecclesiastical affairs, but
the people in general cared less about the negotiations than about the
recovery of their own position. There can never be war, and especially
civil war, without much misery; and though the Civil War in England was
on the whole conducted with moderation, it inevitably brought in its
train, want, loss of trade, and the dislocation of ordinary modes of
life. The proportion of the population who actually fought in the war
was very small, but in counties where fighting was carried on there can
have been few if any of the inhabitants who were not indirectly affected
by it. The graphic account of Adam Martindale of the disaster which it
brought upon his family may be quoted.
"Things were now woefully altered from the worst from what I had
formerly known them. My sister was married to a noted royalist, and
going to live about two miles from Lathom which the Parliament
forces accounted their enemy's headquarters, they were sadly
plundered by those forces passing along the road wherein they
dwelt. The great trade that my father and two of my brothers had
long driven was quite dead; for who would either build or repair a
house when he could not sleep a night in it with quiet and safety?
My brother Henry, who was then about 24 years of age, knew not
where to hide his head; for my Lord of Derby's officers had taken
up a custom of summoning such as he and many older persons upon
pain of death to appear at general musters, and thence to force
them away with such weapons as they had if they were but pitchforks
to Bolton, the rear being brought up with troopers that had
commission to shoot such as lagged behind; so as the poor
countrymen seemed to be in a dilemma of death either by the
troopers if they went not on, or by the great and small shot out of
the town if they did."[180]
This is probably not an isolated but a typical case. If the families of
the gentry were divided among themselves, so also would be those of the
yeomen and the villagers. Royalists in Parliamentarian country, and
Parliamentarians in the royalist districts, would have an unhappy time.
The royalists in Manchester would no doubt be liable to plunder. The
estates of Parliamentarian partisans which lay in the west of the
county, as that of the Ashhursts' near Lathom, and of Rigby near
Preston, were fair game for the royalists, and became quite worthless to
their owners. In addition to local burdens there came, as the war
proceeded, pressure from headquarters. The royalists' estates were
sequestered, and for the Parliamentarians the Assessments became a
growing burden. As a local means of raising resources the most obvious
was the levying of contributions on estates, and this was the means
first resorted to. The Order authorising it in Lancashire was made by
the House of Lords on January 26th, 1642-3. Twelve of the leaders were
named assessors, any three of whom had power to assess the inhabitants
of the county at a sum not greater than that of one-twentieth of their
estate; resistance might be met by the sale of the objector's goods, and
if necessary by the use of force.[181] In the following August an Order
was for the first time passed for raising money for the payment of the
army by a weekly assessment on the whole country. The list is composed
of 52 counties and towns in England and 12 in Wales, Lancashire being
assessed at £500 weekly, Yorkshire at £1,060/10/- (York £62/10/- in
addition), and Cheshire at £175 (Chester £62 in addition). The weekly
sums were to be paid for two months "unless the King's army shall be
disbanded in the meantime."[182]
In February, 1644-5, an Ordinance was passed for the maintenance of the
Scotch army at £21,000 per month for four months, to begin on March 1st.
This time Lancashire was assessed at £730 and Cheshire at £255; on
August 15th the Ordinance was continued for four months dating from the
1st July. The reason for this assessment of the money was that the
Sequestrations, on which it had originally been charged, were quite
unable to bear their share.[183]
By the time that the fighting in Lancashire was over the financial
exhaustion of the county was extreme. "That country (England) is in a
most pitiful condition, no corner of it free from the evils of a cruel
war. The case is like the old miseries of the Guelphs and Ghibellines.
Every shire, every city, many families divided in this quarrel, much
blood and universal spoil made by both armies where they prevail," wrote
Baillie.[184] And in the same strain a letter of Egerton's to the
Speaker may be quoted:--
"Sequestrations which are looked upon to bring great things are
well known to us to be of no considerable respect, for the
sequestered estate which was heretofore worth £600 per annum is now
scarce sufficient to discharge those lays and taxations which are
imposed upon it according as those estates are managed. So that
from them we expect very little. The whole country is extremely
exhausted, and they have been plundered of horse and cattle by both
sides; and land is so cheap by the great quantity of sequestered
land untilled and unstocked that the well affected from whom we
receive our greatest relief can make very little of their
estates."[185]
The Lancashire Committee protested bitterly against the new assessments
in 1645. They declared that they could not possibly bear any more
levies, and complained that after their stand for the Parliament's cause
and all the help which they had sent into other counties, it was
unreasonable to impose a fresh tax upon them. If they even attempted to
raise it all the troops would disband; and instead of paying, they
urgently demanded a large contribution from Parliament which they hope
would not be long delayed. "This (however strange reports have been or
may be made of our condition by such as know little of it) is nothing
but real truth."[186] Parliament did have some consideration for
Lancashire, for on September 11th, 1644, the House of Commons ordered
that on the following day which was a Fast, half the collections in the
churches of London and Westminster should be devoted to the relief of
that county.[187]
As the commercial centre of the county, and the base of the
Parliamentarian operations, Manchester naturally suffered severely.
After the siege in 1642, Parliament ordered a fund to be opened for its
benefit, any one who would make subscriptions to have public faith for
repayment at the then usual rate of interest of 8 per cent. (October
24th). In addition to its other miseries, the town was in the summer of
1645 visited by plague, which was very severe, and reached its height in
August and September of that year. In July 172 persons were buried at
the Parish Church, in August 310, and in September 266; the numbers in
ordinary months ranging from 6 to 30. Moreover in August and September
there were no christenings, and in September no marriages "by reason of
the sickness being so great." All those who could left Manchester, and
the Committee of Both Kingdoms became concerned for the safety of their
headquarters in Lancashire. The outworks had been defended chiefly by
volunteer soldiers from the country adjacent, and now no one would go
near the town for fear of infection. The country people declared that
"they would rather be hanged at their own doors than enter such an
infected town." As Manchester had been the place of meeting of the
Lancashire Committee there had never been any Governor there, and as
the Committee had now removed elsewhere there was no one left to direct
affairs. The Committee of Both Kingdoms wrote to the Deputy-Lieutenants
to ask their opinion about appointing a Governor, and also whether they
thought it desirable to keep a garrison in Manchester any longer, and if
so "by what means a constant maintenance may be had for them in regard
of the decay of trade, and the impoverished condition of the town and
parts adjacent." It was suggested that the works might be reduced and so
kept with fewer men. Under the circumstances it was feared that the
store of arms and ammunition in Manchester might be in considerable
danger. The town was once more indebted to the engineer Colonel Rosworm,
who had refused to leave his post when so many of the richer people had
departed, even though Warden Heyrick had tried to persuade him to
withdraw with the others. Though only in command of 12 musketeers, the
other soldiers having removed some distance from the town, he was able
to frustrate a plot made to seize all the valuables in Manchester.[188]
With the approach of winter, however, the plague slackened, and the
inhabitants began to return to their homes. On December 9th Parliament
directed that a collection should be made on the following Sunday,
December 11th, in all the churches and chapels in London and Westminster
for the relief of Manchester, "one of the first towns in England that in
this great cause stood for their just defence against the opposition and
attempts of a very powerful army, and hath for a long time been so sore
visited with the pestilence that for many months none were permitted
either to go in or to come out of the said town, whereby most of the
inhabitants (living upon trade) are not only ruined in their estates,
but many families like to perish for want, who cannot be sufficiently
relieved by that miserably wasted country." In the following May,
Heyrick, preaching before the House of Commons on a Fast Day, referred
to Manchester as "the only town untouched by the enemy, the only town
stricken by God."[189]
In 1646 Presbyterianism was set up by the Parliament. A petition had
been presented to Parliament on August 31st of that year by more than
12,500 "of the well affected gentlemen, ministers, freeholders,
and others of the County Palatine of Lancaster," in favour of
Presbyterianism, "against sectaries, heretics and schismatics." The
petition was urged for the reason that the petitioners, who numbered
12,578 in all, were those who had won the county of Lancaster for the
Parliament; more than 6,000 of the signatures came from Salford and
Blackburn Hundreds, which out of the six Hundreds of the county had been
mainly active in the Parliament's cause. Many of them were among those
who had also signed the Petition to the King at York in 1642 to return
to Parliament, "which evidenceth that the petitioners attend a golden
mediocrity." No malignants had been allowed to sign, and the names of
some who were in favour of the Covenant were removed because they rested
under a suspicion of royalism.[190]
Parliament promised to take the Petition into consideration, and the
Ordinance for division of Lancashire into nine classical Presbyteries
was brought before the House of Commons on September 15th, 1646, though
it was not finally sanctioned until December. As is well known,
Lancashire furnished the most completely organised system of
Presbyterian government in the whole country; and the system continued
in force until the Restoration.
A year or two after the surrender of Lathom House, however, things had
returned to a more normal condition in Lancashire. "Some malignant
enough were fled where they could get to be safe. Others that had been
abroad were come home again and glad to live quietly though in a meaner
condition. So that the county was in a reasonable quiet posture for a
long space corn and all things plenty and cheap."[191] But a new storm
now appeared on the horizon.
FOOTNOTES:
[161] "C.S.P.," 1644-5, p. 5.
[162] "C.W.T.," p. 208; "Discourse," pp. 59, 60; "C.S.P.," 1644, p. 485.
At Oswestry, where Meldrum was also engaged, there were taken prisoners
Tyldesley and other Lancashire royalists, who had taken refuge there
after being driven out of their own county. For the royalist defeat in
Cheshire, _vide_ Verney MSS., "Hist. MSS. Com.," report 7, p. 445.
"C.J.," Vol. 3, pp. 686, 688. Parliament had intended to give no quarter
to the Irish, but as it had been granted before their instructions had
been received, the quarter was allowed.
[163] Meldrum to the Committee of Both Kingdoms, Nov. 2, 1644: "The
partialities and divisions among the gentlemen here are so great that I
cannot but leave Liverpool in the hands of Colonel Moore." ("C.S.P.,"
1644-5. Cf. also pp. 129, 168. "C.J.," Vol. 5, p. 101. "Carte MSS.,"
Vol. 12, fol. 107.)
Meldrum afterwards served in Yorkshire, where he lost Scarborough Castle
in Feb., 1645. He died later in the year.--D.N.B.
[164] Derby to Ormonde, April 5, 1645 ("Carte MSS.," Vol. 14, fol. 357;
"Discourse," p. 60). The date of surrender is given only in a tract
entitled "Memorable Dayes and Works of God, etc., etc.," containing a
list of the places given up during 1645; but in this tract the date of
the surrender of Lathom House is stated to be Dec. 7, which is
incorrect, E. 314 (6).
Greenhalgh Castle is often incorrectly identified with the village of
that name, 3 miles north-west of Kirkham.
[165] For Meldrum's negotiations with Derby, _vide_ his letters to the
Committee of Both Kingdoms in "C.S.P.," 1644-5, pp. 109, 137, 191. On
March 15, 1647, the House of Lords sent a message to the Commons
suggesting that the Earl of Derby should be admitted to compound.
("C.J.," Vol. 5, p. 498.) The suggestion to Derby that he should give up
the royalists with him was made on Nov. 29, 1645. ("C.S.P.," 1645-7, pp.
242, 243.) But it is evident that this did not entirely close the
negotiations, for the Earl petitioned to be allowed to compound on
January 22, 1648-9, and drew up particulars of his estate, showing a
yearly income of £4,324. 10s. 8d. ("Royalist Composition Papers," Vol.
2, pp. 122-5.) The lists and petitions occupy 120 pages of this volume;
among them are several from merchants whose ships had been seized at sea
by vessels from the Isle of Man. Derby claimed deductions amounting to
£600 a year, and for a debt of £1,520, and his fine was eventually
calculated as £15,572. 16s. 5d. How far the negotiations went, and
exactly the reason for breaking them off, does not appear. Whitelock
("Memorials," 1732 edition, p. 432) says that Parliament ordered the
proceedings with regard to the composition to be stopped because Derby
continued to hold the Isle of Man; but this is not a very satisfactory
explanation.
[166] Committee of Both Kingdoms to Sir George Booth, March 18. They
refer to Warrington 'as being the principal pass into Lancashire.'
("C.S.P.," 1644-5, p. 354.)
[167] There are a large number of letters dealing with these movements
in "Brereton MSS." (Additional MSS. 11331), ff. 136-163; and also in
"C.S.P.," 1644-5, p. 482-545. The Lancashire Committee wrote to Brereton
on May 19 for the return of Col. Assheton's regiment, and Brereton made
the required order on the same day. The Committee complained about the
place chosen for the rendezvous on the following day, but apparently
their complaint was neglected; or perhaps it was too late, for the order
of Fairfax, Leven and Brereton for the muster was issued on May 20. The
Lancashire foot ordered to be present were Col. Assheton's and Col.
Holland's regiments except Major Radcliffe's company; and of horse the
troops of Col. Nicholas Shuttleworth, Capt. Butterworth, Col. Dodding,
Major Robinson, and Capt. Hindley. Callander's letter is given in
"Portland MSS.," Vol. 1, pp. 223, 224.
[168] On May 25 Brereton wrote to Fairfax from Stockport that the King's
army was at Uttoxeter, and was making for Newark. He had sent a troop of
horse to follow. ("Brereton MSS.," fol. 155.)
[169] Brereton to William Ashhurst. Oct. 18, 1645, "Brereton MSS." (Add.
MSS., 11332), ff. 5, 16. The Committee of Both Kingdoms directed Col.
Vermuyden to march towards Nottingham and Leicester in order to guard
the country of the Eastern Association. ("C.S.P.," 1644-5, p. 528.)
[170] Egerton to Lenthall ("Tanner MSS.," Vol. 60, fol. 5). He says that
he cannot punish the offenders without the assistance of some of the
M.P.'s of the county, most of whom had been called away. For the second
siege of Lathom _vide_ "Seacome," pp. 98-103; and "Discourse," pp.
61-63; "C.W.T.," pp. 209, 210. The information concerning this siege is
much less detailed than in the case of the first.
[171] Meldrum to the Committee of Both Kingdoms, Nov. 17, 1644.
("C.S.P.," 1644-5, p. 129.)
[172] "Seacome," p. 100. Cf. however, a letter from the Committee of
Both Kingdoms to the Lancashire Committee, Sept. 27, 1645. They consider
the terms for surrendering Lathom very unreasonable, Lady Derby's coming
to Knowsley and enjoying her lands, paying the ordinary assessments, and
the Earl's not being required to come to London and submit to
Parliament; and that Lathom should remain in possession of the Earl's
servants. They will, however, consider any reasonable terms. ("C.S.P.,"
1645-7, p. 162.) It seems that the local men were ready to make easier
terms than Parliament would agree to.
[173] "Discourse," p. 62.
[174] Bradshaw, Hoghton and Booth to Sir William Brereton, Ormskirk,
December 4, 1645, the House having been surrendered on the previous day.
"Brereton MSS." (add. MSS. 11332), f. 122. The actual date of the
surrender and the terms agreed upon are variously stated, but this
letter appears to put the particulars beyond question.
[175] The above quotation is given in "C.W.T.," p. 211; but other papers
contain more particulars. _Vide_ "Kingdom's Weekly Intelligencer," Dec.
2-9; "Scottish Dove," Dec. 3-10; and "Moderate Intelligencer," Dec.
4-11. The first of these contains the statement of the deficiency of
bread being the final cause of surrender, adding also, "Those in the
House had for about six weeks past drunk nothing but water." The details
of capture of arms and ammunition are variously given.
[176] "Stanley Papers" (ed. Raines, C.S. 70), pt. 3, Vol. 3, pp. 31-34.
[177] Apparently there was some delay about the destruction of the
House. On December 10, 1645, the Committee of Both Kingdoms passed a
resolution to write to the Lancashire Committee asking for their opinion
as to what was to be done with Lathom House, "whether to be kept or
dismantled." On January 5, 1645-6, the request was repeated; but what
answer was returned is not recorded. ("C.S.P.," 1645-7, p. 297.)
[178] "Brereton MSS." (Add. MSS. 11332), ff. 23, 33, 36, 110 (Add. MSS.
11333), ff. 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 44). Much was made by the Cheshire
Committee of the prospects of royalist relief for Chester. Booth (who
was a nephew of Sir William Brereton) was afraid lest he had promised
too much; but it took great persuasion to accomplish even so much, and
he expressed the hope that the agreement was 'restrained and loose
enough.' Assheton was in London on December 2.
[179] "Brereton MSS." (Add. MSS. 11333), ff. 69, 92, 97, 100, 107.
Brereton urged that the Lancashire troops should not be deprived of
their share of the plunder from Lathom, because they had left the
county. "It should not be expected that they should remain upon duty
here, if those that remain at home and disobey orders should be better
paid and rewarded than those that obey orders and perform their duty
cheerfully." On January 7 he wrote that Chester was still confident of
immediate relief from the royalists.
[180] "Life of Adam Martindale" (C.S., No. 4), p. 31.
[181] "L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 573.
[182] "L.J.," Vol. 6, p. 165. On Sept. 6 the Lancashire Committee were
ordered to appoint a Treasurer, and elected Humphrey Chetham.
[183] This order was passed by the House of Lords on February 20,
1644-5. ("L.J.," Vol. 7, pp. 224, 341.)
[184] "Baillie's Letters," Vol. 2, p. 57.
[185] "Tanner MSS.," Vol. 60, fol. 5.
[186] Letters from the Lancashire Committee to Lenthall ("Tanner MSS.,"
Vol. 58, fol. 469; Vol. 60, fol. 111.)
[187] "C.J.," Vol. 3, p. 625.
[188] The figures of mortality are given by Rev. Richard Parkinson,
editor of the "Life of Adam Martindale" (note, pp. 53, 54), from
extracts from the Church registers. The statement of the attitude of the
country people is Brereton's. "Brer. MSS." (11331), f. 168. The
Committee of Both Kingdoms wrote to the Deputy-Lieutenants, Committee
and Commanders in Lancashire on July 24, 1645. ("C.S.P.," 1645-7, pp.
28, 29.) For Rosworm's account, _vide_ "Good Service" "C.W.T.," p. 231).
As usual, he rates his own services very high.
[189] Both the above are quoted in "C.W.T.," p. 213.
[190] "A True Copie of the Petition of 12,500 Gentlemen, Ministers, etc.
... of Lancashire," E. 352 (3).
[191] "Discourse," p. 63.