Read Ebook: The Privy Purse Expenses of King Henry VIII from November MDXXIX to December MDXXXII by Nicolas Nicholas Harris Sir

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 4233 lines and 235856 words, and 85 pages

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. 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.

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. 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 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. 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 , 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 . 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. 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:

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.

"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.

"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.

"L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 178; Vol. 6, p. 125. "C.J.," Vol. 2, pp. 495, 499, 591, 598.

"C.J.," Vol. 2, pp. 629, 650, 681.

"L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 129. It was on June 9 that the Lancashire members were directed by the Commons to go down , 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.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.

The Committee's Letter to Lenthall on June 25 states that Lord Strange took 30 barrels of powder and some match from Liverpool. The "Valley of Achor" implies that this was all the magazine in Liverpool. The report that Strange was intercepted at Liverpool by Mr. Moore is probably false.

The Manchester petition and answer are given at length in the "Valley of Achor" . 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 , where it is stated that Strange armed his troops at Chester with arms sent by the Parliament for service in Ireland.

"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."

"L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 174. Cf. a further letter to the Speaker in "H. L. Cal." , 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."

This "Journal" is given in "C.W.T.," p. 24. The writer seems well informed and fairly impartial.

The chief authority for this skirmish is a tract called "The Beginning of Civil Warres in England, etc." . 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 .

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 . 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 .

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.

"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.

There are a Parliamentarian paper describing the affray, two royalist tracts and an account in the "Valley of Achor" . 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 , 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" ; but it adds no new details.

"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" , Vol. 20, p. 464.

The account given in the "Valley of Achor" suggests this. The statement that the other side were in a vast majority is, however, made by both parties.

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 . Assheton, Rigby and Moore were members of this Committee . It seems probable that the man actually responsible for the death of Perceval was Richard Fleetwood of Rossall .

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.

"A Copy of Lord Strange's Warrant," 669, f. 6 ; Marlet's "Charlotte de la Tremoille," pp. 76-7; "Clarendon" , Vol. 2, p. 342 . Marlet is of the opinion that Prince Rupert would have acceded to the request, but was prevented by the King.

The Impeachment was moved in the House of Commons on August 29, and Sir Robert Harley took it to the Lords on Sept. 14 . The order for publishing the Impeachment and carrying it out was dated Friday, Sept. 16 . The Impeachment and Order are printed in "C.W.T.," pp. 35-37.

The Leaders on Both Sides.

In September, 1642, when the two parties in Lancashire faced each other before coming to blows, the royalist prospects appeared considerably the better. Their leaders were the men of chief rank in the county; they had the undivided support of the numerous Catholic families; they held nearly all the defensible positions and fortified houses, and they had secured nearly all the stores of arms and ammunition which the county contained. In four out of the six Hundreds of Lancashire their influence was entirely predominant. With the possession of the greater part of the county, and the support of two out of the three religious parties it appeared that the King had a far better prospect of success than the Parliament. In the light of the events of the next two years this expectation is seen to have been unjustified, but in September, 1642, the result could not be foreseen. There was reason for expressions such as that of the author of the "Discourse:" "That part of the Civill Broyles that fell within this County shewes a Divine hand to have overruled them, considering that a handfull in respect of the multitude always caried it." For even the east and south-east parts of the county where Puritanism had its stronghold were not all of one mind, and the strength of their resistance had not yet appeared. Sir Edward Fitton could write in June, 1642, "I may assure you that the major part of this Hundred of Manchester where I live will stand right," meaning of course it would support the King. And that there were many royalists even in Manchester itself the events of July 15 and 16 had plainly shown. Moreover even the possibility of raising the royal standard within the borders of Lancashire would seem to show that it was a county whose loyalty could be relied upon.

It is not possible in the present work to give a detailed account of all the families in Lancashire during the Civil War; all that can be done is to indicate the main lines of division between the various parties and to give brief descriptions of the more prominent leaders on both sides.

In February, 1638-9, he was summoned by Charles at the outbreak of the first Scotch war, and in 1640 he joined the King at York. When the Civil War began he was Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire and Cheshire, and was continued in those positions by the King, though of course removed by Parliament.

Lord Derby was ably seconded if not directed by his wife; indeed she was the stronger character of the two. She was the daughter of Claude de la Tremoille, Duc de Thouars, and grand-daughter of William the Silent, Prince of Orange. On coming to England her mother had endeavoured, though without success, to have her attached to the household of the Queen. After the outbreak of the war it would seem as if Lady Derby had endeavoured to secure herself against possible reverses of the royalist cause; but she showed no wavering afterwards, and her defence of Lathom House in 1644 was the one conspicuous success of the royalist cause in Lancashire. After her husband's death she was with difficulty persuaded to surrender the Isle of Man when all other resistance had come to an end.

Next in rank was Richard, Second Viscount Molyneux, the son of Sir Richard Molyneux of Sefton, who had been created in 1628 Viscount Molyneux of Maryborough in the Irish peerage. He was only 19 at the outbreak of the Civil War, and though he took some part in the fighting he was not personally of much advantage to his party in Lancashire. There are several references to him by contemporaries as Lord Derby's son-in-law, the fact being that a 'child marriage' was contracted in 1639 between Molyneux and Henrietta Maria, eldest daughter of Lord Derby, who was then only 9 years old. There was some legal doubt as to whether the marriage was not actually valid; but it was never consummated, though apparently the matter was still in abeyance in 1650 when Molyneux received permission to send messengers to the Isle of Man to receive the lady's answer. He died in July, 1654, and was succeeded in the title by his brother Caryll, who also had taken some little part in the war in Lancashire.

Molyneux surrendered after the capture of Ludlow and took the Covenant and the Negative Oath in August 1646. His fine at a sixth was ?9,037.

After Tyldesley the three most prominent Lancashire royalists were Sir Gilbert Hoghton of Hoghton, Sir John Girlington of Thurland, and Mr. William Farington of Worden Hall, near Chorley. Hoghton was the son of the Sir Richard Hoghton who, when Sheriff in 1617, had entertained King James the First at Hoghton Tower. He was an elderly man at the outbreak of the war, and took a more prominent part in the earlier operations. In Blackburn Hundred, however, Hoghton was the first royalist to take action, and he was present at the loss of Preston in February, 1642-3. Later he served at Chester, but became involved in a dispute with Colonel Byron the royalist Governor. He died in 1647.

Sir John Girlington of Thurland was Sheriff of Lancashire in 1642. He was one of the first to be sent for by the House of Commons as a delinquent, on account of his energy in plundering his opponents. He was twice besieged in his strong castle at Thurland, and after surrendering it for the second time in October, 1643, Girlington took refuge in Yorkshire, where he was killed in action in the following year.

William Farington of Worden had been Sheriff of Lancashire in 1636. He was a member of the Commission of Array and one of the royalist collectors for Leyland Hundred. His principal military service was at the first Siege of Lathom House, where he was Lady Derby's most trusted adviser. He suffered imprisonment and sequestration and did not compound until 1649. His fine was ?511. Farington acted in the attempted pacification in the Autumn of 1642.

It is significant of the strength of the popular movement against the King that even in Lancashire a majority of the members of the Long Parliament were opposed to him. There were at this time two members for the County and two each for Lancaster, Preston, Clitheroe, Wigan, Newton and Liverpool, fourteen in all; and the popular party had eight to the King's six, while in weight and ability their advantage was far greater. The full list of the Lancashire members is as follows:--

LANCASHIRE. Ralph Assheton, Esq. Roger Kirkby, Esq.

LANCASTER. John Harrison, Knight. Thomas Fanshaw, Esq.

PRESTON. Richard Shuttleworth, Esq. Thomas Standish, Esq.

CLITHEROE. Ralph Assheton, Esq. Richard Shuttleworth, Gent.

WIGAN. Orlando Bridgeman, Esq. Alexander Rigby, Esq.

NEWTON. William Ashhurst, Esq. Roger Palmer, Knight.

LIVERPOOL. John Moore, Esq. Richard Wyn, Knight and Baronet.

Of the above, Kirkby, Fanshaw, Harrison, Bridgeman, Palmer and Wyn were nominally royalists, but three of them took no part in the war at all, and only Kirkby had anything to do with it in Lancashire. Roger Kirkby of Kirkby Lonsdale was a member of the royalist County Committee, and one of their collectors for Lonsdale Hundred; he was concerned in the capture of Lancaster in 1643, and in the attempt to raise the siege of Thurland Castle later on the same year, but his name does not afterwards appear.

Sir John Harrison was a native of Beaumont, near Lancaster, but he lived in London, where he had acquired considerable wealth as an official in the Customs. At the outbreak of the war he was arrested, but he escaped and joined the King at Oxford. Harrison outlived the Restoration by ten years, and died at the age of eighty. His daughter was Anne Lady Fanshawe, the wife of Sir Richard Fanshawe.

Bridgeman was the son of the Bishop of Chester of that name, and a lawyer. On the day on which Lord Strange's impeachment was moved Bridgeman was disabled from sitting any longer, it having been reported to the House that he had raised fourteen men to assist Lord Strange and had been active in persuading others to do so. Bridgeman came into some prominence after the Restoration, being created a Baronet in 1660, and in 1667 Lord Keeper. He was the ancestor of the Earls of Bradford.

Ralph Assheton of Middleton, one of the members for the County, was head of that branch of the ancient family. In the seventeenth century the three principal branches were that at Middleton, Whalley, and Downham near Clitheroe, the last being now the only one which remains. He was the son of Richard Assheton, and his wife Mary, daughter of Thomas Venables, Baron of Kinderton in Cheshire, and he married Elizabeth, only daughter of John Kay of Woodsome in Yorkshire. Born on March 31, 1606, Assheton was quite a young man at the beginning of the Civil War, but he at once came to the front, and was first Colonel and afterwards Major-General in command of all the forces in Lancashire. He was a man of great energy and ability and of moderate views. He fought in nearly every engagement of the first war, and on January 2, 1644-5, was specially thanked by the House of Commons for his services to the public. This vote was repeated after the Battle of Preston in 1648. But no one was safe in such troublous times. In 1644 Assheton was committed to the Tower for a fortnight on refusing to obey an order of Parliament about the payment of some money; and in May, 1650, a warrant was issued by the Council of State for him to be brought before the Council on a charge of high treason. Whether the warrant was executed or not does not appear. Assheton died early in 1651, and was buried in Middleton Parish Church on February 25, 1650-1.

He must be distinguished from two other Ralph Asshetons, both of them on the Parliamentary side. These were Ralph Assheton, eldest son of Sir Ralph Assheton of Whalley, who was M.P. for Clitheroe in the Long Parliament, and Ralph Assheton of Downham who was a Deputy-Lieutenant and a sequestrator of delinquents' estates. The latter of these, however, died in 1643.

Richard Shuttleworth of Gawthorpe near Padiham, ancestor of the present Lord Shuttleworth, was born in 1587, and had been Sheriff of Lancashire in 1618. His experience and standing in the county, as well as his ability made him of great value to his party. He was a moderate man of Presbyterian views, and became a lay elder of the third Lancashire Classis. He was the only one, however, of the original Lancashire leaders who had an interview with Lilburne in the campaign of 1651. Four of his sons took part in the war, three of them becoming colonels, while one of them was killed at Lancaster in 1643 while still a captain.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet