Produced by Paul Clark, sp1nd and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)





    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.




CHAPTER II.

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."[28] 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.

The unquestioned leader of the royalists was the head of the great house
of Stanley, James Stanley, Lord Strange, afterwards 7th Earl of Derby.
Though not actually succeeding to the title until September, 1642, his
father William the 6th Earl had resigned all his estates in his son's
favour five years before, and Strange had been since then the leader of
the county. Born on January 31, 1606-7, he was educated in Bolton and at
Oxford, and entered public life very early, becoming member of
Parliament for Liverpool in 1625. Two years later he was summoned to the
House of Lords as Baron Strange under the impression that this title was
held by his father; that however not being the case the summons amounted
to the creation of a new peerage. In June, 1626, Strange married, and
lived for a time at court; but he soon retired to his estates in the
north of England, living chiefly at Lathom House, and finding ample
scope for his activities in local affairs in Lancashire, Cheshire and
the Isle of Man. Strange was not a man fitted by temperament or
inclination to shine at a court like that of Charles I., and though his
loyalty was conspicuous and undoubted, he had evidently made himself
very unpopular with the royal advisers who hindered rather than helped
him during the Civil War. "Court friendship," he writes, "is a cable
that in storms is ever cut," and probably the words had a personal
significance. But however objectionable he may have been to the Court,
Strange was marked by his position for leadership when the King needed
help from Lancashire.

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.

In 1642 Strange was 35 years of age. He was in many ways not unworthy of
the great traditions of the famous House which he represented. There is
no need to subscribe to all the panegyrics which royalist writers have
showered upon the 'martyr earl'; and no doubt his personal worth,
unhappy history, and tragic death are some excuse for them. Personally
he was honourable, high minded and brave; even his enemies speak of him
as a "worthy gentleman, courteous and friendly" and suggest that his
actions were rather due to evil counsels than to his own disposition.
Indeed it is remarkable that of contemporary judgments, Clarendon's is
the most unfavourable. He was personally religious, as his Book of
Private Devotions shows, and he was a patron of literature and art. But
there seems to have been in his character some underlying flaw of
weakness and irresolution which paralysed all his actions. He broke with
the Court, yet he made himself no party in Lancashire; and finding
himself in 1642 in command of great resources, he had not the strength
to concentrate his efforts, and lost control in the county while sending
to the main royalist armies troops over which he had no command. His
leadership was marked by no foresight or capacity; he left Lancashire
just at a time when his presence was most needed there; and on his
return obeyed, though with reluctance, the Queen's orders to go to the
Isle of Man, when it was far more necessary that he should remain in
England. During his absence the famous first siege of Lathom House was
sustained by the Countess of Derby. Refusing all overtures after the end
of the first war, he retired to the Isle of Man, which became a refuge
for the more irreconcilable royalists. Pursued to the last by
ill-fortune and bad judgment Derby emerged from his retirement to join
Charles II.'s expedition in 1651; he escaped wounded from his own defeat
at Wigan to join in the general rout at Worcester; and finally, having
surrendered on promise of quarter to a Captain who could not keep the
promise, he was the only Lancashire royalist to suffer death on the
scaffold. But if unswerving loyalty and sincerity in a lost cause
constitute a claim to martyrdom, the leader of the Lancashire royalists
is abundantly entitled to the honour.[29]

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.[30]

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.[31]

By far the ablest of the Lancashire Royalists, and next to Derby the
most prominent, was Thomas Tyldesley. He was a Roman Catholic, of a
younger branch of the Tyldesleys of Tyldesley, and resided at Myerscough
Hall near Garstang. He married Bridget Standish, whose mother was sister
of Richard, first Viscount Molyneux, and was therefore a cousin by
marriage of the second Viscount. He is better known as Sir Thomas
Tyldesley, being knighted for his services when with the Queen at Burton
Bridge in July, 1643. Tyldesley was concerned in all the early Royalist
movements in Lancashire. He was in command at Liverpool when it was
first surrendered to the Parliament in 1643; and attended Rupert in the
following year at the sack of Bolton, the recapture of Liverpool, and
the relief of Lathom House. When the Royalist cause in Lancashire was
finally lost, Tyldesley was active in other parts of the country, and
was three times taken prisoner. He was Governor of Lichfield when that
town was captured in 1646; he then served in Ireland, and took part in
Hamilton's invasion in 1648. Afterwards Tyldesley found refuge in the
Isle of Man, joined Derby's invasion in 1651, and was killed at the
Battle of Wigan Lane. He was a good specimen of the best type of
chivalrous Cavalier. He never compounded for his estates, and
considering the very prominent part which he took in the War, the ruling
powers treated him very lightly, for no forfeiture is known to have
followed his death.[32]

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.[33]

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.[34]

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.[35] 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.[36]

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.[37]

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.[38]

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.[39]

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.[40]

Alexander Rigby of Middleton near Preston, was certainly the most active
of the Lancashire Parliamentarians. He seems to have attempted to
control local affairs and to attend Parliament at the same time, and was
constantly travelling about between London and Lancashire. He was one of
the first to take action on the Parliament's side in Lancashire; his
chief military commands were at Thurland Castle in 1643 and at the first
siege of Lathom in the following year. He commanded a cavalry regiment
against Hamilton in 1648. In the following year Cromwell appointed him a
Baron of the Exchequer, and he died in 1650 from fever caught whilst
trying a case. Rigby was named as one of the King's judges but he
refused to sit. In spite of his ability he was never popular with his
own party, and Lady Derby's description of him as "that insolent rebel"
fairly represents the royalist opinion of him. He was nevertheless
closely connected with the opposite party by relationship. A curious
illustration of Rigby's activity was his 'Governship' of Lygonia, a
district in the province of Maine in North America. He bought the
charter and described himself as Governor until his death, though he
never visited America and discharged his duties by deputy.[41]

John Moore was head of the family of Moore of Bank Hall, near Liverpool.
He was the leader of the Puritans in that district and was returned for
Liverpool in the Short Parliament. He took little part in the early
military operations in Lancashire but commanded at the first siege of
Lathom; and he was Governor of Liverpool when that place was stormed by
Prince Rupert in August, 1644. Moore was blamed for his surrender, but
apparently without due reason. He was a Deputy-Lieutenant, Sequestrator,
and one of the judges at the King's trial, his name appearing in the
death warrant. He afterwards served in Ireland and died in 1650. His son
Edward, was created a Baronet by Charles II. Moore was a restless,
bitter, and unscrupulous man, and his household was described as a 'hell
upon earth' by Adam Martindale, who for a time acted as his clerk.[42]

William Ashhurst took no part in the operations in Lancashire but looked
after the interests of the county at Westminster. He attained some
prominence in the House of Commons, and was one of the commissioners
sent to Scotland in 1647-8. His brother Major Ashhurst who had at first
fought on the Parliament's side joined Charles the Second in the
expedition of 1651, and William Ashhurst was for a time imprisoned as a
suspected person.[43]

It has already been indicated that the division of Lancashire between
the two factions followed the same lines as the division of the country
generally, that is, the Parliament had the south-east and the King the
north-west. The divisions of the families also on the whole followed
this arrangement. But no hard and fast lines can be drawn. The
Parliament for instance had one firm supporter, Colonel Moore, in the
extreme west, and one, Colonel Dodding, in Lancaster; Rigby himself
lived near Preston: while on the other hand the Nowells of Read lived in
what was chiefly a Parliamentarian district, and we find the Traffords,
Mosleys, and the Radcliffes who were Royalists in or near Manchester
itself.

Moreover hardly a single family of note was to be found entirely united.
Even the Stanleys had their representative in the Parliament's
ranks, Sir Thomas Stanley. Sir Gilbert Hoghton's eldest son was a
Parliamentarian, whilst Capt. Standish, son of the M.P. for Preston, was
killed in the royalist ranks at Manchester. The two bitterest opponents
of the King in Lancashire were Rigby and Moore; and Rigby's wife was the
sister of an active royalist, while Moore's son was created a Baronet
after the Restoration.

FOOTNOTES:

[28] "Discourse," p. 5. Cf., however, "MSS. of Lord Montague of
Beaulieu," p. 153. J. Dillingham to Lord Montague, May, 1642: "I am
assured from a good hand that in Lancashire and Cheshire the Puritans
are able to encounter the papists, and the Protestants are rather for
the Puritan party than the popish. This you may build upon for my
authority is very good."

[29] The chief authorities for Lord Derby's career are the article in
the "Dict. Nat. Biog."; The Life by Canon Raines in the "Stanley
Papers," C.S., No. 66, and Seacome's "House of Stanley." Seacome had
access to the papers of Bishop Rutter, the supposed author of the
Journal of the first siege of Lathom House, and his work contains
valuable information about the Stanley family not otherwise obtainable;
but he is a bitter partisan and very inaccurate. The first edition of
his work was published at Liverpool in 1741; the references in the
following pages are to the second edition, printed by Joseph Harrop in
Manchester in 1767.

[30] _Vide_ "Dict. Nat. Biog." "Hist. MSS. Com.," Rep. 11, pts. 1-3, p.
85. Despatch of the Tuscan Resident at Whitehall: "The Duchess is very
desirous of attaching her (Lady Strange) to the household of the Queen;
but with little prospect of success, either because no more French are
desired, or because she has no influence with those who dispose of these
offices." Cf. also "Moore Rental," pp. 136, 137.

"Hist. MSS. Com.," Rep. 10, "Bouverie MSS.," p. 91, November 10-20,
1642. W. Strickland to John Pym from the Hague: The States General have
received a letter from Lady Derby which has been communicated to
Strickland by Lord Vosbergen. Lady Derby desires the States General to
mediate with Parliament that her person, children and house may be
secured from dangers to which she may be exposed by Lord Derby following
the King's party. "I told Lord Vosbergen that some of her letters were
said to show but little good affection to Parliament, and I knew not how
far Parliament had power to exempt any from these common dangers."

_Same Day and Place_: "Do what you please about Lady Derby's business; a
civil answer will serve, though it be not to expectation. I desire to
speak for malignants, but I could do no less" (_ibid_, p. 93).

[31] For a sound account of Molyneux _vide_ "Hist. Soc.," Vol. 7 and 8,
pp. 245-278. This contains an account of the "child marriage."
Particulars of his sequestration are given in "Royalist Composition
Papers," R.S., No. 26, p. 157.

[32] "Dict. Nat. Biog." "C.W.T.," pp. 306, 353. "Discourse," p. 92.
Myerscough Lodge lies just aside from the main road from Preston to
Garstang, and about half-way between the two. Until comparatively
recently some parts of the old house remained, but in 1887 the Lodge was
entirely re-built. Clarendon's estimate of Tyldesley is a very high one
("Hist. Rebell.," ed. Macray, Vol. 5, p. 186; bk. 13, par. 70).

[33] "Discourse," p. 91. "Rupert MSS." ("Add. MSS.," 18981), fol. 266.

[34] "C.W.T.," p. 344. "Discourse," p. 90.

[35] "Farington Papers" (C.S., No. 39). "Discourse," p. 94. Worden Hall,
some three miles from Chorley, is still standing, though it was largely
dismantled when the new Hall was built. The old stables remain. About
half a mile away across the fields is Buckshawe Hall, the residence of
Major Robinson, the supposed author of the "Discourse." Both are now
used as farmhouses. Several stone gate-posts bearing Robinson's initials
are now built into the walls at Buckshawe.

[36] "C.W.T.," pp. 67, 84, 149, 347.

[37] "Memoirs of Anne Lady Fanshawe" (ed. H. C. Fanshawe, 1907), pp.
21-25.

[38] "C.W.T.," 340. "C.J.," Vol. 2, p. 742.

[39] "C.W.T.," 337. "Discourse," p. 100. Both these notices, however,
give the date of Assheton's death incorrectly. The entries in the Parish
registers of Middleton put the question beyond doubt ("Lanc. Parish
Register Soc.," Vol. 12, pp. 45, 98). For the votes of the House of
Commons _v._ "C.J.," Vol. 4, p. 7; Vol. 5, p. 680. The former referred
to Assheton's "great, constant and very faithful service." He was
committed to the Tower on Feb. 9, 1643-4, for not paying £1,500 of the
King's revenue in his hands, as one of the Receivers of the King's
Revenue. The Order for his arrest in 1650 was issued by the Council of
State on May 1, "To deliver Lieut.-Col. Ralph Assheton, prisoner in the
Compter for debt, into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, to be
brought before Council on a charge of High Treason, he having been
informed against as a very dangerous person" ("C.S.P.," 1650, p. 539).
It is difficult to see how this warrant can refer to anyone else. In
"Iter Lancastrense" (C.S., 6), p. 29, a description of Assheton's tomb
in Middleton Church is given, and the situation of it is exactly
indicated. This book was published in 1845; but on the restoration of
Middleton Church by Bishop Durnford in 1869, the stone was removed with
others bearing brasses into the sacrarium. The floor of the Assheton
Chapel is now occupied by pews. The Albany Mill stands on the site of
old Middleton Hall. There is a pedigree of the Middleton Asshetons in
Baines' "Lancashire" (ed. Croston), Vol. 2, p. 396.

[40] "C.W.T.," p. 352. "Discourse," p. 101, note. Pedigree in Whitaker's
"Whalley," p. 339. Robert Shuttleworth (1784-1855) had an only daughter
Janet, who married, in 1842, Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth; the present
Lord Shuttleworth is their son (Burke's "Peerage"). Colonel Ughtred
Shuttleworth was committed to the Tower in March, 1651 ("C.S.P.," 1651,
p. 104).

[41] "C.W.T.," p. 351. "Discourse," p. 127. "Palatine Note Book," Vol.
3, pp. 137-140. Rigby's elder brother, George Rigby of Peel, was the
ancestor of the present Lord Kenyon.

[42] "C.W.T.," p. 349. "Discourse," pp. 101-2. "Martindale's Life," pp.
36-7. "There was such a pack of arrant thieves and they so artificial at
their trade, that it was scarce possible to save anything out of their
hands except what I could carry about with me or lodge in some other
house. Those that were not thieves (if there are any such) were
generally, if not universally, profaned bitter scoffers at piety." For
the surrender of Liverpool _vide_ "Hist. MSS. Com.," Rep. 10, app. 4,
pp. 102-3 (Depositions of Capt. Andrew Ashton concerning the loss of
Liverpool). It is here stated that when Moore heard of the royalists'
entry into the town he drew his sword and asked for volunteers, but his
men refused to follow him, and he then reluctantly proceeded to the
waterside, many shots being fired at him as he embarked. The fullest
account of Moore is in the "Moore Rental," pp. v-xxxix.

[43] "C.W.T.," p. 337. "Tanner MSS.," Vol. 59, fol. 503. Another
brother, Henry, became a prominent London merchant and philanthropist.




CHAPTER III.

The Siege of Manchester.


From the days when it was a Roman fortress Manchester had probably been
the most considerable place in Lancashire. Leland had referred to it in
the previous century as the "fairest best builded quickest and most
populous town of all Lancashire": and as in those days the ring of towns
now surrounding it, the creation of the cotton trade, were non-existent,
Manchester was in proportion larger than now. It was the principal
market for the fustians which were manufactured at Bolton, Leigh and the
places adjacent. The following quotation is from Lewis Robert's
"Merchant's Map of Commerce" written in 1641.

    "The town of Manchester buys the linen yarn of the Irish in great
    quantity and weaving it returns the same again to Ireland to sell;
    neither doth their industry rest here for they buy cotton wool in
    London that comes first from Cyprus and Smyrna and work the same
    into fustians vermilions dimities etc., which they return to London
    where they are sold, and from thence not seldom sent into such
    foreign parts where the first materials may be more easily had for
    their manufacture."

Though Manchester was in the 17th century no more than a small unwalled
town its position at the junction of the Irk and Irwell gave it some
natural strength on the north and west sides; but there were no walls or
defences of any kind. The town consisted of a half circle of houses
round the Collegiate Church, with Deansgate and Market Stead Lane
branching off to the south-west and south-east respectively. The
population was probably from 5000 to 6000, and of Salford about
one-fourth of that.[44] The bridges over the Irwell and Irk described by
Leland were still all that existed during the Civil War; but the Chapel
on Salford Bridge which he mentions had fallen into ruin, and was during
the war often used as a prison. All that now remains above ground of the
Manchester of that day besides a few old public houses and one street
corner is the Collegiate Church, now the Cathedral, and the old College,
which is now Chetham Hospital.

If the Civil War had not broken out when it did Manchester might have
attained a distinction for which it had to wait for another 250 years.
In March, 1640-1, a proposal was made to establish a University in the
town. A petition was presented to Parliament urging the great distance
of Oxford and Cambridge and the great expense which was incurred at
those places, "so that divers gentlemen are induced to send their sons
to foreign universities or to allow them only country breeding." It was
pointed out that the north of England generally would benefit "which by
reason of the distance from Court and University suffers a double
eclipse of honour and learning," and Manchester was stated to be the
fittest place, being central in position and an old town "formerly both
a city and a sanctuary." Lord Strange was much interested in the scheme
and had promised to contribute liberally towards it; and the old
College, at that time disused and much neglected, was indicated as a
very suitable place for the University to be established.

Unfortunately the success of this very interesting scheme was made
impossible by the agitated condition of public affairs. An attempt was
made to secure Lord Fairfax's support, but he pointed out that even if
the opposition of Oxford and Cambridge and other difficulties did not
prove insuperable, Parliament had no leisure to discuss matters of such
local interest. In view of the trials of Stafford and of Laud and the
state of church affairs, a Manchester University bill had no chance of a
hearing.[45]

It was fortunate for the Parliamentarian cause in Lancashire that the
largest town in the county was on its side. The 'very London of those
parts' had as much weight then as now in local affairs, though not its
present importance in the national life. The Civil War gave Manchester a
national position such as it had never had before. There was no doubt
that the majority of the townsmen were against the King; the town was
not unanimous as the affray on July 15 had shown, but the fact that the
Manchester magazine alone was not secured by the royalists is
significant enough; we cannot credit the statements made to the
contrary. Curiously enough, however, Salford was royalist in
sympathy.[46]

During September, 1642, it was definitely known in Manchester that Lord
Strange was collecting troops for an attack upon the town. Towards the
end of the month the Parliamentarian newspapers contained disquieting
rumours about the royalist plans. Lord Strange was said to have 1000
foot, and it was thought possible that Rupert, and even the King might
join him.[47] The situation was critical; for the majority of the county
was on his lordship's side, and there was no garrison in Manchester, and
no fortifications of any kind. The townsmen were able, however, to
secure the services of a capable engineer to direct the defence. This
was John Rosworm, a German by birth, who had seen service in the Low
Countries, and had been in Ireland until the insurrection there broke
out. He had come to Manchester early in the summer of 1642; and when the
war began entered into an agreement signed by 22 of the principal
citizens of Manchester to defend the town for 6 months for the sum of
£30.[48] This engagement was renewed 6 months later, and eventually
Rosworm remained in the service of the town for more than six years
at a salary of £60 a year. Also in January, 1642-3, he became
Lieutenant-Colonel in Assheton's regiment of foot. Rosworm was a capable
officer and served the town well; but his own estimate of his services
is much higher than anybody else's, and his statements about the arrears
owing to him from the town must have been greatly exaggerated. His
service during the siege, however, was most valuable. It was only in
September that he was engaged by the town, and he at once began to make
such defences as were possible, by building mud walls at the street
ends, and fixing posts and chains to keep out the enemy's horse. These
preparations were only just completed in time; and even so it
was accident rather than otherwise which gave the town another
reinforcement. Sir Edward Fitton and Mr. Leigh of Adlington beginning to
disarm their tenants, the supporters of the Parliament from all the
neighbourhood round Manchester flocked into the town and completely
silenced any objections which the royalists there were making to the
works. All the present suburbs of Manchester were not, however,
favourable to the Parliament. On September 24 one John Scholes being
sent to ring the bells at Prestwich Church 'backwards,' was prevented by
the Rector, Isaac Allen. Allen was afterwards deprived of his living,
but it was urged in his favour that he was a man of blameless life, and
he had not directed his parishioners to take either side in the war. In
1645 he was allowed £40 per annum for maintenance.

Lord Strange mustered his troops at Warrington, and it was 10 o'clock at
night on Saturday, Sept. 24, when news reached the town that he was on
his march. The distance is only 18 miles, but delayed by the breaking of
a wheel of one of the gun carriages and probably also by bad roads, his
troops did not arrive before the town until the following day. Their
numbers are variously stated from 2000 to 4000 men, and they were
probably about half way between these estimates. With Lord Strange were
Lord Molyneux, Sir Gilbert Hoghton, Sir Alexander Radcliffe, Sir John
Girlington, Sir Gilbert Gerard, Mr. Tyldesley, Mr. Farington and many
others of the royalist gentry of the south and west of Lancashire. The
force included four troops of horse and one of dragoons; the foot were
trained bands and some Welshmen. They were divided into two somewhere on
the march, one division keeping north of the Irwell and occupying
Salford, the other crossing the river and approaching Manchester by way
of Alport Lane. Lord Strange was with the latter party and took up his
quarters at Alport Lodge belonging to Sir Edward Mosley.[49]

When the royalists approached the alarm was given by ringing the bells
'backwards'; it was 9 o'clock on Sunday morning, and the townsmen were
called out of church. Two envoys were sent out to Lord Strange, who kept
one of them with him for some hours, sending the other back with Captain
Windebank to demand an entrance into the town; he promised to respect
life and property if this were conceded. This demand was of course
refused, and next day hostilities began.[50]

[Illustration: A PLAN OF MANCHESTER and SALFORD about 1650.]

The Parliamentary troops in the town, which numbered about 1000,
consisted partly of the militia under the command of Captain Radcliffe
and partly of those who had come in from the surrounding country to its
assistance. The best of the latter were 150 tenants of Mr. Assheton of
Middleton under Captain Bradshaw. The various positions had already been
assigned. Bradshaw was posted at the end of Deansgate; Salford Bridge,
which he rather unreasonably calls "the only place of manifest danger,
greatest action and least defence," Rosworm took for himself; Captain
Radcliffe held Market Stead Lane and Captain Booth Millgate. Lieutenant
Barwick was posted in Hunt's Bank; and on Shudehill 'a company of
resolute soldiers without any commander.' The guns or gun, for perhaps
there was only one, defended Bradshaw's position, which was really the
most difficult.[51]

On Monday morning Lord Strange sent another message formally demanding
all the arms in the town to be delivered up, and quarter for a troop of
his horse; but the townsmen replied that this was forbidden by the
Protestation, and by Ordinance of Parliament. About mid-day the royalist
batteries opened fire, shooting bullets of 4 lbs., 6 lbs., and 8 lbs.
weight; but little damage was done except to the houses. They then
attacked Deansgate at close quarters and setting fire to some buildings
at the end of the town, almost effected an entrance. Rosworm was obliged
to send 20 of his 50 musketeers as reinforcement, and the royalists were
at length driven back with some loss. Later in the afternoon an assault
was also made on Salford Bridge, but this was more easily repulsed as
the royalists had there to charge uphill, and their position was
commanded by the higher ground of the churchyard. There is also said to
have been a royalist attack of horse against the east of the town, but
this also was beaten off. Firing continued until dark, and at midnight a
party of royalists went down to the water's edge in Salford, and
attempted to set fire to the town by means of lighted faggots. The
royalists are said to have lost 120 men against 3 of the defenders.[52]

Next day no direct attacks were delivered at Deansgate or the Bridge.
The former seems to have been left quite free, but a cannonade was begun
by the royalists in Salford which so terrified Rosworm's raw soldiers
that 16 of them took to their heels; and he says that some of those who
stayed did so from fear of his drawn sword.[53] As he had sent away 20
of his men on the previous day only 14 now remained at this important
position; but volunteers brought up his men to their original number
again. On this day the other street ends were attacked by the royalists,
especially Market Stead Lane; but they were beaten back at all points.
Gaining confidence, the townsmen began to sally out on their own account
and cut off several small parties which were straggling in the fields.
Seven troopers with their horses were taken and one quarter-master shot
with the loss of two of the garrison.

At 5 o'clock in the afternoon Lord Strange called a parley and again
proposed surrender; after some negotiation a truce was agreed upon until
7 o'clock on the following morning, but it seems to have been observed
by neither side.[54] Lord Strange's proposals were considered, but it
was not likely that after having repelled his attacks for two days the
townsmen would be more ready to treat than before; and all the royalist
terms were refused.[55] Strange made many proposals, less and less being
asked for on each refusal. First he demanded to march through the town,
then £1000 in money, then 200 muskets; finally he offered to depart if
50 muskets were surrendered. "The town said they would not give him so
much as a rusty dagger"[56]; and next day hostilities were resumed.

The defenders were, however, not quite so unanimous as the defiant
replies would suggest. There was a party in the town led by Colonel
Holland the Governor, which desired to come to terms with the royalists.
They pointed out that the stock of ammunition was running very low,
and that the country people who had come in as volunteers were
becoming restive owing to the plundering by the royalists in the
neighbourhood.[57] Rosworm describes a scene when Holland on Wednesday
afternoon came down to him at the Bridge urging these considerations;
Rosworm referred the matter to his soldiers, who declared they would
stand firm, and Holland went away in anger. Shortly after this Mr.
Bourne, the aged fellow of the Collegiate Church coming by, Rosworm
urged him to go along Deansgate to Bradshaw's men and persuade them if
necessary to resist. They, however, needed no persuasion but declared
"by a general shout that they would part with their arms and their lives
together."[58] It was perhaps a concession to the faint-hearted that on
the following day Mr. Alexander Butterworth of Belfield was sent towards
London for aid.[59]

There was, however, no need to bring help from London or anywhere else,
for the royalist attack was nearly spent. When hostilities were resumed
the Parliamentarians were the assailants. At 10 o'clock on Thursday,
September 29, 200 men sallied out from Deansgate to relieve a house
which had been occupied by the royalists; they were attacked by 100
musketeers and a troop of horse, but after an hour's fighting the
royalists were defeated, most of the horse being driven into the river
and an officer[60] and two men drowned. The losses are given as 13 on
each side and the town made two prisoners. In Salford some guns
previously placed in a position which was commanded by the churchyard
were removed. On this day also the royalists lost one of their leaders
in Salford, Captain Standish, who was shot by a marksman posted at the
top of the church tower.[61] There was no further fighting after this.
The following day desultory firing continued from Deansgate and Salford,
and at the former position the royalists began to dig a trench as if
they intended to establish a blockade; but it was only a pretence for
they dared no longer to come to close quarters.[62] On Saturday the Earl
of Derby, as he now was from his father's death on the previous day,
sent for an exchange of prisoners, of which the town is said to have
taken 85. The royalists made up their number by seizing non-combatants
from the surrounding district. When the exchange had been effected the
royalists decamped in such haste that Rosworm was able to send out a
party openly to capture their arms.

It is not very easy to estimate satisfactorily the losses on both sides
during the six days of the siege. We have very full details, but
unfortunately all the accounts are written by Parliamentarians, and no
one-sided descriptions of Civil War battles can be relied upon. Heyrick
for instance roundly says of the Monday operations when fighting was the
most severe of all, "in this day's fight blessed be God we lost not one
man." One writer states that the townsmen lost no one at all except one
boy who was looking on from a stile; and they all estimate the royalist
casualties at some hundreds. It is of course to be expected that few of
the defenders were killed but surprising that many lives were lost at
all. Seventeenth century musketry was very erratic, and the besieger's
cannon was probably wholly useless; and the combatants came to close
quarters very little except on the first day of the siege. The
"Sutherland Diary," which seems altogether the most accurate and
moderate account estimates the royalist losses at 220 killed and 85
prisoners; detailed losses of the defenders amount only to 19. But on
the first day the losses are said to be 125 and 3 respectively, which
sounds very unlikely. It is, however, not possible to arrive at any
greater accurateness for all the accounts agree in the main that about
80 prisoners were taken by the town, and that the royalists lost from
100 to 250 men. Nineteen is the largest total given for the defenders'
losses.[63] A very glowing picture of the state of the town during the
siege is given by Heyrick and other writers. Heyrick says "our Souldiers
from first to last had prayers and singing of Psalmes daily at the
street ends, most of our Souldiers being religious honest men of a
civill and inoffensive conversation, which came out of conscience of
their oath and protestation. The Townsmen were kind and respective to
the Souldiers; all things were common: the Gentlemen made bullets night
and day; the Souldiers were resolute and coragious and feared nothing so
much as a Parley; the deputy Lieutenants, Captaine Chantwell and other
gentlemen took paines night and day to see that the Souldiers did their
duty."[64]

If this description is not somewhat overdrawn, it is because the town
did not stand by itself in the matter of defence. The neighbouring
Deputy-Lieutenants and Bradshaw's men probably did much not only in
numbers but in moral effect to strengthen the resistance. For there was
certainly a party in the town less inclined to stand out. Manchester
contained many royalists; and as we have seen, they were at least the
majority in Salford. Probably Lord Strange counted on a far less
stubborn resistance than he encountered; and judging by the support
given him in July he was justified in doing so. This may have had
something to do with the badly organised state of his force, though
there is no need to credit all the stories which the other side told
about its composition. It was evidently without discipline or
efficiency;[65] and the attack was ill-planned and conducted with no
vigour. The royalists attacked Manchester which was not a strong
position on the whole, at two of its strongest points. At Deansgate they
had no advantage of ground, and in Salford they were at a disadvantage,
having to advance across a narrow sloping bridge which was commanded by
the higher opposite bank of the river; whereas at Shude Hill or at
Market Stead Lane the royalists would have had the advantage of ground,
and their guns would have proved much more effective at these positions
than pointing up Salford Bridge. The principal attacks should have been
delivered at these two points.

The weather was no doubt an item in favour of the town. It was a very
wet week, and not only did the rain make communication impossible
between the two divisions of the royalists, for the Irwell rises rapidly
in flood; but as the besiegers were mostly out in the open the
discomfort of their position served to demoralise them still further.

"By reason of cold and wet hunger and thirst and labour want of sleep
and a bitter welcome that we gave them, their hearts were discouraged
mightily."[66]

Moreover no attempt was made by the royalists to blockade the town,
which kept open communications during all the week of the siege. It was,
however, a mistake to divide the royalist forces at all.

Nevertheless Manchester might congratulate itself on a very
considerable and well deserved success. The thanksgivings of October
2nd, and of October 6th, when there was a special service in the church
for the soldiers, were amply justified; for it was the first trial of
strength, and the royalists were thought to be the stronger. The effect
of their failure was therefore very great. And it is surely not only
local pride which sees in the siege of Manchester an event which had an
importance quite out of proportion to that which is at first apparent.
As a Parliamentarian writer says, "had not that town stood very firmly
for the King and Parliament in all probability the whole county had
been brought into subjection to the oppression and violence of
the Cavaliers."[67] This is quite true. Manchester became the
Parliamentarian headquarters, though even after their first success that
party was for three months very largely on the defensive. Manchester was
the key of the position, and had it fallen in October, 1642, and
remained in royalist hands the King would have been supreme in the whole
county. And to have been supreme in Lancashire would have enormously
strengthened Charles' cause in all the north of England.

FOOTNOTES:

[44] The population is probably estimated from the list of Manchester
signatures to the Protestation of 1641-2, which are given at length in
the "Palatine Note Book," Vol. 1. This is supposed to be a complete list
of the householders in Manchester at the time. The whole total, however,
is 1,305, and as 120 or more are names of officers mostly outside the
town, and there are many reduplications besides, the estimate of 5,000
seems nearer the mark.

[45] "Fairfax Correspondence" (2 vols., 1848), Vol. 2, pp. 271-4. "Hist.
MSS. Com.," Rep. 9, app. 2, pp. 431-2. Fairfax writes to his brother,
Henry Fairfax, at Ashton-under-Lyne: a bill in Parliament would cost 100
marks, and would have very small chance of success.

[46] The Reeve of Salford at this time was Henry Wrigley, a successful
cloth merchant and banker. He gave £20 towards the £200 which was
subscribed for the building of Salford Chapel, the remainder being paid
by Humphrey Booth. Wrigley was Constable for Salford Hundred, and in
that capacity issued the summons under the Commission of Array for the
muster at Bury on July 14, 1642. He was a lukewarm royalist, however,
and prevented two of his servants from joining the royalist army.
Afterwards he closed his house and fled to London, where he appeared
definitely on the Parliament's side. Attempts were afterwards made to
convict him as a malignant, but without success. Wrigley, who was a very
prosperous merchant, afterwards lived at Chamber Hall, near Oldham. He
was one of Humphrey Chetham's executors and High Sheriff of Lancashire
in 1651. ("Palatine Note Book," Vol. 3. pp. 103, 104.)

[47] "Perfect Diurnall" (Cooke), Sept., 19-26. "Perfect Diurnall" (Cooke
and Wood), Sept., 19-26. "The Cavaliers have disarmed most of
Lancashire; Lord Wharton has been ordered north."

[48] Rosworm's connection with Manchester is given in greatest detail in
his "Good Service Hitherto Ill-Rewarded ("C.W.T.," pp. 215-244), which
was an appeal to Parliament against the arrears of his salary from the
town; and it cannot therefore be called an impartial account of his
services. His estimate of himself is always a great deal higher than
that given by other writers. Moreover his complaints of arrears would
seem to have been considerably exaggerated. From the "Good Service" one
would gather that the town never paid Rosworm anything at all; there
are, however, given in "C.W.T.," pp. 246, 247, particulars showing that
Rosworm was paid £135 between Dec., 1644, and July, 1647, which is not
very far short of his amount due for the period. He also received £28 in
1648 ("Chetham Miscellanies," Vol. 2, New Series, No. 63; "Manchester
Civic Records). It must be remembered that our information of payments
made is necessarily very fragmentary. The details in "C.W.T." are said
to be "from an old Book of Accounts of the town of Manchester in the
custody of the Boroughreeve," but it is an example of the way in which
the Manchester Municipal Records have been neglected that this book does
not now exist, and no information as to its contents can be obtained.

In 1651 Rosworm was recommended by the Council of State to be employed
as engineer at Yarmouth, where some works were to be erected in prospect
of an attempted landing by the enemy ("C.S.P.," 1649-50, pp. 225-235).

[49] Alport Lodge stood half a mile from the town, on the site of the
present Great Northern Goods Station. It seems to have been burnt down
by accident during the siege. Sir Edward Mosley contributed £20,000 to
the royal cause. He afterwards joined Sir Thomas Aston in Cheshire, and
was taken prisoner near Middlewich. One-tenth levied on his estate
amounted to £4,874. His pardon was passed by Parliament in October,
1647. (Axon, "Lancashire Gleanings," p. 3. "H. L. Calendar, Hist. MSS.
Com.," Vol. 6.)

[50] The principal authorities for the Siege of Manchester are a number
of Tracts in the Thomason Collection:--"Newes from Manchester"; "A True
and Faithfull Relation of the Besieging of the Town of Manchester,
etc."; "A True and Exact Relation of the Several Passages at the Siege
of Manchester, etc."; "A True and Perfect Relation of the Proceedings at
Manchester, etc.," E. 121 (13). The first two of these are given in
"C.W.T.," pp. 44 and 49; the third is summarised in the appendix to that
volume, p. 332. The fourth Tract differs greatly from the other
accounts. There are also several other Tracts of little value. To these
must be added Rosworm's narrative ("C.W.T.," pp. 219-223) and that in
Lancashire's "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," pp. 111-123). And perhaps the
most interesting account of all is the Diary contained in the Sutherland
MSS., "Hist. MSS. Comm.," Report 5, p. 142. The present writer
contributed an essay on the Siege of Manchester to the "Owens College
Historical Essays" (1902), p. 377.

[51] The Captain Bradshaw here mentioned was probably Robert Bradshaw,
younger brother of John Bradshaw, of Bradshaw Hall, near Bolton, Sheriff
of Lancashire in 1645 (often wrongly confused with President Bradshaw).
He did good service in command of the Assheton tenantry at Manchester:
"Captain Bradshaw hath quit himself most valiantly to his everlasting
renown; he prays with his soldiers every day himself," E. 240 (23). His
name does not, however, appear much afterwards, but if he was the
Captain Bradshaw who was taken prisoner later in the year, and carried
to Lathom House, he died soon after his release from there. The
"Discourse" calls him "a very moderate man and of good parts" (p. 20).

Richard Radcliffe lived at Radcliffe Hall, a moated house then standing
south of Market Stead Lane. It was afterwards called Pool Fold, and the
name is still preserved. The Hall was pulled down in 1811. This is
usually supposed to have been the Richard Radcliffe who was elected
Member of Parliament for Manchester in Cromwell's Parliament of 1656;
but as he is called 'old Mr. Radcliffe' in the following year, this may
be doubted. The return of the Burgess to Parliament in 1656 simply calls
the Member "Richard Radcliffe, Esquire, of Manchester." Radcliffe served
at the second defence of Bolton against the royalists in 1643.
("C.W.T.," p. 351. "Manchester Municipal Records." "Palatine Note Book,"
Vol. 3, pp. 265-6.)

Captain, afterwards Colonel, John Booth, was the fifth son of Sir George
Booth, Lord of the Manor of Warrington; for a full account of his career
_vide_ a note in the "Discourse," p. 120-122. He must be distinguished
from Colonel (afterwards Sir George) Booth, grandson of the Sir George
Booth referred to, who at first fought on the Parliament's side, but
headed a rising for Charles the Second in 1659, and became first Lord
Delamere after the Restoration.

[52] These numbers sound very disproportionate, but the statement is
made in the "Sutherland MSS.," which seems much the most reliable in the
matter of numbers. "These were estimated," the account continues, "from
the graves found in the fields about the town, and five more were found
in the sands of the river; and it is supposed that more were cast into
the river, among whom was Mr. Mountain, a Colonel of horse, and Captain
Skirton and a lieutenant, with others of note" ("Hist. MSS. Com.," Vol.
5, p. 142). The tract called "A True and Faithful Relation, etc.," which
is supposed to have been written by Heyrick, says roundly: "In this
day's fight, blessed be to God, we lost not one man."

Richard Heyrick, the Warden of the Collegiate Church, was son of Sir
William Heyrick, Alderman of London, who afterwards lived at Beaumanor,
in Leicestershire. He was born in London in 1600, became Rector of North
Repps, in Norfolk, and Warden of Manchester in 1635, his father
obtaining the Wardenship for him in satisfaction of some monetary
transactions with the Crown. Heyrick was a man of great energy, and was
the leader of the Presbyterian party in Manchester. He was a cousin of
Herrick the poet. (Art. by C. W. Sutton, "Dictionary of National
Biography.")

[53] No other account mentions this incident.

[54] The royalists continued plundering, if they suspended their actual
attacks upon the town; and evidently the garrison took opportunity to
bring in reinforcements. They came from Bolton, and two of them were
killed by the royalists during a skirmish outside the town; "Coming
peaceably with 150 more to assist the town," Heyrick says quaintly
("C.W.T.," p. 55).

[55] The terms offered are variously stated, the fullest account being
given in a tract entitled, "The Lord Strange, his Demands, etc."
("C.W.T.," p. 47). Rosworm mentions only a demand for 100 muskets.
Heyrick says that the question was finally referred to the soldiers,
"who all resolutely answered they would not give him a yard of match,
but would maintain their cause and arms to the last drop of blood."

[56] "Sutherland MSS."

[57] "As also their foot plundered, which gave the occasion and example
for all the plundering that after happened in the county" ("Discourse,"
P. 7).

Richard Holland (afterwards Colonel in the service of the Parliament)
lived at Heaton, in Prestwich. He was a magistrate and sequestrator, and
served at Preston, Wigan and the first siege of Lathom House. Rosworm
was his bitter enemy, and accused him of great cowardice.

[58] The shortage of ammunition was evidently a very grave danger, for
all the accounts mention it. Rosworm confesses that he had only 6 lbs.
of powder and 18 fathom of match left, but he had told no one. Cf. a
letter from Sir John Hotham to the Speaker on Nov. 25, 1642, in which he
refers to his having sent from Hull five barrels of powder to Manchester
"when they were in that extremity with Lord Strange" ("Portland MSS.,"
Vol. 1, p. 174). This powder arrived on Oct. 14 ("C.W.T.," p. 122). The
"Valley of Achor" refers to the fact that the very wet weather made the
country people more willing to stay in Manchester, it being harvest time
("C.W.T.," p. 118).

Rev. William Bourne was senior fellow of the Collegiate Church. He died
in the following year. He "had long been a blessing to the town, and had
seen a resurrection of it from the Plague, nigh forty years before"
(evidently the visitation of 1605), and "was lifted up from the gates of
death and raised in spirit to promote this work."

[59] Cf. also a letter dated Sept. 26, signed by Holland, Booth, Egerton
and Hide, to Colonels Shuttleworth and Starkie "at Haslingden or
elsewhere," asking them to send powder and match for the relief of
Manchester ("Lancs. Lieutenancy," pt. 2, p. 273).

[60] This was Captain Snell, who "had two rings on his hands worth £20"
("Sutherland MSS.").

[61] Captain Thomas Standish was not of the royalist family of that name
at Standish; that branch was represented at the siege of Manchester by
its head, Ralph Standish, the uncle of Lord Molyneux and father-in-law
of Colonel Tyldesley; but was the eldest son of Thomas Standish of
Duxbury, near Chorley, Shuttleworth's colleague as M.P. for Preston.
Heyrick says he was killed whilst "reproaching his soldiers because they
would not fall on," but the "Discourse" less picturesquely, but probably
with more accuracy, that "quartered in a house upon the north side of
Salford, well up towards the Chapel, was, by a bullet shot from the top
of Manchester Steeple, slain" (p. 7). The "Sutherland Diary" gives a
touch of human interest in the statement, "He was to have married Mr.
Archbould's kinswoman, who married Sir John Harper of Cork." There is no
doubt that the loss of Standish was a serious blow to the attack.

[62] "On Friday Lord Strange's forces were so scattered that they durst
not come within pistol shot of the town" ("Sutherland Diary"). When
Derby requested an exchange of prisoners and a cessation of plundering,
the town retorted that they had not plundered at all, but his lordship
had done so much damage "that £10,000 would not make a recompense"
("C.W.T.," p. 55).

[63] These figures are from the authorities cited above. The only
independent estimate is in a letter from Stephen Charlton to Sir R.
Leveson: "News confirmed by several letters from Manchester that they of
the town have slain about 300 of Lord Strange's forces" ("Hist. MSS.
Com.," Vol. 5, p. 161).

[64] The "Valley of Achor" goes further than this: "A spirit of Piety
and Devotion in Prayers and singing of Psalms rested generally upon
Persons and families, yea Taverns and Innes where it might not put in
the head formerly" ("C.W.T.," p. 120). Cf. however "Salford Portmote
Records," C.S. (new series), 48, Vol. 2, p. 77; on Oct. 16, 1644, Edward
Rosterne was presented "for making an affray on the Bridge with the
soldiers that kept the Bridge there."

[65] It was stated that the royalist forces had been summoned to
Warrington to meet the King, and the direction of their march was at
first concealed from them. "The Lord Strange's Souldiers some of them
wept, others protested great unwillingness to fight against Manchester,
affirming they were deceived and deluded else they had not come hither"
("C.W.T.," p. 56).

[66] "A True and Exact Relation of the Several Passages at the Siege of
Manchester," etc., E. 121 (45).

[67] "Exceeding Joyful News out of Lancashire, etc." ("C.W.T.," p. 103).
Cf. "Clarendon" (Macray), Vol. 6, p. 67: "For Manchester the Lord
Strange, who had by His Majesty's favour and encouragement recovered his
spirits (after the impeachment), undertook, without troubling His
Majesty further northward in a very short time to reduce that place
(which was not so fortunately performed because not so resolutely
pursued) and to send a good body of foot to the King to Shrewsbury."




CHAPTER IV.

First Operations of the Manchester Garrison.

Capture of Preston.


When the House of Commons met on Monday, Oct. 3, letters were read
giving information of Lord Strange's retreat. It was, however, feared
that he would very soon return to make another attempt. There was a
false alarm in Manchester on the same day that the royalists were coming
back, and the rumours were repeated on October 5 and October 10; and at
intervals all through the rest of the month the town lived in fear of a
second royalist attack. It was again reported in the newspapers that the
King was to join the Earl of Derby against Manchester and then to march
into Yorkshire against the Hothams.[68] Fortunately all these rumours
were false. Manchester was never to see any more fighting and only once
again the march of a hostile army. And there was never any real prospect
at this time of Charles invading Lancashire. The Earl of Derby sent some
of his troops to join the royal army, but he does not seem to have
himself joined the King.

Parliament had realised the importance of retaining Manchester, and
already during the siege a commission had been issued for raising 1000
dragoons under Sir John Seaton for service in Lancashire. Unfortunately
it was easier to issue commissions than to carry them out; in spite of
newspaper reports to the contrary the dragoons had not reached
Manchester by the end of November. Indeed it is doubtful whether they
were ever sent at all, though Seaton was in command in Lancashire early
in the new year.[69] Supplies of powder were, however, sent to
Manchester; a large amount reached the town on October 22, besides that
which had been sent from Hull; though several convoys were intercepted
by the royalists, one on its way from Worcester, one by Sir Edward
Mosley at Stafford, and one later on October 24. Mr. Assheton had also a
warrant from the Speaker for conveying four small brass pieces to
Manchester and one for the defence of his own house at Middleton.[70]
The whole county was organised for military purposes by the Parliament,
companies being raised and Colonels appointed for each Hundred; Assheton
and Holland in Salford Hundred, Shuttleworth and Nicholas Starkie in
Blackburn, Rigby for Amounderness and Leyland, Moore and Peter Egerton
in West Derby, and Mr. Dodding for Lonsdale Hundred. The local captains
were those who had already served at the siege of Manchester, Birch,
Bradshaw, Radcliffe and Venables. Salford Hundred was the most active
for the Parliament, and Manchester led the way. The troops there were
steadily drilled, the magazine replenished, and fortifications
considerably strengthened. Not content with this the garrison began to
make small expeditions on its own account to plunder the houses of
royalists in the neighbourhood.[71] Alport Lodge where Lord Strange and
Tyldesley had stayed during the siege was destroyed;[72] a party was
sent to disarm the town of Bury, where the first royalist musters had
been made; and Captain Birch led a force into Blackburn Hundred to
capture Townley Hall. As soon, however, as the war had actually broken
out men began to realise what consequences its long continuance may
have. It was, writes Clarendon, "the opinion of most that a battle would
determine all"; and when Edgehill had been fought and small skirmishes
occurring in all parts of the country had left matters much as they
were, local attempts at pacification began to be made in many places.
These merely attempted to make a temporary arrangement for cessation,
and were quite distinct from the negotiations between King and
Parliament which continued all through the autumn of 1642. Questions of
principle were not raised, and as the local opponents had usually been
on good terms before the war began, it was not difficult for them to
come to some agreement. In Devon and Cornwall a treaty was entered into
by the two parties; in Yorkshire and in Cheshire, and no doubt in other
counties also, pacifications were arranged. Parliament, however,
steadily refused to countenance them, and the position was no doubt a
sound one.

In Lancashire negotiations were opened through the medium of Roger
Nowell of Read, a royalist captain, but a relative of Colonel
Shuttleworth, and it was decided to attempt a meeting of a certain
number from each party at Blackburn on Thursday, October 13.
Shuttleworth wrote to Holland and Egerton in Manchester asking for their
co-operation, and they replied on October 10 agreeing to the meeting,
but suggesting Bolton as a better place since they were not willing to
leave their own Hundred. Shuttleworth replied next day to Nowell naming
Bolton as the place, and offering either the following Monday or
Tuesday, October 17 or 18 for the date. Nowell fixed October 18 with
William Farington, and it was arranged that six leaders from each side
should meet. The Parliamentarians were Shuttleworth, Starkie, Egerton,
Holland, John Bradshaw and John Braddyl; the royalists Farington,
Alexander Rigby of Burgh, John Fleetwood, Savile Radcliffe, and it was
hoped Sir Thomas Barton and Robert Holt of Castleton. But the intended
meeting never took place. Parliament somehow had news of the
arrangement, and promptly put their veto upon it. On October 15 Holland
wrote from Manchester that Parliament had forbidden any local attempts
at pacification; Shuttleworth forwarded the letter to the royalists, and
the incident closed.[73]

There seems to have been one further attempt to bring about a
pacification in Lancashire, or perhaps it would be more correct to say
that Manchester was included in negotiations which were proceeding in
Cheshire at the initiative of Lord Kilmorey and Lord Brereton. It was
proposed that the troops in and near Manchester should be disbanded and
the town 'secured' by the Earl of Derby. But the Parliamentarians had
nothing to gain by the terms suggested, and the former failure had made
them more cautious. They replied that they had done nothing consciously
to provoke Lord Derby's hostility; but that if satisfactory proposals
for pacification were submitted they would send them up to Parliament
immediately by a special messenger.[74] Meanwhile the royalists in the
county were also arming, and in spite of peace proposals all
preparations were being made for a protracted struggle. After retreating
a little way from Manchester Lord Derby seems to have sent some
regiments to the King and made his own headquarters at Warrington. But
he was reported to be in a very despondent frame of mind, "for the last
Thursday (November 24) at Warrington at dinner he said he was born under
an unfortunate planet and that he thought some evil constellation
reigned at the time of his birth, with many such other words of passion
and discontent." There was even a report about this time that his life
was in danger, which is the more credible as it comes from a royalist
source. He summoned a meeting of his supporters on October 10 at
Warrington,[75] and it was resolved to call out the trained bands and
freehold bands of Lancashire and to raise horse, and also to bring about
an association with the counties of Shropshire, Flint, Denbigh,
Cumberland and Westmorland. The resolutions were signed by Derby and 23
others; it is rather surprising to find that the Parliamentarian leaders
were also summoned to this meeting.[76] Shuttleworth and Starkie
certainly had invitations, and probably some others also. The chief
royalist garrisons were established at Warrington, Wigan and Preston.
Wigan was the nearest town to Lathom House, and was described by its
opponents as the "most malignant town in all the county"; Warrington,
however, on account of its geographical importance as commanding the
only bridge into Cheshire, was the most strongly fortified, and
contained the most numerous garrison. At the end of October the
Parliamentarian leaders had information that there were royalist troops
to the number of 1400 in six garrisons, of which 400 were at Warrington,
300 at Preston and 200 at Wigan.[77] In December another royalist
meeting was held at Preston and the organisation was further completed.
Collectors were appointed for every Hundred to raise the sum of £8,700
to be employed for the payment of 2000 foot and 400 horse and for the
provision of a magazine. The collectors were Girlington and Roger Kirkby
for Lonsdale Hundred; Adam Mort, Mayor of Preston, and Alexander Rigby
of Burgh for Amounderness; Farington and John Fleetwood for Leyland;
Henry Ogle, John Bretherton and Robert Mercer for West Derby; Robert
Holt and Francis Sherington for Salford; and Sir John Talbot and
Radcliffe Assheton for Blackburn. The rates of pay were fixed; and
Girlington, Mort, Kirkby and James Anderton or any three of them were to
form a standing council at Preston to give reports periodically to Lord
Derby, and having power to summon other advisers as they pleased.[78]

Actual hostilities began again about the end of November, and for two
months in spite of the winter, there was constant fighting in various
parts of the county. The climax of the campaign, which on the whole went
greatly in favour of the Parliamentarians, was their capture of
Preston in February, 1642-3. A number of skirmishes occurred almost
simultaneously at the end of November, the first being in Blackburn
Hundred.[79] There had been a general meeting of royalists at Preston on
November 7, and a week or two later Sir Gilbert Hoghton fired his beacon
as a signal to the Fylde. Hoghton Tower occupies a conspicuous position,
and the light of the beacon would be seen all over the low lying country
nearer the sea. With the troops thus raised he disarmed Whalley and
occupied Blackburn. Colonels Shuttleworth and Starkie, hearing of this,
hastily raised 8000 men and attacked the royalists by night. Moonlight
prevented a complete surprise, but the victory was complete. After two
hours fighting they gained an entrance into Blackburn, and the royalists
fled in such haste that they left their own arms and all that they had
seized in Whalley. Hoghton himself escaped with difficulty.

A few days after this engagement, on Sunday, November 27, a skirmish
occurred in which Lord Derby's troops were concerned, though it does not
appear that he himself was present. The countryside was going to church
when a post rode in with the news that the Earl's troops were marching
towards Chowbent; about 3000 men were hastily collected against him and
a running fight ensued all the way to Leigh, some two miles distant. The
royalists were gradually driven back, some being killed and many
wounded. On Lowton Common, two miles beyond Leigh, they turned and faced
the Parliamentarian horse which had left the foot far behind; but after
a short stand they again broke and fled, many prisoners being taken in
the pursuit.[80]

It is worthy of remark that most of the actual fighting during the Civil
War in Lancashire was running fighting. This first instance is only one
of many more in the next few years. The decisive battle in the county
covered many miles of ground, and even the battle of Preston itself was,
after Langdale's first stand, a long and straggling engagement half way
across the county. Attacks on houses or towns excepted, there were few
if any pitched battles until that at Wigan Lane in 1651, which was the
last battle of the war.

The next encounter went in favour of the royalists, and, as all the
Parliamentarians admit, it was a great disaster. During the next few
weeks both parties sent out from their garrisons plundering expeditions
against houses in the neighbourhood which belonged to the other side. In
retaliation for some plunder by the Wigan garrison, a local company of
Parliamentarians together with two from Manchester, attacked the house
of a Roman Catholic gentleman near Wigan. They were surprised by a
superior force of royalists, but abandoning their booty they managed to
escape. A day or two afterwards, however, they were again surprised near
Westhoughton by a force of 1000 men, and being surrounded they were all
compelled to surrender at discretion. This was on December 15, 1642; 160
men together with Captains Bradshaw and Venables were captured. Venables
was probably some months in captivity at Lathom House; Bradshaw was
released earlier, but soon afterwards died.[81]

This was, however, the only royalist success for some time to come.
The two remaining engagements of the year went in favour of the
Parliamentarians. Both took place on Christmas Eve. On that day the
Manchester garrison accompanied by Rosworm marched out by way of
Chowbent, which they cleared of the enemy, to Leigh. This was a
measure of retaliation for plundering by the Wigan garrison in the
neighbourhood. The royalists made some resistance, but being largely
outnumbered by the attacking force they were surrounded and overpowered.
The Parliamentarians marched on the market place from different sides,
and they recovered many of the arms which had been captured a fortnight
before. The victory was regarded with great satisfaction as a revenge
for Venables' surrender. Within three days the Parliamentarian troops
were back in Manchester. The other engagement was also fought on
previously contested ground at Blackburn, in this case the assailants
being the royalists. Sir Gilbert Hoghton had a special case against this
garrison as it was only three miles from his own house. Accordingly on
Christmas Eve he marched out of Blackburn, it was said with 5000 men, to
attack the town. The garrison numbered only 400. But there was no
fighting at close quarters; the royalists had with them one small piece
of cannon which they discharged repeatedly without effect, but they
hardly approached within musket shot at all, and under cover of night
they retreated. No lives were lost and the only result was the
plundering of the countryside.[82]

In January, 1642-3, there was very little done by either side. Some
Manchester troops set out to capture the house of Mr. Leigh at Adlington
in Cheshire, but they returned without doing anything. The only other
incident was an unsuccessful plot by Sir John Talbot, which is reported
incorrectly in details though there seems to be no doubt of the main
facts. Talbot was one of the royalist collectors for Blackburn Hundred
and lived at Salesbury Hall near Ribchester. Early in January he invited
some of the Parliamentarian leaders to pay a visit to his house; but
suspecting some treachery they sent a troop of horse instead, and found
that it was a plot to capture the supposed guests. Returning with
reinforcements they attacked the ambush with superior numbers and sacked
the house.

The next trial of strength, the capture of Preston by the
Parliamentarians, was an important event. Confident in its strength and
thinking no doubt that an attack was improbable, the royalists had
relaxed their vigilance, and Preston was only weakly garrisoned. News of
this being brought to Colonel Shuttleworth, he planned a joint attack
with the Manchester garrison, which was now under the command of Sir
John Seaton. Seaton left Manchester on Monday evening, February 6,
accompanied by Colonel Holland, Serg.-Major Birch, Serg.-Major Sparrow,
Captain Booth and other officers, with three foot companies from
Manchester and three from Bolton. They came to Blackburn on Tuesday
night, and were joined there by four or five companies more. These
altogether numbering about 1000 men together with about 600 'club-men'
set out from Blackburn late on Wednesday evening, February 8, for
Preston, which is ten miles away. It was a clear night and the whole
force having crossed Ribble Bridge, which was almost if not entirely
undefended, drew up in the fields a little distance from the town walls.
The attack was made at about half past seven o'clock, a little while
before sunrise, at two places. A few men attacked from the south and the
main body from the east of the town; the former being guided by somebody
familiar to the ground soon gained an entrance, but elsewhere the
royalists offered a most determined resistance. For two hours the
garrison fought stoutly. There were outer and inner walls, and the
garrison kept both with pikes and swords. Captain John Booth showed
conspicuous bravery, and was the first to scale the outer defences,
bidding his soldiers either follow him or give him up; in another place
a small body of the Parliamentarians driven back from the outer walls
gained entrance by means of a house. The Manchester troops under
Holland showed great bravery. After other resistance had been overcome
the royalists occupied the church tower, and were dislodged with
difficulty. Then the defence collapsed, and the besiegers became masters
of the town. The losses do not seem to have been very great on either
side; but the royalists' killed included Adam Mort, the Mayor, and his
son, both energetic supporters of the cause, Radcliffe Hoghton,
brother of Sir Gilbert Hoghton, and others of note. Very few of the
Parliamentarian officers were killed. There were many prisoners taken,
including Lady Hoghton, Lady Girlington, Mr. Towneley, Mr. Anderton of
Clayton, a son of Sir John Talbot, and a nephew of Sir Gilbert Hoghton.
Sir Gilbert only saved himself by a hasty flight to Wigan.[83]

The capture of Preston was an enormous blow to the King's party in
Lancashire. An account, written by John Tilsley, Vicar of Dean,
describes the engagement as "much to the advancement of the public work
in this county and not so altogether impertinent to the Kingdom"; and
there is justification for his statement. In attacking Preston the
Manchester garrison were venturing for the first time right into the
enemy's country. No longer on the defensive as at the end of 1642, they
were now reversing the original position of the two parties in the
county. And if the royalist standard had fallen at Preston it could
hardly be raised with safety anywhere in Lancashire. Preston was also
important geographically, as being on the main road through Lancashire.
"It blocks up the way to all the north-east part of Lancashire, where
were the chief malignants and the cream of the Earl's forces."[84]
Moreover Preston symbolised the royalist cause, and since it was (as it
still is) a stronghold of Roman Catholicism, it was specially obnoxious
to the Puritan party. The Lancashire Parliamentarians, therefore, had
captured their enemy's stronghold and broken the lines of communication
between Newcastle, Chester and Shrewsbury.

FOOTNOTES:

[68] On Monday, October 3, the state of Lancashire was referred to the
Committee of Safety. Thanks were voted on the 6th. The "Valley of Achor"
gives details of the false alarms ("C.J.," Vol. 2, p. 792. "C.W.T.," p.
122. "Perfect Diurnall," Oct. 15).

[69] Some troops of horse are mentioned at first, but not afterwards. It
was intended to borrow £16,000 in London for this purpose at the usual
rate of 8 per cent. "All persons who are willing to go soldiers in the
service under Col. Sir John Seaton as dragoniers, are to resort to Capt.
Henry Legh at the Sign of the Sun near Cripplegate, and Capt. William
Stackhouse at his house in St. Thomas Apostles, and there are to be
listed for that service" ("L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 377). In "England's
Memorable Accidents," Oct. 17-24, mention is made of the 1,000 dragoons
being on their march. Some of these dragoons are part of those men that
came out of Holland in the ship that was forced by a leak to put into
Yarmouth ("C.W.T.," p. 60). A letter written on Dec. 2, however, makes
it clear that the men had not arrived then, and it is doubtful if they
ever did so. Cf. "Tanner MSS." 59, fol. 683, where Rigby speaks of the
"remains of the money raised for the Lancashire dragoniers taken into
the Lord General Essex's army."

[70] "C.J.," Vol. 2, p. 833. "C.W.T.," p. 123. Cf. also "Portland
MSS.," Vol. 1, p. 160. A. Stavely, Leicester, to the Speaker. The
Parliamentarian garrison there is between Ashby and Belvoir, two
royalist strongholds, and on the road from Nottingham and Derby to
Manchester; so that their small strength of horse is constantly employed
in convoy of ammunition and other commodities (Nov. 24, 1643).

[71] The Parliamentarian soldiers were guilty of much vandalism in these
operations, "taking out of Churches the Books of Common Praier,
Surplisses, Fonts, and breaking down of Organs where they found any." At
Bury they seized the surplice "and put it on the back of a Souldier, and
caused him to ride in the cart the Armes were carried in, to be matter
of sport and laughter to the Behoulders" ("Discourse," p. 11).

[72] Some of the timber from Alport Lodge was used to strengthen the
defences of Manchester.

[73] Seven of the letters referred to above are printed in the
"Farington Papers" (C.S., 39), pp. 80-86, and three of these also in the
"Lancashire Lieutenancy," pt. 2 (C.S., 50), pp. 282-286. Nowell himself
was unable to take any part in the negotiation after October 12, as he
started on the following Friday to join the King. Richard Nowell, the
younger brother of Roger Nowell of Read, was killed at the capture of
Bristol by Prince Rupert, being then captain in Lord Molyneux's
regiment. Dugdale's "Visitation of Lancs.," 1664 (C.S., 84), p. 122. The
Bradshaw here referred to was probably of Bradshaw Hall, near Bolton,
elder brother of Capt. Bradshaw. Braddyl lived at Portfield, near
Whalley. Fleetwood and Farington were the royalist collectors for
Leyland Hundred, and Holt one of those for Salford Hundred.

[74] These proposals are printed in "C.W.T.," 61; also in "Lancs.
Lieutenancy," pt. 2, 300, together with a letter from the Committee at
Manchester to Col. Shuttleworth. The proposals were evidently made about
the middle of October, as the letter above referred to is dated Oct. 22,
and states that an answer was to be returned to the Earl of Derby on the
following Monday morning, _i.e._, Oct. 24.

[75] Cf. "Ashmolean MSS." 830, fol. 289, for an 'oath imposed by the
Earl of Derby upon Lancashire.' No date is given. He who takes it
promises "to the uttermost of my power and with hasard of my life
maintain and defend the true Protestant religion established in the
Church of England, His Majesty's sacred person, his heirs and lawful
successors, His Majesty's just powers and prerogatives and the just
powers and priveleges of parliament against the forces now under the
command of the Earl of Essex and against all other forces whatsoever,"
etc.

[76] "Sutherland MSS." "Hist. MSS. Com.," Vol. 5, p. 347. "Lancs.
Lieut.," pt. 2, pp. 296-298. Shuttleworth's letter of refusal is given.
Assheton and Rigby were at this time in London, and Shuttleworth sent
them weekly reports of affairs in Lancashire.

[77] The other three places were Ormskirk, Eccleston and Prescot.
Through the medium of George Rigby of Peel the Parliament appointed
informants in Wigan and Warrington ("Lancs. Lieut.," pt. 2, pp.
289-291).

[78] "C.W.T.," p. 66. "Discourse," p. 16. The Rigbys of Burgh were
royalists. This is Alexander Rigby the elder, who died in 1650; it was
his son who was Sir Thomas Tyldesley's cornet at the Battle of Wigan,
and erected the monument to his Colonel ("C.W.T.," 351. "Discourse," pp.
106, 126). Radcliffe Assheton lived at Chadderton; this was the only
branch of the Assheton family which took the King's side in the Civil
War.

[79] This seems to have been the first in point of time, though the
dates are somewhat confused. Shuttleworth is said to have halted his men
on Hinfield Moor (according to one account it was the scene of the
battle, but that is evidently an error), but this name does not now
appear on the map of Lancashire. The nearest approach to it is Inchfield
Moor, which is on the extreme eastern border of the county, and cannot
be the place intended here.

[80] The name Chowbent has recently disappeared from the map, being
represented by Atherton, the two railway stations which used to bear the
name being now called respectively Atherton (Central) and Howe Bridge.
The ground descends gradually towards Leigh. Lowton Common is still
partly an open space. The language of this description, "A true and full
relation of the troubles in Lancashire, etc." ("C.W.T.," p. 63), is very
picturesque, "For now the men of Blackburn, Paduam, Burnely, Clitheroe
and Colne, with those sturdy churles in the two forests of Pendle and
Rossendale have raised their spirits, and have resolved to fight it out
rather than their Beefe and fatt Bacon shall be taken from them."

[81] "C.W.T.," pp. 63 and 125. "Discourse," p. 20. The details of this
engagement are very confused, but the above seems the most probable
course of events. There is no doubt about the large number of prisoners.
There is a story told by one Parliamentarian writer of the conduct of
the royalist troop which may be set against that of the Manchester
soldiers at Bury. "The carriage of the cavaliers about Wigan was most
insolent, yea blasphemous, for after they had pulled down the pulpit in
Hendon Chapel, and played at cards in the pews and upon the desk, they
surprised the Holy Bible, took it away, and afterwards tore it in
pieces, and then stucke up the leaves of it upon the posts in severall
places in Wigan, saying, 'This is the Roundheads' Bible.'"

Venables was of the ancient Cheshire family of that name at Antrobus. He
was afterward Commander-in-Chief of the Parliamentarian troops in
Ulster, and later, with the rank of General, led the expedition to the
West Indies which took possession of Jamaica. He acquiesced in the
Restoration, and died in 1687, aged 75 ("Discourse" note, p. 99).

[82] "Discourse," pp. 21-2. The humour of this narrative can hardly be
unconscious: "The greatest execution that it did, as was heard of, a
bullet enterd into a house upon the South syde of the Church Yard and
burst the bottom out of a fryen pan. There was no nearer assault to the
towne than a quarter of a mile. They wear afraid of comming near one
another. The soldiers within the Towne went out of it and discharged
there muskets towards them at randome for anything was knowne there was
not a man sleyne or hurt. Upon Christmas day at night Sir Gilbert
withdrew his forces being weary of the Siege, and his Souldiers and
Clubmen were glad of it, that they might eate their Christmas pyes at
home."

[83] "The true relation of the taking of the Town of Preston by Colonell
Seaton's forces from Manchester, etc." ("C.W.T.," p. 71). "A perfect
Relation of the Taking of the Towne of Preston in Lancashire, etc."
("C.W.T.," p. 73). Also shorter accounts in "C.W.T.," pp. 127, 224; and
"Discourse," p. 23. The first of these tracts was written by John
Tilsley, Vicar of Dean, near Bolton. "So soon as matters were settled we
sung the praises to God in the streets (Sir, it was wonderfull to see
it), the sun brake forth and shined brightly and hot in the time of the
exercise, as if it had been Midsummer."

[84] "C.W.T.," p. 72.




CHAPTER V.

The Crisis. January to June, 1643.


The next six months was the really critical time in the Lancashire Civil
War. In it the issue was finally decided, and by the end of the summer
the royalist resistance was practically overcome. In this period it was
for a time quite possible that the royalists would gain the upper hand;
their best planned operations were in these months, and they showed more
enterprise and energy than either before or afterwards. For a time at
least they more than stemmed the tide of defeat which was rising against
them. The fighting was now chiefly in royalist territory, mostly in
Amounderness and Leyland Hundred; but the engagements in the Fylde in
March were rather due to accident than otherwise, and the real struggle
resolved itself into mutual attacks on Preston, Lancaster and Wigan on
the one hand and on Blackburn and Bolton on the other. The Earl of Derby
was said to have intended a second assault on Manchester, but there was
never any probability of his being able to carry it out.

The isolation of Lancashire is illustrated in the early part of 1643, as
it is seen how events were developing here without regard to the course
of the general war or even of that in the neighbouring counties of
Yorkshire and Cheshire. The spring and summer of 1643 saw the highest
point of success which the King's cause attained during the war. In the
beginning of the year the royalists advanced in the west with the
victory of Bradock; and in the north by the beginning of the invasion of
Yorkshire by the Earl of Newcastle. In May, Hopton's victory over the
Earl of Stamford at Stratton secured Cornwall for the royalists; and
they won further victories over Sir William Waller at Lansdown and at
Roundway Down in July. Rupert took Bristol by storm. And in Yorkshire by
the end of the summer Newcastle was nearly supreme. After his defeat of
the Fairfaxes at Adwalton Moor in July, all the county except Hull was
in his hands. It was, on the other hand, just in these two months that
the royalist cause was being overthrown in Lancashire. In February they
had lost Preston, and though they made a short revival in the following
month, by the end of April their complete reduction was only a question
of time, and by the end of the summer only a few places remained in
their power.

The Parliamentarian leaders spent some days in Preston in disposing of
the numerous prisoners which they had taken, and in erecting new
fortifications. This was done under the direction of Rosworm. Colonel
Shuttleworth also sent out summonses for surrender to all the
neighbourhood, and many came in and made their subjection. It was,
however, only a matter of necessity, for the district remained royalist
in sympathy. An expedition was then sent out to take possession of
Hoghton Tower.[85] It consisted of three foot companies mostly Blackburn
men, one of them being commanded by Captain Starkie, son of Colonel
Starkie of Huntroyd. They found Hoghton Tower garrisoned by no more than
30 or 40 musketeers, far too few to hold so large a place. The house was
summoned and the garrison asked for a quarter of an hour delay. When
that time expired they asked for another quarter of an hour in which to
decide, and finally surrendered the Tower upon promise of quarter. This
was a victory, however, which was more costly to the Parliamentarian
party than many defeats; for after Captain Starkie and his company had
entered the Tower an accidental explosion of gunpowder wrecked part of
the building, and killed the captain and 60 of his men. An accusation of
treachery was of course made against the garrison, and six of the
royalist soldiers who had not been able to escape were detained; but
there seems no reasonable doubt that the explosion was due to accident
only.[86]

Two days after this occurrence (Thursday, Feb. 16) a determined attack
was made on Bolton by the royalist garrison from Wigan. Though the
actual assault was a surprise some danger must have been expected, for
Bolton was garrisoned by 500 men under the command of Colonel Assheton,
drawn from various places. It included the companies of Captain Buckley
of Oldham, Captain Schofield of Rochdale, Captain Holt of Bury, and
Captain Ashhurst from Radcliffe Bridge. The royalists, consisting of 11
companies of foot and two of dragoons, together with two troops of
horse, left Wigan, which is nine miles by road, early in the morning,
surprised the enemy's scouts, and were within sight of Bolton before
their movements were suspected. If they had attacked the town
immediately the surprise would have been complete; but they made a
detour instead, and approached from the south. As it was, however, they
had a great initial advantage, for they surrounded Bolton on all sides
before help could be summoned. They then advanced towards Bradshawgate,
and overpowered the soldiers in the three outworks which were at a
little distance from the walls. Captain Ashhurst with 24 men was
intercepted by 60 royalists as he retreated towards the town; but with
some loss he cut his way through, and gained the shelter of the chain
and mud walls at the end of the street. The royalists followed and set
fire to a house outside the chain, while they occupied some others and
from them fired on the Parliamentarian troops, who were forced to fall
back along the street. Then, having secured an entrance into a royalist
house, they took the defenders in the rear. One Parliamentarian officer,
Serg.-Major Leigh, had his horse shot under him, and was himself wounded
in the arm while mounting another. Finally, however, two of the garrison
forced an entrance into the royalists' houses, and Captain Ashhurst with
16 men breaking in from the other side, the town was gradually cleared
of the royalist troops. While the fight lasted their horse without the
town had prevented reinforcements from coming in, but now hearing the
shouts of approaching troops they hastily retreated towards Wigan.
Captain Radcliffe arrived with 200 fresh soldiers from Manchester, but
too late to take any part in the battle.[87]

This first royalist attack on Bolton was one of the hardest fought
encounters of the whole war. Colonel Assheton himself is said to have
showed much bravery, and the hand-to-hand fighting was severe. The
losses on either side are difficult to estimate; they seem as usual to
have been understated by the Parliamentarian writers. The day after the
unsuccessful royalist attack on Bolton, Serg.-Major Birch was sent from
Preston with a company of foot to occupy Lancaster. The royalists had
never had a garrison in that town, probably thinking it quite secure
from attack; there were only a few soldiers in the Castle. Birch entered
the town without opposition, and summoned Sir John Girlington and Mr.
Kirkby, who were in the Castle, to surrender; being quite unable to
defend the place they did so, and were allowed to march away; Birch
thereupon took possession of the town for the Parliament. A garrison was
left in the Castle under the command of Captain William Shuttleworth.

The Parliamentarians did not long retain possession of Lancaster at this
time, but their expedition represents a great advance on former
operations. Lancaster is 17 miles north of Preston, which had hitherto
been the limit of their territory.

After this there was some weeks quiet in Lancashire, and the actual
recommencement of hostilities was due to a rather curious accident. A
large vessel appeared off Rossall Point at the north-west corner of the
Fylde, and lay off shore at anchor discharging her guns, for three or
four days. She was at first thought to be a royalist vessel; but as no
attempt was made to land, a pilot was at length sent out and the ship
found to be the Saint Anne of Dunkirk, a Spanish frigate, belonging to
the Dunkirk squadron, which had been driven out of her course by
contrary winds. She carried recruits on their way to be trained in the
Low Countries. Finding that her presence in those waters was quite
accidental, the ship was beached in the mouth of the Wyre on the
Rossall side (that is in the present Fleetwood Harbour), and she was
taken possession of in the name of the Parliament. The Earl of Derby,
however, who was at Lathom, heard of the occurrence, and setting off
hastily with one troop of horse, he crossed the Ribble and stayed that
night (Saturday, March 4) with Mr. Clifton at Lytham Hall. The same day
four foot companies of the Parliament's troops arrived in the Fylde from
Preston under the command of Major Sparrow, and quartered round
Poulton and Singleton. But the conduct of the Parliamentarians was
incomprehensible. Next morning (Sunday, March 5) Sparrow drew out his
men at a place called The Hoes (now Layton Common), but hearing that the
Earl was on his march northwards from Lytham, he retreated, ferried his
men over the Wyre, and marched them along the eastern bank of the
Estuary to a point opposite to the present town of Fleetwood.[88]
Meanwhile Derby rode straight to the ship without resistance; he took
prisoners Colonel Dodding and Mr. Townson of Lancaster who were on
guard, set the ship on fire, and taking with him the Spanish officers
and their ladies rode hurriedly back to Lathom the same night, stopping
only to search Rossall Hall for arms on the way.[89] As the Saint Anne
burned the guns discharged, and fell either into the bottom of the ship
or into the water. But the Parliamentarians recovered most of them and
sent them by sea to Lancaster to strengthen the fortifications there.

[Illustration: THE SPANISH SHIP IN THE FYLDE, MARCH 1643]

Major Sparrow explained that he had crossed the river in order to
guard the ship more effectually, but it is impossible to see how this
could have been so. He was apparently guilty of carelessness if not of
cowardice; as the "Discourse" put it "being as feared of the Earl as the
Earl was of him." If he had only done as he was advised and retreated
towards Rossall, he would have saved the ship and checked the royalist
advance, for Derby could not have attacked in face of such superior
numbers. The Spanish Ambassador disclaimed all intention of interfering
in the English Civil War, and requested that the crew might be sent
safely to London and so to Flanders. The House of Lords passed two
resolutions to this effect, and as far as the officers were concerned
they were probably carried out; but the unfortunate sailors were thrown
on the hostile countryside. Some of them died of hunger, and some of
them more fortunate who obtained shelter were unable to recover from the
privations which they had endured while at sea.[90] This incident is a
somewhat unpleasant illustration of the customs of war in the
seventeenth century. No one seemed to consider that the foreign ship
cast ashore by accident had any claim to fair treatment. Each side took
possession of it in turn; and after the royalists had burnt the vessel
the Parliamentarians returned and seized as many of the guns as they
could. Both parties were quite indifferent to the fate of the unhappy
crew.

During the months of March and April there was almost incessant fighting
in Lancashire with varying fortune. At the end of February the
Parliament held both Preston and Lancaster, and Blackburn and Bolton
besides, the royalists still keeping possession of Wigan, Warrington and
Liverpool; and repeated attempts were now made by each party on the
positions of the other side. The royalists showed in these two months
better generalship and greater energy than at any other time during the
war; it almost seemed at one period as if they might gain the upper
hand; but they were gradually overcome and the early summer found the
fate of the county practically decided.

The royalists were the first to take action. About the middle of March a
plan was formed to recover the Spanish guns from Lancaster.[91] The Earl
of Derby marched out of Wigan on Monday, March 13, with 600 foot and 400
horse, and on the Tuesday night stayed again with Mr. Clifton at Lytham
Hall, his men being quartered round Kirkham. He stayed a day or two in
order to summon the Fylde, which was entirely royalist in sympathy, and
so added to his numbers 3000 clubmen over whom officers were appointed.
He was then joined by Sir John Girlington and Mr. Tyldesley with 600
more soldiers from York, of whom half were musketeers, and the whole
force set forward to Lancaster. Early in the morning of March 18 the
town was summoned, but they returned answer that all their arms were in
the disposal of the Parliamentarian troops in the Castle; and the
royalists prepared for an attack.

The Parliamentarians were disorganised and showed much irresolution.
There had been trouble among their troops at Preston, in which for a
time Sir John Seaton's life was in danger, and he had had to escape for
a while to Lancaster. When it was known that the royalists were on their
way to Lancaster Colonel Assheton marched in pursuit, but probably
because he was outnumbered refused to go any further than Garstang, in
spite of Seaton's remonstrances. In Lancaster there were some 600
Parliamentarian troops under Holcroft and Sparrow, but they were not
able to hold an open town against such superior numbers as the royalists
possessed and retreated into the castle. Captain William Shuttleworth
was killed before they were able to gain the shelter of the walls. The
Castle was not provisioned for a siege, and had no adequate water
supply, but the royalists made no attempt to take it, and dispersed
their troops through the streets, plundering and setting fire to the
houses. The town was thoroughly sacked.[92] The following day, hearing
that Assheton and Seaton were on their march from Preston they
retreated. In the meantime the garrison had broken out of the Castle
while the royalists were plundering and had secured provisions for some
days. The Earl of Derby seems to have been a great deal better informed
about the enemy's movements than were the Parliamentarians; for he was
able to outwit them again and escape their advance.[93] Both Seaton and
Assheton were now on their march from Preston with eleven companies of
foot and "some few ill-mounted horse that durst not look the enemy in
the face"; Assheton having collected what men he could from Salford
Hundred, and reached Preston on the 18th. On Monday, March 20th, Derby
removed his troops to Ellel about five miles south of Lancaster on the
main road; and hearing that Assheton was at Cockerham waited just long
enough to escape being caught, and marched with all speed to Preston,
which he expected would be left but poorly defended. He was right in his
conjecture, and the action of the Parliamentarian commanders showed
great carelessness or undue haste. It is only three miles from Ellel to
Cockerham, and the latter place is hardly on the direct route between
Preston and Lancaster. The Parliamentarians therefore reached Lancaster
only to find the enemy gone, and they had to content themselves with
reinforcing the garrison and replenishing the stores in the Castle.
Meanwhile Derby had marched straight on Preston, using great care to
prevent his approach being known; and he had almost reached the town
before news of his advance was brought. In Preston there had only been
left four companies of foot and five hundred clubmen under Colonel
Holland, and Colonel Duckenfield's troop of horse; but late at night as
it was the Friars Gate was strongly guarded, and all preparations made
for resistance. The townsmen, however, were strongly royalist in
sympathy, and as the Earl approached the garrison gradually melted away,
and led by Colonel Shuttleworth most of them made their escape as best
they could. The royalist ostlers had locked the stable doors and secured
the keys; so that many of the Parliamentarians being unable to get at
their horses were taken prisoners. The royalists again garrisoned
Preston, and plundered unmercifully any in the town who had been
suspected of disaffection to their cause (March 20).

Assheton hearing that the royalists had regained Preston, found his own
position at Lancaster untenable, and leaving a garrison in the Castle
marched into Blackburn Hundred, and by way of Chipping and Whalley into
east Lancashire. A week later Seaton writes from Manchester in great
despondency. He was without troops and his personal unpopularity was
still so great that he hardly dared to show himself in the streets. The
"Mercurius Aulicus" reported with rather less than its usual inaccuracy
that "all Lancashire except Manchester is in royalist hands."[94]

This was indeed the most spirited and successful operation conducted by
the royalists. They derived no doubt some advantage from the
disorganisation of the enemy's troops and their demoralisation owing to
insufficient pay and clothing, as also from the carelessness which
success had produced in the Parliamentarian officers; for their tactics
show to much greater advantage than those of Assheton and Seaton, and
for a time at least they regained much of the ground which they had
lost. It is possible that there were other successes besides those which
have just been described; one Parliamentarian writer even mentions a
capture of Blackburn; and in any case a bold following up of the
victories might possibly have led to a royalist reconquest of the
county.[95] The royalist star was now in the ascendant in the north of
England. Queen Henrietta Maria who had landed at Bridlington in
February, had overrun the greater part of Yorkshire; some of her troops
had advanced as far as Skipton, and were thus an additional menace on
the north-east of Blackburn Hundred.

As might be expected, the Earl of Derby now began to plan an advance
into the enemy's country. It is stated, probably with truth, that he
intended to form a second siege of Manchester; and he certainly did make
a second attack on Bolton on March 28, 1643. Bolton was, however,
prepared, and was well garrisoned, while the Parliamentarians had also
established a garrison for its additional protection, in the town of
Bury. The royalists came in sight of Bolton about 3 o'clock in the
afternoon, but after their summons for surrender had been refused, they
made no attack until dark. They then delivered a sharp assault on the
outworks and there was fighting at close quarters for some time. The
assailants were at length beaten off with the loss of ten men. After
some reinforcements to the town had come in from Bury the royalists
delivered another attack upon the south side of the town, and owing to
the darkness were able to get quite close to the mud walls before they
were observed; but this attempt met with no better success and they
finally retired with the loss of 23 men.[96]

This was, however, almost the end of aggressive tactics on the part of
the royalists. By this time the Parliamentarian leaders seem to have
restored the morale of their troops, and they soon regained the upper
hand in the county. The recovery was shown when four days after Lord
Derby's unsuccessful attack on Bolton, they besieged Wigan itself. This
was on Easter Eve, 1643. Their force consisted of 2000 foot, mostly
musketeers, and 200 or 300 horse, with 8 guns, under the command of
Colonel Holland; as Assheton's regiment was included Rosworm also
accompanied the expedition, and as usual he represents his own share in
the operations as very great. Wigan was commanded by Major-General
Blaire, a Scotchman who had been recommended to the Earl of Derby by the
King. Attacking fiercely at the south-east end of the town Assheton's
musketeers forced an entrance after an hour's fighting, and the Wigan
garrison which numbered 1,400 men broke and fled in disorder; many
prisoners were taken. Some of the garrison, however, retreated to the
Church Tower, and shooting from there did considerable execution on the
attacking force; and a threat to blow up the church with gunpowder was
necessary before they were reduced to surrender.[97] The town was then
thoroughly plundered by the Parliamentary soldiery. They did not,
however, occupy Wigan, but marched away the same night, their departure
being probably hastened by a report that the Earl of Derby was on his
way to its assistance. The Earl came as far as Standish Moor; but
hearing there that Wigan had been taken, plundered and abandoned by the
enemy he returned to Lathom. One Parliamentarian writer estimates the
amount of plunder taken in Wigan at £20,000.[98] Its loss naturally
caused some consternation at Lathom House which is only six miles
distant. Lady Derby wrote to Prince Rupert, "In the name of God, Sire,
take pity on us, and if you will come you may reconquer Wigan easily and
with much glory to your Highness. I know not what to say; but have pity
on my husband, my children, and myself who are altogether lost if God
and your Highness have not pity on us."[99] There was some reason for
her agitation. As Preston and Lancaster had been lost in the north, so
now Wigan had been lost in the west; and a great effort would be
necessary if the royalist cause in Lancashire were not to suffer defeat.

The next encounter, however, went in their favour. Elated at their
success at Wigan, "that impregnable piece the enemy's pride and
presumption our fear and despair," the Parliamentarian troops assaulted
Warrington on April 5th. In this they joined Sir William Brereton, the
commander-in-chief in Cheshire, who towards the end of March was
quartered with his horse at Nantwich; and he had sent for 500 foot to
join him in the attempt. Warrington was strongly held, the Earl of Derby
being there in person. On Monday, April 3, Captain Ardern and some other
captains approached the town from the Cheshire side, but the royalist
garrison seeing the smallness of the force, sallied out and routed them
on Stockton Heath, having by a ruse given Ardern to understand that they
were of his own party. Brereton's main forces shortly afterwards coming
up were at a second attack also defeated by the royalists. Brereton,
however, remained on the ground, and having been joined by Holland's
troops from Manchester the two together made an attack on Warrington on
April 5th. The advance was from two sides, from the east near the
Parish Church, a battery being placed on Moot Hill, and from the west
where Brereton's men occupied the house of one Edward Bridgman at
Sankey, about a mile from the town. The royalists, however, fought with
great determination, and in spite of their numbers the Parliamentarians
were unable to effect an entrance on any point. "Wigan (thought
impregnable) proved easy; Warrington (thought easy) proved now
impregnable."[100]

It has been stated that the operations round Warrington at the beginning
of April, 1643, were the critical events of this Spring; but really the
decisive contest occurred at the end of the month and was fought in
north-east Lancashire between Padiham and Whalley. The Parliamentarian
forces in Blackburn Hundred were still very disorganised and evidently
discouraged by their reverse at Warrington on April 5th. After that
action the Earl of Derby removed to Preston, where he made preparations
for following up his success, calling a general muster there about the
middle of April. Accompanied by Lord Molyneux, Sir Gilbert Hoghton,
Colonel Tyldesley, and other well known royalists he marched out of
Preston at the head of eleven troops of horse, 700 foot, and many
clubmen mostly from the Fylde, numbering in all about 5000 men. Keeping
on the north bank of the Ribble they reached Ribchester at noon on
Wednesday, April 19, crossed the river by ferry at Salesbury, and
marched on Whalley. The Parliamentarians were completely taken by
surprise. Two troops of horse at Dukenhalgh Hall near Clayton-le-Moors
were their only forces in the neighbourhood, and these retreated to
Padiham, after sending to warn Colonel Shuttleworth, who was at his
house at Gawthorpe. Shuttleworth received the message during the night,
but he at once sent out summonses to the countryside, and next morning
one additional troop of horse and about 500 foot had collected (Ap. 20).
The Earl of Derby instead of continuing his march had occupied Whalley,
and early on the same morning he drew up his troops on the east side of
the river Calder, apparently waiting to be attacked. Derby himself had
quarters in Whalley Abbey, Sir Ralph Assheton's house. The royalists
made a great mistake in not at once advancing in force. After some
delay, however, they advanced and the scouts of both sides approached
each other near Read Hall, half way between Padiham and Whalley. The
royalists were so overwhelmingly superior in numbers that Shuttleworth
and his captains refused to engage with them, and ordered a general
retreat towards Padiham.[101] But the soldiers took matters into their
own hands and "being resolute men replied to the Captains boldly bidding
them take what course they pleased for their safety, yet they would
adventure themselves, see the enemy and have one bout with them, if God
will." Shuttleworth, therefore, drew out his men to await the royalists'
advance.

[Illustration: BATTLE OF WHALLEY, APRIL, 1643.]

About a mile from Whalley on the high road to Padiham a bye-road turns
up the hill to the left; after passing a further turn to Sabden it
leaves on the right hand a farm house called Easterley, crosses Sabden
Brook, skirts the grounds of Read Hall, and descends again to join the
main road. There seems no doubt that in this now secluded and very
beautiful lane, the decisive encounter of the Civil War in Lancashire
began.[102] The Parliamentarian troops awaited the royalist advance
just above Read Hall, hiding their musketeers behind the stone walls on
either side of the lane. Presently they saw the advance guards
descending the hill by Easterley to the Brook. As the royalists mounted
again out of the hollow they were surprised by a well-directed volley
which threw them into disorder; and the Parliamentarians followed up
their advantage so well that the royalists broke and fled back towards
Whalley pursued by the Parliamentarian foot. Tyldesley himself was with
the advance guard and joined in the flight. Gaining confidence as they
proceeded, Shuttleworth's men pressed the royalists hard, and by the
time they had reached Whalley the retreat had become a rout. The
royalists remaining in Whalley, being taken by surprise, were not able
to make any stand, but joined the flying troops, who were now pursued
along the way they had come through Langho towards the River Ribble. The
chase extended over about five miles; and the Parliamentarian troops as
they followed found the country strewn with arms which the royalists had
cast away in their flight. The Earl of Derby himself with difficulty
maintained some sort of order in the rearguard. Arrived at Salesbury,
horse and foot plunged into the water without waiting for the boats, and
waded the river up to their necks. Once across they were safe from
attack, but the flight continued to Preston, and Derby did not draw rein
until he reached Penwortham Hall near Preston, where he stayed the
night.[103]

This was the most remarkable victory of the war in Lancashire, and it
was decisive. The royalists had been successful at Warrington; and on
this occasion their army must have outnumbered their opponents by at
least four to one. The Parliamentarians were quite unprepared, and in
all probability if Derby had advanced directly on Padiham the result
would have been very different. As it was the defeat showed the real
weakness of the royalist cause in Lancashire. The Earl of Derby left the
county a few weeks later to join the Queen in Yorkshire; and he never
led an army in Lancashire again until the ill-fated expedition of 1651.
After this the supremacy of the Parliamentary cause was never in real
doubt.

Assheton was not slow to follow up the victory at Whalley. Two days
later he marched on Wigan (April 22), which was occupied by Colonel
Tyldesley with 9 troops of horse and 700 foot; Assheton had 2,200 horse
and foot mostly belonging to the Manchester garrison, and the royalists
were in no condition to resist superior numbers. They fell back on
Lathom without fighting, and Assheton demolished all the out-works and
fortifications at Wigan, burnt the new gates and posts, and made
the townsmen swear not in future to bear arms against "King and
Parliament."[104] Derby himself seems to have been at Prescot, but on
Assheton advancing against him he retreated to Lathom, and then the
Parliamentarians gradually moved northwards and westwards, driving the
enemy before them. On hearing of the loss of Wigan, the Queen sent a
message to Lord Derby not to engage the enemy again until she sent him
reinforcement; but having waited for a fortnight in vain he was
persuaded by Molyneux and Tyldesley to endeavour to hasten it in person.
There is no doubt that the Queen at this time intended to invade
Lancashire. She writes from York to the King on April 23 "my
proposition is this--to detach from the body of the army 2000 footmen
and 1000 horsemen, 200 dragoons and some cannon and to send them at once
into Lancashire to join with Earl Derby and to clear out that county,
which I hope can be done in ten or twelve days, and then come to join me
at Newark"; and three weeks after this she writes again that the army
was to march directly on Leeds, Bradford and Halifax. Derby was to
return, to collect what troops he could, and remain on the defensive
until "the army can march to Manchester which I hope will be soon; for I
believe that Leeds being taken, the other two places will be
inconsiderable, and so Manchester will come into play; which if we take
it all Lancashire is yours."[105] These plans were, however, frustrated
by the royalist defeat by Sir Thomas Fairfax at Wakefield in May; and
there was no longer any hope of reinforcements to the Lancashire
royalists from the Queen's army. Derby returned to Lancashire; and a
rumour having come of a Scotch invasion by means of the Isle of Man, he
was persuaded to sail thither to prevent it. Returning to Lancashire
about the end of May, he hastily crossed the county with a very small
following, and rode to Whitehaven, whence he took ship to the Isle of
Man, landing there on June 15. The Countess of Derby and her children
remained at Lathom House.[106]

It is difficult to understand why Derby should have left Lancashire just
at a time when it appeared that the presence of a leader was most
necessary there; unless indeed he had already given up the cause as
hopeless. This explanation of his joining the Queen and of his departure
for the Isle of Man is his own, and is probably the true one though the
Parliamentarians put a much less favourable construction on his
movements. They hinted that his leaving Lancashire was due to cowardice.
And even his enemies at the Court made it an occasion of maligning him
by suggesting that he had more care for his own property in the Isle of
Man than for the royal cause in England. But at best he was sacrificing
the royalist interests in Lancashire. Three days after landing in the
Isle of Man Derby summoned a meeting of his tenants at Peel; but no
great eagerness was shown in response to his request for aid.

Meanwhile things had gone from bad to worse for the royalist cause in
Lancashire. After the capture of Wigan, Assheton had chased Molyneux and
Tyldesley from Ormskirk to Preston, and thence across the Ribble into
the Fylde. The royalists quartered at Kirkham for two days, but on
Assheton's approach made practically no resistance; they marched
northwards across the Wyre and through Cockerham to Hornby. Assheton
followed as far as Lancaster; he took from there 14 of the Spanish guns
and leaving the remainder to fortify the Castle, returned back through
Preston to Manchester. On the return march his men took advantage of his
temporary absence to make a detour through the Fylde, where they
plundered Royalists and Parliamentarians alike. After Assheton's return
Tyldesley crossed into Yorkshire to join the Queen; Molyneux proceeded
southwards again, and taking on his way a few prisoners whom he left at
Lathom went over Hale Ford into Cheshire.[107]

Warrington was the victors' next objective. On May 20, the Manchester
garrison marched out against it, and three days later met at Warrington
Sir William Brereton with a considerable force of Cheshire men, who had
left Nantwich on May 21. Next morning the besiegers' cannon were placed
in position and opened fire on the town. There was, however, no close
fighting, as the royalists had very little provision for a siege; and
on the following Saturday, May 27, a parley was called by Col. Norris,
the royalist Governor. During the week a garrison had been dislodged
from Winwick Church, three miles away, and the position of Warrington
had been rendered hopeless by the certainty that no help could be looked
for from the Queen. Accordingly Norris surrendered, his officers being
allowed their horses and pistols, while the men were suffered to depart
without their arms. Next day (Trinity Sunday, May 28) Sir George Booth,
lord of the manor, entered the town again. Only six men were reported to
have been killed in the last siege, four of the besiegers and two
royalists.[108]

Sometime before this Liverpool had been occupied for the Parliament,
apparently without opposition.[109]

The work of reducing the county was not yet, however, quite complete.
The royalists in North Lancashire, taking advantage of Assheton's
preoccupation in the south-west, laid siege to Lancaster. The castle,
however, held out for three weeks, and the other places being reduced,
Assheton marched to its assistance. The royalists did not wait for his
approach, but retreated and disposed some of their forces for the
defence of Hornby and Thurland Castles, the remainder marching to join
the Queen. Assheton immediately set out to effect the capture of these
places.

Hornby Castle is about nine miles north-east of Lancaster, Thurland four
miles further away. Approaching Hornby first, three companies of foot
were sent on before to reconnoitre; they fell into an ambush but
suffered little loss, though the royalist reports magnified it into a
great reverse. The castle was found to be very difficult of access,
being on a steep hill, and the building itself rising gradually from its
lowest point at the gatehouse. The besiegers, however, captured a
soldier escaping from the Castle, and from him learnt that it was
possible to enter by some windows high up on the east side of the
building at the end of the hall. This adventurous effort succeeded.
Under cover of a frontal attack on the gatehouse, a party armed with
ladders, ropes, and combustible materials, effected an ascent of the
windows, and set the Castle on fire; attacked thus in two places the
garrison surrendered at discretion.[110]

Next day the Parliamentarian troops marched on to Thurland, which was
given up at their summons with little or no fighting. Sir John
Girlington himself was taken prisoner, and also many royalist ladies who
had found a refuge in this last stronghold. Much spoil of money and
plate was also made.

Thus by June, 1643, practically all Lancashire was for the first time in
the hands of the Parliament; Lathom House and Greenhalgh Castle being
now the only places where the royalist flag was still flying. Many of
the Parliamentarian soldiers returned to their homes. "Now the whole
county being cleared of all the King's forces way was made that all such
as had fled out of any part thereof might return to their wives,
children and friends and have what their enemies had left them."

FOOTNOTES:

[85] Hoghton Tower was practically a ruin half a century ago, but has
since then been very carefully restored, and is now to outward
appearance much as in the old days. It occupies a commanding position on
a hill six miles from Preston and four miles from Blackburn, standing
about 550 feet above sea level.

[86] "A punctuall relation of the passages in Lancashire this weeke,
etc." ("C.W.T.," p. 79). Lancashire's "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," p.
127). "Discourse," p. 24. "Certaine Informations," No. 6, Feb. 20-27.
The first and last of these accounts make allegations of treachery but
not the other two; and the "Valley of Achor" would not have omitted the
charge if it had not been quite baseless. The "Discourse" ascribes the
disaster to "want of heedfulnesse," and the "Valley of Achor" is still
more definite: "It dispossessed them by the help of Powder to which
their disorders laid a Train fired by their neglected matches, or by
that great Souldiers' Idoll, Tobacco." "O that this thundering alarm
might ever sound in the eares of our Swearing, Cursing, Drunken,
Tobacco-abusing Commanders and Souldiers unto unfaigned Repentance. For
do they think that those upon whom the Tower fell and slew them, were
sinners above the rest of the Army?"

In his "Pilgrimages to Old Homes" (1906), p. 84, Mr. Fletcher Moss says
that it was the gate house into the second court which was blown up; but
it would rather seem to have been the Tower itself, which then crowned
the building on its eastern side.

[87] "Speciall Passages and Certain Informations from severall Places"
("C.W.T.," p. 77). "A punctuall relation, etc." ("C.W.T.," p. 79). The
latter of these accounts is an extremely vivid narrative, and must have
been communicated, if not written, by an eye-witness. The former tract
gives the defenders' losses as five, the latter as eight or ten; and it
is stated that 100 of the royalists were either killed or mortally
wounded. These numbers must be received with considerable reservation.
The "Discourse" states incorrectly that Alexander Rigby of Burgh was
killed in this engagement. The "Valley of Achor" mentions a "new
invented mischievous Instrument which received this description at
Bolton: An head about a quarter of a yard long, a staffe of two yards
long or more, put into that head, twelve iron pikes round about, and one
in the end to stab with. This fierce weapon (to double their scorn) they
called a Roundhead." The Editor of "C.W.T." (p. 129) states that the
"Mercurius Civicus," June 2-16, 1643, gives a picture of one of these
"Roundheads."

[88] Apparently Sparrow crossed somewhere about the present Shard
Bridge. Unless it happened to be high tide, however, there would be no
need for a ferry. The River Wyre at this point is a broad expanse of
water when the tide is full, but at low water it shrinks to a width of
eight or ten yards, and can easily be forded for a long stretch.

[89] Rossall Hall is now the headmaster's house at Rossall School. The
Fleetwoods of Rossall were royalists, and the statement that Derby
plundered the house for arms can only be correct on the assumption that
the Parliamentarian party had previously taken possession of it.

[90] The "Discourse" (pp. 25-27) gives much the fullest account of these
operations; this writer is usually especially well informed with regard
to the Fylde. His estimate of the ability of Serj.-Major Sparrow is very
different from that given by Tilsley in his narrative of the capture of
Preston, but is probably more reliable. It is only fair to state,
however, in Sparrow's defence that Seaton says that the Earl also had
foot with him and 300 horse, and that there were 400 Spaniards; and that
Sparrow crossed the river in order to guard the ammunition which had
been taken from the ship. From Lytham to Rossall Point is about 13
miles, Layton Common lying half-way between the two places; Poulton is a
little nearer Rossall, and closer to the river. For the fate of the
Spaniards, Cf. "L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 652; "Hist. MSS. Com." Report 8, p.
63. Five names of officers are given, the chief being Don Francisco de
Aco and Don Alonzo Navarro. The date of the burning of the ship by the
royalists is given by the Earl of Derby in his Diary ("Stanley Papers,"
Pt. 3, Vol. 3, C.S. 70, p. 3, ed. Raines).

[91] Seaton says that the guns were 22 in number, including 8 brass
pieces, 2 demi-cannon, one minion, and 3 sacres. At first there was some
competition between Manchester, Bolton, Preston and Lancaster as to
which town should receive the guns, but the matter was decided in favour
of Lancaster, which was in more royalist territory, and perhaps also
because of rumours of the projected attack.

[92] On July 7, 1645, Parliament ordered that "when this unnatural war
shall be ended" Lancaster should receive the sum of £8,000 out of the
estates of delinquents who were actually present at the siege ("C.J.,"
Vol. 4, p. 168). Payment of this relief was long delayed; and on
December 23, 1647, the House ordered that the inhabitants of Lancaster
should farm papists' and delinquents' estates to the value of £2,000 for
one year, in part of their former vote. The Castle was later to cause
considerable trouble to the authorities. In March, 1646-7 Parliament
ordered that it be dismantled, but for some reason the order was not put
into effect until years afterwards, in spite of its having been repeated
several times ("C.J.," Vol. 5, 101; "C.S.P.," 1649-50, pp. 385, 536,
etc., etc.).

[93] The royalist opinion of their prospects in Lancashire at this time
was very favourable. Cf. "Mercurius Aulicus," March 15, 1643: "By
letters of March 7, it is certified that affairs in Lancashire are not
so bad as reported. Wigan and Warrington still hold good for the King,
and in Liverpool, the principal town toward Ireland, there are some foot
companies of Sir T. Salisbury's regiment and a troop of Flintshire
horse. Lancaster is recovered by Col. Tyldesley." And again on March 31:
"Last Monday Mr. Kirkby came to the Queen asking for arms and reporting
that Lord Molyneux had taken Bolton."

[94] There are two accounts of the capture of Preston in the "Mercurius
Aulicus," 1643, pp. 150 and 159 respectively. The former is given in
"C.W.T.," p. 84. The fullest Parliamentarian account is in the
"Discourse," p. 29. Cf. also "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," p. 132) and
Seaton's Letter "Chetham Miscellanies," Vol. 3 (No. 57). Seaton says
that though he was suffering from a fall from his horse he would have at
once pursued the royalists at Preston, but his men refused to follow
him. On the next morning, when news came of Derby's occupation of
Preston, none of them would remain in Lancaster; and Colonel Stanley's
three companies flatly disobeyed his orders. Evidently the men had got
quite out of hand, and Seaton was very unpopular. He gives as the reason
that he had restrained the soldiers from plundering at Preston. The
dates of the capture of Lancaster are given by the Earl of Derby in his
Diary "Stanley Papers," C.S. 70, ed. Raines, Pt. 3, Vol. 3, p. 3).

[95] "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," p. 132). Probably one reason for the
unmanageableness of the troops was want of supplies and of pay. Cf. a
letter from Col. Holland to John Booth, Manchester, March 19, 1643,
concerning the condition of the regiments with which they have been
ordered to join Lord Denbigh for the relief of Wem. What with
"sicknesse, diseases, and other disasters of warre" the two regiments
together do not exceed 600 men, and these are so discouraged and
mutinous through want of pay and clothing that it is feared that they
will refuse to march ("Denbigh MSS.," Vol. 4, p. 265).

[96] "C.W.T.," p. 133. The "Mercurius Aulicus" contains a description of
a defeat of two Parliamentarian troops of horse by Lord Derby's
regiment; but this seems to have been invented.

[97] "Discourse," p. 36. "C.W.T.," pp. 134, 226. The last of these is
from Rosworm's "Good Service," and is the fullest. It has sometimes been
treated as if referring to the first attack on Warrington ("Discourse"
note, p. 113), but though the language is rather ambiguous, Rosworm is
evidently describing the taking of Wigan, where he himself was present.
He makes a strong charge of cowardice against Holland, whom, he states,
refused to leave any garrison in Wigan, though Rosworm himself offered
to remain there; and finally Holland marched away in such haste as to
endanger the safety of the forces. But the Parliamentarians cannot as
yet have hoped to garrison Wigan.

[98] Vicars' "Parliamentary Chronicle," Pt. 1, p. 297 ("C.W.T.," p. 94).

[99] Marlet, "Charlotte de la Tremoille," p. 86.

[100] "C.W.T.," pp. 94, 135. "Discourse," p. 31. There is a long note in
the "Discourse," pp. 112-124, giving an account of these operations. Cf.
also a paper by Dr. Kenrick in the "Transactions of the Lancashire and
Cheshire Historic Society," Vol. 4 (1852), p. 18. The attack is said to
have begun at four o'clock in the afternoon and lasted till dark. One
account states that the Earl of Derby declared that he would set fire to
Warrington rather than surrender it, and that Sir William Brereton
thereupon ordered a retreat in order to save the town. This was the
Parliamentarian way of explaining away their defeat. There is no Moot
Hill now, though Dr. Kenrick states that military relics have been found
on the site by excavation.

[101] Mr. Ormerod appears to assume that Colonel Assheton was in
command, and it is true that one of the accounts ("C.W.T.," p. 97) does
mention a Captain Ashton; but as he is not mentioned anywhere else he
was probably not present.

[102] The narrative in the "Discourse," p. 33, is very minute, being
evidently that of an eye-witness. He says that the first sight of the
royalists which their opponents had was "mounting out of a Hollow dingle
between Ashterley and Reed-head." This hollow dingle must certainly be
the depression through which Sabden Brook flows; the roadway now crosses
it by a bridge. The farmhouse on the right descending to the brook is
still called Easterley.

[103] "Discourse," pp. 31-34. "A True Relation of a great and wonderfull
Victory, etc." ("C.W.T.," p. 95). The latter is largely reprinted in
"Continuation of Certain Speciall and Remarkable Passages," May 4-11.
The Ribble at Salesbury takes a wide curve, and is therefore somewhat
shallower. There is no 'boat' there now, but a bridge at Ribchester.

[104] "Speciall Passages," May 6 ("C.W.T.," p. 98).

[105] Marlet, "Charlotte de la Tremoille," pp. 88, 89. "Letters of Queen
Henrietta Maria," edited by Mrs. Everett Green (1857), pp. 190, 195.

[106] Seacome, p. 82. The Earl reached the Isle of Man on June 15; he
evidently found the island in a very turbulent state. The Queen wrote to
Newcastle: "Lord Derby is here. He is no longer capable of defending
himself or of raising troops."

[107] "Discourse," p. 39.

[108] Newspapers in "C.W.T.," pp. 100-101; _vide_ also "Perfect
Diurnall" (Cook), May 15-22. There is a tract in "C.W.T.," p. 102, which
professes to give an account of the surrender of Warrington, but it is
exceedingly unreliable.

[109] "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," p. 138). Contradictory statements
are, however, made about a ship from the Earl of Warwick's fleet which
appeared in the Mersey at this time.

[110] "Discourse," p. 40. Hornby Castle has been largely re-built, the
lower portion of the lofty central tower being the oldest remaining
part. The Castle stands on an isolated hill, occupying a very strong
natural position. The hill on all sides is steep, and especially so on
the north-east side where its base is encircled by the River Wenning. It
was evidently on this quarter that the surprise attack was delivered;
but it is hardly possible now to judge of the danger of the enterprise.
The descent down to the Wenning, partially levelled at the top to make a
garden, is not an arduous climb; and the present buildings on that side
do not approach very near to the edge of the descent. On July 6 the
House of Commons ordered that Hornby Castle should be demolished in
order to avoid the expense of keeping a garrison there; and two days
later Assheton was directed to send the order down to Lancashire,
although no answer had been returned by the House of Lords ("C.J.," Vol.
3), pp. 158-159.




CHAPTER VI.

Remaining Events of 1643; and the First Siege of Lathom House.


It was a sign of the complete victory of the Parliamentarian party in
Lancashire that now for the first time troops from this county began to
be sent into Yorkshire and Cheshire. In the middle of June, 1643, before
the surrender of Hornby and Thurland Castles, 2000 men from Manchester
were reported to have joined Lord Fairfax in Yorkshire, and a month or
two after this we find Lancashire troops taking part in the war in
Cheshire.[111]

Fairfax at this time had need of all the help that he could get, for
Newcastle was pressing him hard. The royalists took Leeds, Halifax and
Wakefield in succession. In the last few days of June the Fairfaxes
marched from Bradford against Newcastle, who left his quarters at Howley
and drew up his army on Adwalton Moor, some three miles from Bradford,
to await their attack. The Parliamentarian force consisted of 1,200 men
from Leeds, 500 from Halifax, Pontefract and other places, 7 companies
from Bradford, together with 12 companies from Lancashire under the
command of Colonel Assheton and Colonel Holland. All these were foot;
and there were also 13 troops of horse of which 3 had come from
Lancashire. The royalists on the other hand had 8,000 foot of their
former army, and 7,000 recently raised by Commission of Array, with
perhaps 4000 horse. Newcastle drew up his men on Adwalton Moor, also
occupying some houses in the enclosed ground in front of his position.
The Parliamentarian 'forlorn' was under Captain Milday; the van under
Major-General Gifford consisted of the 1,200 Leeds foot, and the main
battle was formed by the Lancashire foot and the 500 from Halifax under
Lord Fairfax himself; in the rear were the Bradford soldiers under
Lieutenant-Colonel Forbes. Sir Thomas Fairfax commanded all the cavalry.
At first the battle went in favour of the Parliamentarians; they
attacked vigorously, their 'forlorn' driving back the enemy, and their
van then faced the royalists' right wing, while their rear attacked in
the centre. All Newcastle's line began to give ground, but the
Parliamentarians incautiously advanced too far into the open moor; and
Newcastle, who greatly outnumbered them, sent forward a detachment along
a lane to the left of his position which took the enemy in the rear.
Most of the Yorkshire troops had been used only to garrison duty, and
caught thus between two fires, they were unable to execute an orderly
retreat, but began to run. The loss in killed was not very great, but a
large number were taken prisoner, and two of the four guns were lost.
The Parliamentarian centre being strengthened by the Lancashire troops,
was brought off safely by Sir Thomas Fairfax. Lord Fairfax could only be
persuaded to leave the field when the royalists had intercepted his
retreat to Bradford, and he reached the town with difficulty. Sir Thomas
was forced to seek refuge in Halifax for that night, and joined his
father in Bradford the following day.[112]

The defeat was a serious blow to the Parliament's cause in Yorkshire,
and its moral effect was greater still. Moreover the Lancashire troops
at once returned home, with the exception of 200 foot and 20 horse, who
were persuaded to remain on promise of prompt pay. The Fairfaxes were
unable to retain Bradford, and were forced to retreat to Hull, which was
soon practically the only place in Yorkshire in the hands of the
Parliament. It was indeed only by good fortune that they kept Hull, for
Sir John Hotham had declared that he would shut the gates against them;
but the discovery of the Hothams' plot and their arrest gave Fairfax a
place of retreat when he most needed it.

On July 5th, Newcastle dated from Bradford a summons to the town of
Manchester. He offered the townsmen protection and pardon if they would
lay down their arms. But it was not likely that having already driven
the royalists out of their own borders the Manchester garrison would
listen to a summons sent from 30 miles distant; and a defiant answer was
returned two days later. "Sir we are nothing dismayed at your force, but
hope that God who hath been our Protector hitherto, will so direct our
just Army that we shall be able to return the violence intended into
their bosoms that shall essay the prosecution of it." This is, however,
very different language from the urgent letter to Lenthall written the
day before,[113] in which they refer to their loss of men and arms at
the battle of Adwalton Moor, the encouragement which that defeat had
given to the royalists at home, and the great danger in which they were
placed by the retreat of Fairfax to the extreme east of Yorkshire.
Newcastle, however, soon had too much on his hands in Yorkshire to do
more than send a summons into a neighbouring county. But the Lancashire
leaders took the precaution of guarding the frontier against him. They
sent 1200 men to Rochdale, and 800 more to Blackstone Edge, four miles
further on, over which passes the main road into Yorkshire. The garrison
was attacked once at least; and it was kept there most of the winter,
being maintained out of the several Hundreds of the county from
sequestered Roman Catholic estates. Colonel Tyldesley's estate at
Myerscough was one of the first to be sequestered (Oct.). The defences
at Blackstone Edge were constructed under the direction of Rosworm, who
was sent from Manchester for that purpose. The newspapers report that in
the middle of July Newcastle sent 200 horse to break through, but
without success. A few were killed and many taken prisoners, and the
rest retreated; "because it is naturally so strong that 500 men can keep
1000 neither is that way fit either for carriages or ordnance." Indeed
the nature of the ground, which is very rough and covered with heather,
is such as to make it exceedingly difficult for the movements of
cavalry.[114]

The newspapers also mention royalist defeats in July at Colne, where 40
prisoners were taken, and also at Clitheroe, and at Thornton. It would
appear from this that Newcastle continued his attempts to break through
the Lancashire defences. Evidently it was necessary to keep a watch upon
the eastern border of the county during this winter, and it was
fortunate for the Parliamentarian party that the Moors formed such a
strong natural defence. Some troops for a time were kept at Colne and
even at Emmott Lane Head, which is three miles further on just on the
border of the county.[115]

Lancashire forces were also sent to fight under the command of Sir
William Brereton and Sir Thomas Fairfax in Cheshire. They do not seem
to have taken part in any very important engagements in that county; but
they assisted at the siege of Halton Castle which fell on July 22, and
they also fought at Chester. Some time in June, 1643, Alexander Rigby
arrived in Lancashire with a Colonel's commission to raise forces in
Leyland and Amounderness Hundreds. Rigby was not the man to remain idle,
even though the fighting seemed over. He appointed 15 or 20 captains in
Amounderness to raise foot companies and one troop of horse; and a few
also in Leyland. The Order of Parliament for impressing troops was not
passed until the end of October, 1643, but it was easier to raise men
now that they could be provided for out of sequestered estates.[116]
With the troops which he had raised Rigby at once set himself to reduce
Thurland Castle, which had been re-occupied by Sir John Girlington, and
well stored with ammunition and provisions; and early in August he
marched against it. This second siege proved much harder than the first,
and lasted seven weeks. The position of Thurland Castle is a strong one,
and it was surrounded, as it still is, by a moat which made a close
approach to the walls impossible.[117] The Parliamentarian main guard
was at Cantsfield, which is only half a mile from the Castle, but is
hidden from it by a small hill; on the east side of the building in the
field between Thurland and Cantsfield the ordnance was placed in
position. Some of the besiegers lay at Tunstall on the north-west side;
and Rigby himself stayed at Hornby Castle, which is four miles away, and
rode over daily to the siege. The Parliamentarian horse were quartered
up and down the country. During most of the time in which the siege was
in progress the Westmoreland royalists harassed the besiegers. They were
under the command of Colonel Huddleston of Millom, and of two Lancashire
refugees, Roger Kirkby and Alexander Rigby of Burgh. After several false
alarms Rigby heard that Colonel Huddleston had collected a force of
1,600 men in Furness and was about to march to the relief of Thurland.
Without waiting to be attacked Rigby left only as many men before the
Castle as were quite necessary to maintain the blockade, and himself
started with 500 foot, 3 troops of horse and 2 guns to meet them.
Marching 30 miles in one day "over mountains and through sea sands and
waters," he found the royalists on Sunday, October 1, at Lindale, three
miles from Cartmel. The Parliamentarian word was "God with us," and they
charged with such vigour that the enemy began to retreat almost before
the battle was joined, and in a quarter of an hour the royalists fled in
confusion. Few were killed, but the cavalry in pursuit captured Colonel
Huddleston, two of his captains and an ensign, 400 men and the magazine,
which was large enough to take eight oxen to draw it. Hardly stopping to
take food Rigby returned to Thurland as hurriedly as he had come to find
the small force there menaced by the Westmoreland royalists; but on
hearing of his victory at Lindale Sir Philip Musgrave, who was in
command, made negotiations for the surrender of Thurland Castle. The
defenders were to have free passage, but the building was ordered to be
demolished. Rigby says that he endeavoured to save the combustible
materials from fire but without success. In the middle of October he
returned to Preston. Notwithstanding the disorganisation of the
royalists the battle of Lindale was admirably planned and carried out,
and proved that Rigby was a man of considerable military skill.[118]

Shortly after this Colonel Moore came down to Lancashire, and
considerably strengthened the defences of Liverpool by erecting
fortifications and gates, and planting guns in position. He also raised
a few troops of foot in West Derby Hundred. These preparations turned
out to be very necessary, for shortly before Christmas, 1643, seven or
eight royalist warships sailed up the Mersey and lay in the river for
many days; they did not, however, offer to put into the harbour.
Cheshire was at that time mostly royalist, and Sir Thomas Tyldesley kept
some troops at Birkenhead which it was thought were intended for an
attack on Liverpool. Rigby, hearing of this, summoned Captain Pateson
from the Fylde, and called for volunteers to accompany him. There was no
lack of response, and leaving Preston on Christmas Eve they joined some
other troops at Wigan and marched as far as Prescot. The danger was,
however, over; all the ships had gone save one, which put into Liverpool
harbour and surrendered to the Parliament. After remaining five or six
days in Liverpool the Parliamentarian troops returned to Preston.[119]

The Lancashire troops also took part in the critical events in Cheshire
in December, 1643, and January, 1644. The general royalist position was
at this time far other than it was in Lancashire. The King was master of
about two-thirds of the country; and so evenly balanced was the issue in
the summer of 1643, that both sides had summoned outside help,
Parliament the Scots, and Charles the troops from Ireland, which had
been set free by the Cessation. The King's negotiations with the Irish
had been marked by his usual duplicity, for he could have no hope of
keeping the promises he made.

In March, 1643, the Irish had demanded a free Parliament, on promise of
which they would send over 10,000 men. Charles authorised Ormonde to
treat for 12 months Cessation of arms, and at length conceded the demand
for a Parliament. In spite of divisions among the Irish leaders, the
Cessation was concluded on September 15. News of the coming Irish
landing brought back the Lancashire forces from North Wales where they
had marched as far as Wrexham, and the hope of the Lancashire royalists
revived. They secured the King's warrant for the march of the new army
into Lancashire. "I am desired by the Lancashire gentlemen," writes
Abraham Shipman to Ormonde on October 28, "to acquaint your Lordship
that those forces that are to come from Dublin are assigned by His
Majesty for their county, which they are preparing to receive. My lord,
the extreme necessity of that county craves speedy succours and
therefore humbly desire your furtherance"; and Sir Gilbert Hoghton was
ordered to Chester to await the arrival of the troops. The Lancashire
plan was that the Irish regiments should march at once to attack
Liverpool, which was not strongly defended, and was situated in the
royalist part of the county and near Lathom House. It was thought that
some troops could be raised in Lancashire; there were said to be 2000
men ready to invade the county from the north, and help was expected
from Newcastle in Yorkshire. Thus it was expected that the advance of
the Scots would be checked.[120]

These hopes were, however, destined not to be fulfilled. The Irish
troops, to the number of about 5000, landed in North Wales in the middle
of November, and for a time they carried all before them. First they
took Hawarden Castle and then marched on Chester; leaving there
on December 12 they proceeded to Northwich in order to cut off
communications between Manchester and Nantwich, and afterwards summoned
Beeston Castle, which was speedily surrendered. The Parliamentarian
Governor was executed for cowardice. The Cheshire Committee summoned
help from Lancashire, and Colonel Assheton marched to their assistance
with 1500 foot. He had reached Sandbach, when Byron being warned of his
approach detached 4000 men to intercept him. The Parliamentarians began
to retreat towards Middlewich, but the royalists came up with them at
Booth Lane, north of Sandbach, and a retreat against such superior
numbers soon became a rout. The Lancashire men were chased along the
road to Middlewich three miles away, with heavy loss and many prisoners.
At Middlewich 300 of them took refuge in the church and were given
quarter; the rest of them fled through the town and were scattered.[121]

But the tide now turned against the royalists. Byron laid siege to
Nantwich which under the circumstances was a place of very great
importance. Clarendon says "it cannot be denied the reducing of that
place at that time would have been of unspeakable importance to the
King's affairs, there being between that and Carlisle no one town of
moment (Manchester only excepted) against the King; and those two
populous counties of Cheshire and Lancashire (if they had been united
against the Parliament) would have been a strong bulwark against the
Scots."[122] Realising its importance the garrison held out resolutely,
and Sir Thomas Fairfax was sent in haste from Yorkshire to raise the
siege. While he was on his way a royalist force under Sir Richard
Willis, coming from Shrewsbury with ammunition, were defeated by a much
smaller number of Parliamentarians; and several attacks on Nantwich were
beaten off. Sir Thomas Fairfax left Manchester on January 21 with 2,500
foot and 28 troops of horse. His first encounter with the royalists was
near Delamere where he took 30 prisoners; and about six miles further on
another force appeared which was, however, dispersed after half an
hour's fighting. Having reached Acton Church, a mile from Nantwich,
Fairfax found a large detachment of the royalists drawn up; and he at
once attacked these before they could be reinforced. The royalist troops
had besieged Nantwich on both sides of the river, and a flood had
separated their forces. Byron, however, came up before the issue was
decided, and Colonel Holland's and Colonel Booth's regiments were faced
about to meet the attack. The fight lasted for two hours, and Assheton
was particularly praised for his part in it. The Parliamentarian cavalry
were once hard pressed, but being nearest to the town they were assisted
by a sortie of the garrison, and at length both divisions of the
royalists were driven into Acton Church and obliged to surrender. A
large number were taken prisoners, including their Major-General, four
Colonels, many other officers and 1,500 common soldiers. Colonel Monck
was one of those captured. More than half of the prisoners took service
in the Parliamentary army. (January 25, 1644.) The battle of Nantwich
had a decisive effect not only on the war in Cheshire but to some extent
on Lancashire also. If the town had been taken all Cheshire would have
been over-run by the Irish troops, and there is no reason why they
should not have carried out their plan for an invasion of Lancashire.
But the victory won by Fairfax and the Lancashire troops restored at one
blow the Parliamentarian cause in Cheshire.[123]

In Lancashire the way was now open for the siege of the last royalist
strongholds. Only two places still held out to the King, Lathom House
and Greenhalgh Castle, and of these the former was much the more
important.

The Earl of Derby was still in the Isle of Man, but Lathom under the
able direction of the Countess of Derby, assisted by such Lancashire
royalists as still remained in the county, had been gradually prepared
for resistance. It being almost the only place of refuge left, many of
the militant royalists had gathered there. The House had been summoned
as far back as May, 1643, after the capture of Warrington; but nothing
had been done towards reducing it. The royalists had been, however,
practically confined to the Park at Lathom, and Rigby sent what troops
he could spare to harass them at intervals. The garrison on their part
plundered all they could. Early in February, 1644, the royalists had the
better of a skirmish with some Parliamentarian horse under Captain
Hindley; and when the danger in Cheshire was over the troops from
Cheshire were at liberty to begin the reduction of Lathom.

The first siege of Lathom House is quite the most picturesque incident
of the Lancashire war. More has been written about it, and it is
probably better known than any other event. This has rather served to
disguise the fact that the siege was not very important from a military
point of view. There was no great issue depending upon its capture as in
the case of that of Manchester in October, 1642, or of Warrington in
April, 1643; its resistance for a few months more or less did not affect
the general position. It was a centre of hostile influence, but its
garrison was bound to be only on the defensive and could never hope to
be strong enough to make Lathom the starting point for a re-conquest of
Lancashire for the King. Thus the defence was in the nature of a forlorn
hope, and derived from this greater interest; when it is added that the
defence was directed by a woman after the Earl of Derby and lesser
royalist leaders had been driven out of the county, it easily became
'ever memorable' to the royalists. The attempt to save a splendid and
historic mansion from the destruction which afterwards unhappily
overtook it makes a further appeal to the imagination; and that the
attempt was successful owing to the appearance on the scene of the
chivalrous figure of Prince Rupert, supplies the last touch of
sentimental interest.

Nothing now remains of old Lathom House and no picture of it is known to
exist. Its situation and appearance was accurately described by Seacome,
but it is impossible now even to identify the site.[124] Lathom House in
those days was strong not only from its situation but from its
structure. It stood upon marshy ground in a hollow surrounded by small
hills which made it very difficult to effect an approach to the walls.
The wall itself was six feet thick, and the whole was surrounded by a
moat twenty-four feet across and six feet deep; a palisade between the
walls and the water provided a further defence. On the wall were nine
towers upon each of which were planted six guns, three turned one way
and three the other, and in the centre of the building was a higher
tower called the Eagle Tower. The gate house, which was a strong and
lofty building, stood at the entrance to the first court.

On Saturday, February 24, 1644, it was decided at a meeting of the
Committee at Manchester that Colonels Assheton, Rigby and Moore should
undertake the siege of Lathom House.[125] News of this came to Lathom on
Sunday, and the Countess of Derby at once sent out to obtain information
from a friend which she had in the enemy's camp, while hastening on the
reinforcement and provisioning of the garrison. The messenger returned
on the following day with the news that the Parliamentarian troops had
already marched as far as Bolton, Wigan and Standish. On Tuesday,
February 27, they had taken up their quarters round the house at a
distance of from one to three miles from it. The rest of the week was
spent in negotiations. A formal summons of surrender was first brought
on Wednesday by Captain Markland from Sir Thomas Fairfax, who further
promised that he would use his influence with Parliament if the Earl of
Derby would submit himself to their mercy. Lady Derby asked for a week's
delay in which she might send a message to the Earl to know his opinion.
This was refused, and Fairfax then requested her to come in her coach to
New Park, a house about a quarter of a mile from Lathom, in order to
have a personal interview with himself and his Colonels. But the
Countess remembering her birth, returned a haughty refusal, "conceiving
it more knightly that Sir Thomas Fairfax should wait upon her than she
upon him." After two more days of messages Assheton and Rigby entered
Lathom with propositions, which as might have been expected were severe.
The House and all arms and ammunition were to be delivered up, the
garrison having leave to depart to Chester or elsewhere; Lady Derby was
to reside at Knowsley, being allowed 20 musketeers for her protection,
or she was to join the Earl in the Isle of Man. These conditions were
refused "as in part dishonourable in part uncertain." On Monday, March
4, Assheton came again alone in order to receive the royalist proposals.
These required a month's delay for the removal of Lady Derby and her
family to the Isle of Man, during which time the royalist garrison was
to be kept at Lathom; but afterwards none of the arms were to be
employed against the Parliament. After her departure none of the tenants
of the Earl were to be molested. It was evident, however, that all
negotiations were useless. On their own confession the royalists did not
believe that Fairfax's promises were genuine, nor did they intend to
keep their own. The Parliament referred to in their proposals was
understood by them to mean the King's Parliament at Oxford. The only
object of allowing negotiations at all was in order to gain time to put
the House into a better state for defence. The besiegers, however, made
one final offer which was brought by Colonel Morgan, the assistant
engineer, "a little man short and peremptory";[126] they allowed the
time which had been asked for to evacuate Lathom, but the cannon were
to be left for its defence and not removed with the rest of the arms and
goods. By 10 o'clock the following day all the royalist garrison was to
be disbanded and 40 Parliament soldiers to be received as a guard. The
royalists, however, seeing that there was now no more time to be gained,
formally broke off all negotiations. The defiant answer was at length
given which had been kept in the background for a week. The Countess of
Derby refused all their articles, and declared "That though a woman and
a stranger, divorced from her friends, and robbed of her estate, she was
ready to receive their utmost violence trusting in God both for
protection and deliverance."

Seacome states that at some point in the negotiations Sir Thomas Fairfax
himself visited the House, and that Lady Derby drew up all her garrison
in an imposing array, from the main guard in the first court to the
great Hall where she herself received him. This ruse had its desired
effect; so impressed was Fairfax with the strength of the garrison that
he dissuaded the other leaders from making an immediate attack, which
was just what the garrison most feared.[127] The besiegers now moved
their lines nearer to the walls. But even now all treaty was not at an
end. Nothing much was done during the rest of the week; but on Sunday,
March 10, a deputation of tenants was persuaded to enter Lathom to plead
with Lady Derby to surrender; but once inside the gates their royalism
was apparent and the pleading was not very powerful. Yet once more,
however, on the day following (Monday, March 11) Captain John Ashhurst,
whom the royalists praise for his courtesy, came in with a last proposal
from Fairfax. All former conditions were to be waived; the Countess,
all the garrison and all the household were to have liberty to depart
wherever they pleased with all their arms, ordnance and goods, yielding
up the house to Sir Thomas Fairfax. The arms, however, were never to be
employed against the Parliament; and everyone must leave the house at
once excepting a hundred people who might remain ten days. This was of
course refused, and all negotiations were now at an end.

The siege now began to be pressed with more vigour. The royalist
garrison consisted of 300 men. Lady Derby was called Commander-in-Chief,
with Mr. Farington as her chief adviser; and the Captains were Farmer,
Ogle, Molyneux, Radcliffe, Chisenhale, Rawsthorne, Charnock, and Fox.
Farmer, who was made Major of the House, was a Scotchman who had seen
service in the Low countries. He was afterwards killed at Marston Moor.
Rawsthorne, then Colonel, was in chief command during the second siege.
The garrison was divided equally among all the Captains, who had
therefore not quite half a company each. Half the garrison was on duty
every night, and 16 marksmen from the whole number kept watch all day on
the Towers.

The Parliamentarian soldiers before Lathom were drawn out of each
Hundred by turns, their whole number being between 2,000 and 3,000. At
first the troops seemed to have come from South Lancashire, those from
the Fylde being called up at the end of a fortnight. The soldiers were
on duty every third day and night, their provision and pay being levied
on the towns in which the companies were raised.[128] Sir Thomas
Fairfax, who conducted the negotiations, left the siege early in March,
and after his departure the chief command seems to have devolved upon
Colonel Rigby, who stayed at Ormskirk, three miles away, and came over
daily to the siege.

The first advance of the Parliamentarians drove out the royalists from
the Stand in the Park which they had occupied; but the besiegers seem at
first to have greatly underrated the difficulty of their task, not
because they expected to take the House by storm, but thinking it was so
poorly provisioned that it might be easily starved into surrender. As a
matter of fact, however, Lathom was well stocked with food, and for a
time at least the blockade was so incomplete that supplies could easily
be brought in. Moreover the difficulty of the ground for siege
operations soon became apparent, and the nearer the lines were drawn to
the walls the more danger was incurred from the marksmen on the Towers.
The garrison was not content merely to look on at the attack but soon
began to make sorties which greatly harassed the besieging force. On
Tuesday, March 12, Captain Farmer led out 100 foot and the 12 horse
which was all the garrison possessed, attacked the besiegers' works, and
slew several of them, taking six prisoners. The following Sunday night,
Captain Chisenhale sallied out from the rear gate with 30 men, and put
the Parliamentarians to ignominious flight. The accounts of these
sorties are probably exaggerated, and the number of the besiegers who
were killed is certainly placed much too high; but the attack was not
pressed with very much resolution. Much of the firing against the House
was wild, and large amounts of ammunition were wasted;[129] though it is
evident that a good deal of damage was done to the buildings by cannon
shots. The besiegers' most successful weapon was a large mortar which
was loaded with grenades or with eight pound stone bullets and did
considerable execution. One shot falling into an old court destroyed
most of the buildings which surrounded it; and another struck one of the
Towers and broke down a large clock.

Towards the end of March a message came from the Earl of Derby to Sir
Thomas Fairfax, desiring free passage for his Lady and children from the
House; but the garrison realising that Lord Derby knew nothing of the
provision which had been made for a siege, or of the successful defence
which was being carried on, resolved to take no notice of it. A formal
acknowledgment was sent to Sir Thomas Fairfax, and a messenger was sent
to Lord Derby who was then at Chester, to acquaint him more exactly with
the state of things in Lancashire.

The besiegers still continued their bombardment of the House but without
much effect; and the garrison continued to have much the best of the
sorties. On the morning of Wednesday, April 11, Captain Farmer and
Captain Radcliffe led out about half the garrison from a postern gate
and drove the Parliamentarians from most of their works, which had now
been formed all round the walls, Radcliffe showing especial bravery. The
retreat was secured by Captain Ogle and Captain Chisenhale. The
royalists declared that they had spiked all the besiegers' guns, but as
the bombardment continued after this without any intermission the
statement must be false. They were evidently obliged to take great
precautions against the cannon shot, and men were constantly on the
watch with damp cloths to prevent the buildings from catching fire.
Towards the middle of April a chance shot entered the window of Lady
Derby's room "but was too weak to fright her from the lodging"; ten days
afterwards, however, two larger cannon bullets broke into the room, and
she was obliged to remove to another part of the building. The royalists
were most in fear of the large mortar piece; and their next expedition
was made with the object of effecting its capture. About 4 a.m. on
April 26th,[130] a sortie in force was made. The walls and gates were
well guarded, and a reserve told off to assist a retreat if necessary;
Captain Chisenhale then issued from the eastern gate, surprised the
besiegers and after severe fighting drove them from their trenches. The
great cannon was placed upon a sledge which had been kept in readiness
and drawn within the walls. The Parliamentarians must have suffered
considerably in this skirmish, and they lost still more in prestige.
Inside Lathom there were extravagant expressions of joy at the capture
of the dreaded mortar; and the royalists boasted that the very day of
its capture Rigby had invited a number of his friends to witness the
surrender of the House. The besiegers were proportionately discouraged
by its loss; and many of their other guns were now removed in order to
prevent their capture.

The Parliamentarians now endeavoured to cut off the water supply from
Lathom and to drain the moat. The first was impossible, as the springs
that supplied the well inside Lathom were drawn from higher ground east
of the House. A trench was begun in order to empty the moat, but it does
not seem to have been proceeded with. The country people of the
neighbourhood were pressed into service, and many weeks' work was spent
in vain. The fidelity of the chief engineer, whose name was Brown, was
by no means above suspicion, and he was at any rate incompetent if not
treacherous. In one of the sorties by the garrison an assistant engineer
was taken prisoner, and he explained the design of the trench.

Colonel Assheton had been called away from the siege early in April.
After the sortie of April 26, the discouragement of the Parliamentarian
troops was great, and Rigby wrote in much depression to the Committee
at Manchester. "We are obliged to repel them five or six times in a
night. These constant alarms, the numbers of the garrison, and our great
losses, compel our men to mount guard every other night and even two
nights in succession. For my part I am spent with anxiety and
fatigue."[131] It is therefore surprising to find that summonses for
surrender were still being sent into Lathom. The very day before the
capture of the mortar a demand was sent to the Countess "to yield up
Lathom House, all the persons, goods and arms within it to receive the
mercy of the Parliament, and to return her final answer the next day
before 2 o'clock." It was to this summons which Lady Derby returned her
famous answer--

    "Tell that insolent rebel, he shall neither have persons, goods nor
    house; when our strength and provision is spent, we shall find a
    fire more merciful than Rigby, and then if the providence of God
    prevent it not my goods and house shall burn in his sight; myself,
    children and soldiers rather than fall into his hands, will seal
    our religion and loyalty in the same flame."

This heroic declaration roused the garrison to wild enthusiasm, and they
broke out into loud exclamations "we will die for His Majesty and your
honour. God save the King."[132]

After this very little was done before Lathom for some weeks, though
skirmishing continued at intervals with varying success. The
Parliamentarians now confined themselves to a blockade of the House, and
even this was not very effective. For five or six weeks before the end
of the siege there seems to have been practically no fighting. The
besiegers continued at work in their trenches, but a heavy fall of rain
which caused some of the earth to fall in and killed three men,
interfered with this undertaking. The royalists stated, and probably
with some truth, that the besiegers were so disheartened that they could
not prevent their men from deserting in large numbers.

At a meeting of the Committee in Manchester on April 23rd, it was
resolved to raise additional troops for the siege at Lathom, and to
assess a weekly amount of £4,627/6/4 on the whole county, except
Lonsdale Hundred and Garstang Parish, which were already being taxed to
maintain the siege of Greenhalgh Castle.[133] It is improbable, however,
that these resolutions were carried into effect, for the attack showed
no more vigour than before; and it had little prospect of success long
before the approach of Prince Rupert effected a complete change in the
position of affairs. It was not till towards the end of May that news
came of Rupert's march, and Colonel Rigby again sent a summons to Lathom
to surrender. This was of course refused; and the same day a messenger
arrived from the Earl of Derby with news of the Prince's approach. This
was, as a matter of fact, only two days before Rupert crossed the
Mersey, and as soon as this was ascertained, the Parliamentarian troops
marched away from Lathom with all haste. (May 27.) The royalists claimed
that the besiegers had lost 500 men during the siege.[134]


NOTE ON THE SITE OF LATHOM HOUSE.

Almost incredible as it seems, not only has old Lathom House completely
disappeared but it is impossible to decide with any certainty where it
stood. The present house is not large and was evidently all planned at
the time it was built, which was early in the eighteenth century. It is
said that it stands on a part of the former site, and certain parts of
it, of darker stone than the rest, are supposed to have come from the
former building; moreover a hundred yards or so before the house (which
faces south) and drawn round it for about three hundred yards is a
shallow depression which is said to be the old moat. This has been
filled in at the back of the present house to make a garden. Excavations
near the present site are said to have discovered human remains.

All this may sound conclusive, but it is impossible to reconcile the
surroundings of the present house with the exact description given by
Seacome. In spite of his usual inaccuracy in recording events it seems
impossible that such a description as he gives, evidently that of an eye
witness, can be incorrect except perhaps in one or two details. His
exact words may be quoted:--

    "As to the situation of Lathom House it stands upon a flat, upon a
    moorish springy and spumous ground, and was encompassed with a
    strong wall of two yards thick; upon the walls were nine towers
    flanking each other and in every tower were six pieces of ordnance
    that played three one way and three the other; without the wall was
    a moat eight yards wide and two yards deep; upon the back of the
    moat between the wall and the graff was a strong row of palisades
    around. Besides all these, there was a high strong tower, called
    the Eagle Tower, in the midst of the house surmounting all the
    rest; and the gate house had also two high and strong buildings
    with a strong tower on each side of it.... Besides all that has
    hitherto been said of the walls, towers, moat, etc., there is
    something so particular and romantic in the general situation of
    this house as if nature herself had formed it for a stronghold or
    place of security; for before the house to the south and south-west
    is a rising ground so near it as to overlook the top of it, from
    which it falls so quick that nothing planted against it on those
    sides can touch it further than the front wall; and on the north
    and east sides there is another rising ground, even to the edge of
    the moat, and then falls away so quick, that you can scarce, at the
    distance of a carbine shot, see the house over that height; so that
    all the batteries placed there are so far below it as to be of
    little service against it: and let us observe by the way that the
    uncommon situation of it may be compared to the palm of a man's
    hand, flat in the middle, and covered with a rising round about it,
    and so near to it that the enemy, during the siege, were never able
    to raise a battery against it, so as to make a breach in the wall
    practicable to enter the house by way of storm." ("House of
    Stanley," p. 90.)

Either Seacome invented all the above, or the present Lathom House is
not only not on the old site, but it is not anywhere near to it. For it
is impossible to suppose that the nature of the ground can have changed
so entirely. The soil round the present Lathom House is not marshy but
sandy, and it is not hilly but flat. There is a very slight slope away
from the front of the house to the south, and also to the north, but on
no side is there any place which can possibly be supposed to answer to
Seacome's description. Moreover the so-called moat is by no means
convincing. It is conceivable that a moat may have been considerably
filled in since the seventeenth century, but the wall which now supports
the bank is not high and the stone looks new; Seacome's eight yards wide
and two yards deep could hardly have so shrunk.

In the woods recently planted, which began about half a mile south of
the present house, is an evidently artificial ditch, some 250 yards in
length, bending slightly in the middle and running roughly E. and W. and
N.E. and S.W. This is known as Cromwell's Trench, and the tradition is
said to be an ancient one; there is also at some distance a large block
of stone containing on its upper surface two hollows which are said to
have been used for casting bullets; this is locally known as Cromwell's
Stone. It may be noted that Roby's reference to the site, though he
evidently visited it, is not quite accurate. He says "It is said that
the camp of the besiegers was in a woody dell near what is now called
the 'Round O Quarry' about half a mile from Lathom. This dell is still
called 'Cromwell's Trench'; and a large and remarkable stone, having two
circular hollows or holes on its upper surface, evidently once
containing nodules of iron, is called 'Cromwell's Stone,' the country
people supposing these holes were used as moulds for casting bullets
during the siege." ("Traditions of Lancashire," 5th ed., 1811, vol. i,
p. 315.)

Actually the trench is rather more than half a mile from Lathom but the
Stone is a quarter of a mile from the Trench, and the Quarry is at least
a mile further off again. But Roby evidently thought that the old house
was at a considerable distance from the present one, for his imaginary
view[135] is taken "from a hill above the valley or trench where it is
said the main army of the besiegers was encamped." The present house
cannot be seen from the edge of the woods.

Roby's view seems to the present writer to give approximately the site
of the old House. Accepting the Trench tradition as correct, it fixes
the position of the House somewhere in the immediate vicinity, for 17th
century siege guns were so poor that the besiegers' camp must have been
quite close to the walls. It is of course possible that the Trench is
that made during the second siege which the "Discourse" says was a good
distance from the walls, but even so there would be no point at all in
having it more than half a mile away. Moreover the character of the
ground at this point is both hilly and marshy just as in Seacome's
description. It seems, therefore, most reasonable to suppose that the
site of old Lathom House was somewhere in the woods, but on account of
the undergrowth it is not possible to determine its exact position.[136]

In the gardens at Lathom are many pieces of cut stone which have come
from the old building, and in one place has been pieced together the
upper tracery of a large window, perhaps from the chapel.

FOOTNOTES:

[111] Newspapers in "C.W.T.," pp. 152, 153.

[112] "Portland MSS.," Vol. 1, p. 717. T. Stockdale to Wm. Lenthall.
This is a very minute description of the battle.

[113] "A Declaration and Summons sent by the Earl of Newcastle, etc."
("C.W.T.," p. 143): "I cannot but wonder while you fight against the
King and his authority, you should so boldly offer to Professe
yourselves for King and Parliament, and most ignominously scandalize
this army with the title of Papists, when we ventured our Lives and
Fortunes for the true Protestant Religion, established in this Kingdom."
The Lancashire letter to Lenthall is in the "Tanner MSS.," Vol. 62. fol.
152.

[114] Newspapers: Rosworm's "Good Service" ("C.W.T.," pp. 146, 147,
228). The border of Lancashire and Yorkshire about Blackstone Edge is
formed by high moors. The main road over the Edge is 1,269 feet above
sea level; and the summit of the moor 1,553 feet. The next summit to the
south, Bleakedgate Moor, is 1,663 feet; Rosworm says that this too was
fortified. The descent on the Lancashire side is rather steeper than
that into Yorkshire, but the latter is steep enough to make attack very
difficult. Blackstone Edge is 18 miles from Manchester, 6 from Rochdale,
and 11 from Halifax; Rosworm calls Halifax "distant about 16 mile from
us"; but actually it is 28 miles by the nearest way, and over Blackstone
Edge 29. In spite of the fortification of the border, it was thought
advisable to send away the royalist prisoners at Manchester to some more
distant place ("C.W.T.," p. 146).

[115] During these operations the Parliamentarian troops were supported
out of sequestered estates, the Order for Sequestrations being now for
the first time put into force. Tyldesley's estate at Myerscough was
sequestered in October, the first in Amounderness Hundred ("Discourse,"
p. 44).

[116] "L.J.," Vol. 6, p. 279. Order for pressing 3,000 soldiers in
Lancashire, with so many gunners, trumpeters, and surgeons, as the
Committee may think fit.

[117] Thurland Castle is still of much the same extent as formerly, but
the old building only remains in the lower part of the walls. Two
pictures in Philips' "Lancashire Halls," 1822-24, show a very
dilapidated building. The moat is three or four yards wide and seven
feet deep, and is still only crossed by a single bridge.

[118] "Discourse," p. 41. "A True Relation of the great victory, etc."
("C.W.T.," p. 148). "The British Mercury," No. 5, November 27. "The
Weekly Account," No. 7, October 18. Rigby's letter to the Speaker was
read in the House of Commons, and on November 18 he was formally
thanked, and the destruction of Thurland Castle approved ("C.J.," Vol.
3, p. 315). It is evident that in spite of statements to the contrary,
the common soldiers on both sides were alike in the matter of
plundering. There are two places in Furness named Lindale, one near
Cartmel, and one near Dalton. As Rigby says that the royalists were
driven into the sea, it must have been the former of these places where
the battle was fought.

In some resolutions agreed upon at a meeting of the Deputy-Lieutenants
of Lancashire at Preston on October 12, 1643, it was decided that Hornby
Castle should be destroyed according to the Order of Parliament; so that
the Order had evidently not yet been carried into effect. It was also
decided to maintain the garrisons of Warrington and Liverpool ("Hist.
MSS. Com.," Vol. 10, app. 4, pp. 67, 68).

[119] "Discourse," p. 45. Cf. also "Hist. MSS. Comm.," Vol. 10, app. 4,
p. 66, where is given a petition from the town of Liverpool that Colonel
Moore might be Governor in place of Venables, who had been ordered to
Ireland (March, 1643-4). Moore was Governor later in the same year when
the town was taken by Prince Rupert.

[120] "Carte MSS.," Vol. 7, fol. 287. Bridgeman to Ormonde, _ibid_, Vol.
7, p. 638.

[121] "C.W.T.," pp. 152-154. Colonel Robert Byron to Ormonde, January 9,
1643-4. "Carte MSS.," Vol. 8, fol. 464, 465. Byron says that 800 of the
Parliamentarians were killed, and 274 taken prisoners. His own regiment
bore the brunt of the fighting, and he himself was wounded.

[122] "Clarendon" (Macray), Vol. 3, p. 315 (bk. 7, par. 401).

[123] Magnalia Dei ("Cheshire Civil War Tracts," C.S. new series 65, p.
97). Great care must be taken in using this volume, as it is exceedingly
badly arranged. No notice is taken of the fact that in the seventeenth
century March 25 was reckoned as the first day of the year, the Tracts
for January, February and March of each year being placed at the
beginning of the year, instead of at the end as they ought to be. Cf.
also "C.W.T.," pp. 152-154; "Discourse," pp. 44, 45, and notes.

[124] _Vide_ note at the end of the chapter.

[125] The main authority for the first siege of Lathom is a "Journal" by
someone in the House (usually supposed to have been Archdeacon Rutter,
Lady Derby's chaplain), of which two MSS. copies exist, one being
"Harleian MSS.," No. 2074, the other preserved in the Ashmolean Museum
at Oxford. They differ only slightly. The former is printed in "C.W.T.,"
pp. 159-186. _Vide_ also "Discourse," pp. 46-49; "Seacome," pp. 86-93.
Cf. also "Victoria County History of Lancs.," Vol. 3, p. 252. There is
an account of both sieges of Lathom by Mrs. Colin Campbell in "Memorials
of Old Lancashire" (1909), Vol. 1, pp. 107-129: it is not of much
historical value, being apparently based chiefly on Seacome.

[126] Seacome calls this officer Major Morgan. It is somewhat remarkable
that the writer of the "Discourse" does not mention him at all, but
states that the chief engineer was named Brown (_vide_ p. 109). Morgan
was afterwards one of the foremost engineers of his time. He was the
second son of Robert Morgan of Llanrhymny; had served in the Low
Countries before the Civil War broke out, and became Governor of
Gloucester for the Parliament. He was with Brereton when the last
royalist force was defeated at Stow-in-the-Wold in 1646. Later he was
closely associated with Monck; was knighted by Richard Cromwell in 1651,
and continued in the army after the Restoration ("Discourse" note, p.
133). "Dictionary of National Biography," art. by Prof. C. H. Firth.

[127] Cf. however, "Martindale's Life," p. 44: "Had Lathom beene only
blocked up at a distance by small garrisons and forts at considerable
passes (for which there was spare forces enough) and not closely
besieged, perhaps that great storme had not fallen upon Lancashire
(especially Bolton and Liverpool) by Prince Rupert's forces in their
march to York."

[128] "Discourse," p. 47.

[129] "There was needlessly spent against it in shot and powder an
infinite quantity. Some was alwaies shooting at nothing they could see
but the walls" ("Discourse," p. 47).

[130] This is the date given in the Earl of Derby's Diary, "Stanley
Papers," part 3, Vol. 3, p. 3 (C.S. 70), ed. Raines.

[131] Quoted in Marlet, "Charlotte de la Tremoille," p. 117. The
"Mercurius Aulicus" tells a story about one sortie, that "the rebels
held up a shoulder of mutton on a pike, and called to the defenders to
come and dine." The garrison therefore sallied out on them as they were
at dinner and scattered them.

[132] "A Briefe Journall of the Siege against Lathom" ("C.W.T.," pp.
176, 177).

[133] "Stanley Papers," part 3, Vol. 1 (Chet. Soc. 66), p. ci note.

[134] This is the estimate of the "Journall" ("C.W.T.," p. 186. The
numbers in the "Mercurius Aulicus" seem to be considerably more
exaggerated even than are parliamentarian figures of royalist losses.
The only reference to numbers on the part of the besiegers is in a
letter written by Colonel Moore to the Lords Commissioners for England
and Scotland, on April 16: "They sallied forth of the House upon
Wednesday last, and we lost five and they fower. They likewise sallied
forth last evening, but we beat them in without losse, and they lost
two." (Stewart MSS., "Hist. MSS. Com.," report 10, app. 4, p. 472.)

[135] This view is given in "Traditions of Lancashire," 3rd ed., 1843,
Vol. 1, p. 170.

[136] Cf. "Victoria County History of Lancs.," Vol. 3, p. 252, note 3.




CHAPTER VII.

Prince Rupert in Lancashire.


In the months of May and June, 1644, Lancashire for the first time
became involved in the general course of the war, and for some weeks it
was the centre of most important events. So much of other than merely
local interest had the first siege of Lathom House, that it influenced
the course of Rupert's march north, which was made in order to effect a
junction with the Earl of Newcastle to check the Scotch army which was
now on its way to the assistance of the Parliament. The Scots, 21,000
strong, under Alexander Leslie, Earl of Leven, had crossed the Tweed on
January 19, 1643-4. Newcastle at once summoned Rupert to come to his
aid, and marching northwards occupied the town of Newcastle; but he was
soon obliged to fall back on Durham. Meanwhile Sir Thomas Fairfax, after
the battle of Nantwich on January 25th, had rejoined his father in
Yorkshire, and the two soon began to recover the county for the
Parliament. On April 11th they stormed Selby, taking among other
prisoners Lord Bellasis, whom Newcastle had left in command during his
absence. This defeat obliged Newcastle to retreat still further
southwards, and he shut himself up in York which was blockaded by
Fairfax and the Scots on April 22nd.[137]

In January of this year Rupert had captured Aylesbury, and early in
March he set out to relieve Newark which had been invested by the
Parliament. The siege was raised, and the besiegers, who were commanded
by Sir John Meldrum, were forced to capitulate; but Rupert had to
return his troops to the garrisons from which he had borrowed them, and
almost without an army he marched back to the Welsh border, where he
occupied himself with raising fresh troops to go to the assistance of
the Earl of Newcastle.

As soon as his intentions for the north were known, the Earl of Derby
endeavoured to persuade him to march by way of Lancashire in order to
relieve Lathom House. The besieged Countess must have written to her
husband in a very different tone from that of her defiant answers to
Rigby; indeed if the Earl of Derby did not unduly exaggerate the
position of the garrison, they must have been in imminent fear of being
compelled to surrender. The petition was, however, seconded by the
Lancashire royalists, and the Earl of Derby promised that if Lathom were
relieved he would aid Rupert's further march with 2,000 men and a
considerable sum of money. It was pointed out that the towns of
Liverpool and Warrington were but weakly garrisoned, and that the
reconquest of Lancashire would be a great gain for the King's cause in
the north of England, "the rebellion in those parts being wholly
supported from there." Liverpool would be of immense use as the port
towards Ireland, and Derby and Prince Rupert had already discussed over
the map the possibility of reducing it.[138]

Sir John Byron, the royalist Governor of Chester, was persuaded to
support the scheme; and the Earl of Derby having personally written to
the King urging its desirability, Charles' approval was given. The
prospect of invasion had caused great consternation among the Lancashire
Parliamentarians as early as the middle of March;[139] but it was two
months after that before Rupert was able to move. Drawing his forces
together he began his advance towards Yorkshire about the middle of May.
On the 18th the royalists moved from Holt, Malpas, and Whitchurch, to a
more easterly position at Market Drayton; and next day they crossed the
River Weaver, and advanced to Audlem and Bruerton which are just over
the Cheshire border. A thousand Parliamentarian troops marched out of
Nantwich as far as Hatherton, but Rupert was not anxious to fight and
fell back to Audlem. (Monday, May 20th.) It was feared that he would lay
siege to Nantwich, but he passed to the east of that place, and on
Tuesday, May 21, his troops were quartered about Haslington and
Sandbach, while Rupert himself stayed at Betley. On May 24th the march
to Lancashire began, and the royalists lodged at Knutsford, which is
only ten miles from the Lancashire border; the following day they
advanced to Stockport, only seven miles distant from Manchester. Prince
Rupert's forces were estimated at 8,000 or 10,000 men, mostly cavalry,
and they were said to have 50 guns. At Stockport Colonels Mainwaring and
Duckenfield were posted with about 3,000 men to oppose his advance, but
they seem to have made very little resistance, and after a short
skirmish they broke and fled towards Manchester, leaving 800 prisoners.
The royalists occupied Stockport, and were joined there by some of
Newcastle's cavalry from Derbyshire. Rupert left some of these to
garrison Stockport, and moved on into Lancashire with the main body of
his army.[140]

The Parliamentarian leaders before York thought that Rupert ought to
have been stopped at Stockport.[141] There were two ways by which the
royalists might have entered Lancashire, either at Stockport or at
Warrington; probably the passage of the river Mersey at Warrington was
too strongly guarded for Rupert to attempt it, for he must have
preferred that way if he could have chosen. Not only was it the most
direct way to Lathom but it passed through country which was much better
affected to the King's cause than East Lancashire. But no doubt the
resistance offered at Stockport was very feeble. Rupert had certainly
not more than 10,000 men, and there should have been almost an equal
number available to oppose him. For the Lancashire leaders had refused
in April to send 2,000 men out of the county for the relief of the Earl
of Denbigh on account of the necessities of their own county.[142]
Lathom House, they said, was still unsubdued; the Earl of Derby
threatened invasion from Wirrall, and the Westmoreland royalists from
the north. It is true that some troops which had marched into Yorkshire
had been kept there to assist in the siege of York; but the two
Committees of Lancashire and Cheshire ought to have had far more than
3,000 men at Stockport to oppose the royalist advance. Perhaps one
reason for their failure was the acute differences which had broken out
among the Lancashire leaders. Complaints were made against Colonel
Dodding, Colonel Holland and others, and there was even insubordination
shown to Sir Thomas Fairfax. There seems to have been no ground for
the suspicions of Dodding. He had suffered considerably for the
Parliamentarian cause, and he continued to serve it faithfully. As
regards Holland the complaints were probably justified; he had always
been a rather lukewarm supporter of his party.[143]

As soon as Rupert had entered Lancashire his forces were considerably
increased, the local royalists flocking to him in large numbers. The
Earl of Derby joined him with all the forces he could raise. The
royalists had now to decide whether they would attack Manchester or
march straight for Lathom. On the day after Rupert's victory at
Stockport, Manchester was secured by Sir John Meldrum with one Scotch
regiment and one of Fairfax's consisting of Lancashire men.[144]
Apparently Meldrum had intended to arrive in time to prevent the
royalists' advance from Cheshire, but he was too late. Rupert, however,
had not much time to waste in sieges, and it was evident that Manchester
could not be taken except after a long investment. Rosworm describes an
attempt which was made by the royalists to induce him to betray the town
by promise of a large sum of money and advancement under Prince Rupert.
The intermediary was Peter Heywood. There may be some truth in the
account, but Heywood's plot to betray Manchester seems to have been made
about a month before this time, and Rosworm's narrative is here very
inaccurate. For instance he places Rupert's advance after the siege of
Liverpool in August, in which he himself was engaged.[145] Whether or
not the royalists attempted to gain Manchester by treachery, they
certainly made no approach on the town but keeping to the west they
moved by way of Barlow Moor and Trafford Park about three miles distant
from Manchester. Rupert's objective was now Bolton, the second Puritan
stronghold of the county.

When the news of Rupert's coming reached the camp of the besiegers
before Lathom House the only doubt was where they might escape. The
terror of Rupert's name was worth a great deal to the royalists. Colonel
Rigby showed great indecision; he could not make up his mind whether to
stay in Lancashire, or to cross into Yorkshire. His troops were first
removed to Eccleston Green, and they would then probably have been
marched to Manchester but for the fear of meeting Rupert on the way.
Rigby's own family were in Preston, and they at once escaped into
Yorkshire. In Preston also there were about 50 royalist prisoners
guarded by Captain Pateson and Captain Swarbreck; and they twice
received orders which were afterwards contradicted to join Rigby at
Eccleston. Finally they were directed to convey their prisoners to
Lancaster Castle. Leaving Preston on the same day that Prince Rupert
took Bolton they quartered one night at Myerscough Lodge; next day they
were attacked by a troop of royalist horse, and but for the timely
assistance of Colonel Dodding, who was quartered at Garstang on his
way towards Manchester, the prisoners would probably have been
released.[146]

Rigby finally made up his mind to go to Bolton, thinking that Rupert
would march either to Blackburn, or to Preston and Lancaster; but as it
turned out the Parliamentarians only reached Bolton on the day before
the royalists. Rigby occupied the town on May 27th, and next morning
Rupert appeared before the town; and finding Rigby and his men in
possession they determined on an assault.

The chances were obviously in favour of the royalists. They were quite
three to one in numbers, and were commanded by the dreaded Prince Rupert
and by the Earl of Derby. Their opponents were disheartened by an
unsuccessful three months' siege; moreover they were mostly newly raised
troops, and as there had been no garrison kept in Bolton for almost
twelve months the defences were considered out of repair. Nevertheless
the fight was very fierce and for a time undecided. The royalists
approached the town about 2 o'clock in the afternoon from the
south-west, and at once delivered an attack at several quarters; but
after about half an hour's hard fighting at close quarters the first
assault was beaten off. The royalists state that they lost 200 men in
this repulse. Colonel Rigby sent out of the town a troop of horse to
stave off the second attack, but these were defeated. The Earl of Derby
in person led the second attack, having requested Prince Rupert to allow
him for this purpose two companies of his own soldiers then under the
command of Colonel Tyldesley. After a quarter of an hour's desperate
fighting the royalists effected an entrance, the Earl being the first
man to enter. Some cavalry were admitted to another part of the town
through the treachery of one of the townsmen, and caught between the two
forces the Parliamentarian troops were routed. Each man saved himself as
he might, but against the overwhelming superiority of the royalist horse
in an unwalled town the defenders were helpless and the slaughter was
great.[147] Little mercy was shown by the infuriated royalists, Prince
Rupert having, on their own confession, at first forbidden quarter to be
given to any in arms. Seacome states that 2,000 Parliamentarian soldiers
out of a total of 3,000 were killed, and another royalist account puts
the slain at 1,600 with 700 prisoners. Both these estimates are probably
too high. It does not seem probable that Rigby had more than 2,500 men,
and large numbers of these certainly escaped, while more than 200 were
taken prisoners. A more reasonable estimate by a Parliamentarian writer
places the total loss on both sides at 1,200 to 1,500, which is more
likely to be correct. The Parliamentarians would not be likely to
over-estimate their own losses. Of this 1,200 or 1,500 no doubt the
larger number would belong to the town. Supposing the royalists to have
lost 200 men in the first attack and 200 more during all the rest of the
engagement, it would still make the losses of the town three or four
times as numerous, which is credible enough; for the Parliamentarian
troops would have lost very heavily in their flight, Rupert having a
large number of cavalry who could be of service in the pursuit. Colonel
Rigby's cleverness alone secured his own escape. Being on horseback he
mingled with the royalists as they entered the town, learned their
password, and posed for a time as one of their officers; then taking
advantage of the general confusion he rode away with one attendant into
Yorkshire.

The capture of Bolton, or "Bolton Massacre" as the Parliamentarian
writers called it, was the saddest incident of the whole war in
Lancashire. Nowhere else was the naturally bitter character of an
intestine struggle so unhappily illustrated; nowhere else were such
furious passions aroused; nowhere else was the slaughter so terrible.
The account by a townsman, "An Exact Relation of the bloody and
barbarous Massacre at Bolton in the Moors in Lancashire," etc., is
without parallel in all the contemporary authorities for the vivid
horror of its descriptions. Against the otherwise moderate conduct of
the Lancashire war this terrible incident stood out in sharp contrast.
It is of course easy enough for the historian, surveying it impartially
at a long distance of time, to explain why this was so. No one could
call Prince Rupert's methods of war merciful at any time; and in the
present instance he was in haste to relieve York, and would be sure to
make short work of any obstacles in his way. For the local royalist
troops engaged, it was the first experience of victory after many months
of defeat, and the garrison opposed to them was the same force which had
besieged Lathom House, against whom naturally the Earl of Derby and his
followers had a particular grudge. They were commanded by the hated
Rigby, and Bolton, 'the Geneva of the north,' was especially detested by
the opponents of Puritanism. All these considerations served to make the
capture of Bolton more than usually terrible. It is probable, however,
that the stories related by both sides of the outrages committed by
their opponents, are exaggerated if not invented. The royalists assert
that after their first attack had been beaten off, some prisoners taken
were put to death in their sight upon the walls of the town; and they
attribute their unrestrained slaughter on gaining the victory to this
act of cruelty. The statement is, however, made by Seacome, who is
notoriously inaccurate; and as it is quite unsupported by any other
testimony, it is impossible to believe it. On the other hand, horrible
stories of barbarity are related by the Parliamentarian writers as
having been committed by the victors, in some cases on defenceless
townsmen, and even on women and children. These are much more likely to
be true than the other, but they are probably exaggerated. The gravest
charge is that made against the Earl of Derby himself, that one Captain
Bootle, formerly in his service, was taken prisoner and brought before
the Earl at his own request to ask for mercy; and that Derby thereupon
drew his sword and ran him through the body in cold blood. This story
may be equally discredited.[148] Bootle was certainly killed during the
siege; and the royalists state that he was killed by the Earl of Derby
during the fighting, which is most probably true. Before his execution
Derby denied the charge; and it seems quite incredible that a man so
highminded and chivalrous, should have committed such an act even in the
excitement of victory. There was perhaps great cruelty shown by the
royalists, but not by Derby personally; and we must attribute the story
of the manner of Bootle's death to party malice.

Prince Rupert sent all the twenty-two colours taken at Bolton to Lady
Derby at Lathom House, by the hand of Sir Richard Crane, but he did not
immediately march there himself. The Earl of Derby presented to Rupert a
ring worth £20 as a token of his gratitude; and at Lathom there were
great rejoicings. No garrison was left in Bolton, and the prisoners were
taken away bound two and two together, and sent over Hale Ford into
Cheshire where they were distributed between Chester, Shrewsbury, and
other places.[149] After this success the county came in very fast to
the royalists, and Derby soon had 5,000 men under his command.

The Parliamentarians never forgave the massacre at Bolton. Wrongly
accused as he was, Derby's share in the engagement was in part at least
responsible for the implacability with which his enemies pursued him to
the scaffold. From this time onwards the Parliament placed his name
among the list of those who were to be excepted from pardon in case
peace was made with the King. Bolton market place was chosen as the
place of his death in remembrance of the royalist victory there. As
regards the Prince, they delighted to ascribe his subsequent disaster to
the vengeance of Heaven for his cruelty in Lancashire. "The blood of
Bolton would not let him rest till all the glory he had got was lost in
one hour"[150] writes Baillie on July 12. At Marston Moor, though the
royalists were nearly successful, it was the ever victorious Rupert who
was driven off the field at the first encounter.

A collection for the relief of Bolton was made in Manchester Church and
Salford Chapel in June, and reached the total of £140, a large sum
considering the general distress which prevailed.[151]

When the Committee of both Kingdoms heard of Rupert's advance, they
wrote to the Earl of Manchester before York urging him to send a
considerable force to resist the Prince in Lancashire. (June 1st.) It
was urged that Rupert might secure Lancashire, capture the passes so
that he could send out troops into the neighbouring counties as he
liked, and by means of Liverpool take in supplies from the sea; by which
the war would be indefinitely prolonged. Similar letters were sent to
Fairfax and to Leven. But the Parliamentarian generals in Yorkshire,
rightly objected to dividing their forces; deciding that it was
impossible for them to deal with an enemy who was yet so far away, and
that for the present the West must look after itself. The Committee in
London were urgent, and letters passed daily during the month of June;
but their ignorance of the situation sufficiently illustrates the
absurdity of endeavouring to direct a campaign by votes of a Committee
distant 150 miles from the seat of war. The Earl of Denbigh, the
Parliamentarian general in the Midlands, defended himself at length and
with some heat from the charge that he was to blame in not being able to
check Prince Rupert's march by falling upon his rear.[152] At length Sir
Harry Vane was sent down to York to consult with the generals there; but
on arriving early in June he was speedily convinced that it was
impossible to divide the army as the Committee suggested. Assheton and
Rigby, who were in Yorkshire, naturally seconded the Committee's
opinion; but until the Earl of Manchester's foot had been brought to the
siege, progress had been very slow, and it would have been very unwise
to weaken the besieging force; as it was, York was closely beset on all
sides and might soon be expected to capitulate. The Committee were
evidently wrong. To divide the Parliamentarian army would have been
dangerous, to raise the siege of York would have played into the enemy's
hands. Rupert was in fact wasting time in Lancashire. His best chance
would have been to gather all the troops he could after his capture of
Bolton and to march straight on York; but he spent four precious weeks
before he left Lancashire. "I hope you will not have cause to apprehend
Prince Rupert's strength," wrote Manchester, "for excepting plundering,
at which his army is expert, no considerable places have been taken
possession of by his army."[153] The Committee of both Kingdoms indeed
over-rated Prince Rupert's ability. He was no great general though a
splendid cavalry officer. The plan which they sketched for him of
securing Lancashire and using it as a base was beyond his powers, even
if it had been possible under the circumstances. And the Lancashire
royalists had been so scattered before Rupert came, that they were not
able to give him any very substantial help. As long as it continued to
be impossible for the King to march north, Rupert might be left to
himself.

After a few days rest at Bolton, the royalists marched at once to
Liverpool. They stated that Newcastle had sent word that he could still
hold out for a few weeks. The Liverpool of that day was a small town
situated on a ridge of land east of the Mersey, and sloping on the west
towards the river and on the east towards the country. It was strongly
fortified and held by Colonel Moore, who was the Parliamentarian
Governor. At the north end of the town was a high mud wall, and a ditch
12 yards wide and 3 yards deep was drawn round most of the landward
side. At the south end was a castle also protected by a ditch which
could be filled with water from the river; all the streets facing the
river were blocked up, while those on the other side of the town were
palisaded and defended with cannon. When Rupert first looked down on the
town from the higher ridge which overlooked it on the east he likened it
to a crow's nest which might easily be robbed; but before he had taken
it he said it might better be called an eagle's nest or a den of lions.
Flushed with their victory at Bolton, the royalists delivered a furious
attack expecting to overcome as they had done the other town; but at
Liverpool the fortifications were much stronger, and they were beaten
off with the loss of many men. They then established a blockade,
Rupert's main camp being placed at the Beacon, a full mile from the
town, from which he relieved his trenches and batteries twice daily. Day
after day a furious bombardment was directed against the defences,
Rupert's natural impatience being increased by urgent appeals which now
began to come from York. But for a fortnight the town continued to hold
out, and at least two attempts to storm were beaten off with loss. The
failure of the bombardment was partly due to an unusual defence which
was resorted to. The refugees from Ireland, of whom there were a great
many in the town, had brought over among other effects many bags of
wool, and the tops of the walls were lined with these bags, which proved
of great service in deadening the force of the enemy's shot. The
Parliamentarians also had command of the river, and a reinforcement of
400 English and Scotch troops from Manchester were marched to Warrington
and from thence sent to Liverpool by water. At length the royalists
gained an entrance at the north end of the town by a night attack during
Whit-week (June 12 or 13), and carried the town by storm. There was some
slaughter and much plundering; but there were still some ships in the
river, and when the royalists entered the town Moore embarked as many of
his soldiers as he could and himself escaped. He was afterwards much
blamed for deserting the town, and it was suggested that he had yielded
the northern works by treachery in order to ingratiate himself with
Rupert and save his own house, Bank Hall, which was on that side of the
town. But this suggestion seems to have been without foundation; and it
was afterwards stated in Moore's defence that when the royalists entered
Liverpool his soldiers refused to follow him, and that he himself only
retreated when resistance was hopeless, and embarked under fire.[154]

[Illustration: A Plan of LIVERPOOL, _AND THE POOL_; as they appeared
about the Year 1650.]

Prince Rupert left Sir John Byron as Governor of Liverpool, and himself
marched to Lathom House whose fortifications were considerably
strengthened under his direction. He promoted Captain Rawsthorne to the
rank of Colonel, and appointed him Governor of the fortress; Captain
Chisenhale was also made Colonel and accompanied Rupert into Yorkshire.
The Countess of Derby and her children had removed after the raising of
the siege to the Isle of Man.[155] Liverpool was garrisoned by Colonel
Cuthbert Clifton's regiment, newly raised in the Fylde.[156]

The Committee of both Kingdoms still persisted in its design of having
Rupert opposed on his march into Yorkshire; which might have been sound
policy provided no troops were withdrawn from the siege of York for that
purpose. On June 13, they directed the Earl of Denbigh to march into
Cheshire with all his forces and to keep in touch with the garrison at
Manchester which now numbered 5,000 men; and Colonel Hutchinson at
Nottingham was also told to be ready to march with 200 horse and 300
foot.[157] Later a general rendezvous was appointed, at which these
forces were to be joined by Lord Grey with 200 horse and 300 foot, and
by Sir John Gell from Derby with 500 horse and 500 foot. Apparently the
generals before York were at last prevailed upon to promise some troops
for Lancashire. By the end of June, Denbigh was said to be on the march;
but before the preparations were completed they were no longer needed.

Early in June Rupert was joined by Lord Goring with reinforcements of
cavalry, which brought his army up to nearly 15,000 men; but even still
there were delays. Disquieting rumours reached the Prince of the
opportunity which his enemies at court were making in his absence to
accuse him to the King. It was "the common discourse of the Lord Digby,
Lord Percy, Sir John Culpeller, and Wilmot, that it is indifferent
whether the Parliament or Prince Rupert doth prevail." Naturally Rupert
was so enraged "that he was once resolved to send the King his
commission and get to France. This fury interrupted his march ten days."
At last, however, the Prince set out on his way to York. He stopped at
Preston, where a banquet was prepared for him, but he refused it saying
"Banquets were not fit for soldiers," and instead carried the Mayor and
Bailiffs prisoners as far as Skipton Castle where he left them.[158] He
probably used both the roads out of Lancashire by Clitheroe and Colne;
and his march was harassed by Colonel Shuttleworth. Several skirmishes
took place, which were not to the royalists' advantage. Garrisons were
left in Clitheroe and Skipton Castle. On June 25th Rupert was said to be
still in Lancashire, and the Cheshire royalists were still hoping to
catch him on his march; two days later his advance guard was at Skipton;
but after this he marched more swiftly. On Monday, July 1st, the
Parliamentarian armies raised the siege of York on hearing that Rupert
had passed Knaresborough; and the battle of Marston Moor was fought on
the following day.

Marston Moor was the most important battle of the whole civil war, and
the importance of the coming engagement was fully realised before it
took place. Both sides as usual invoked the Divine aid. "If God help us
to take York and defeat him (Rupert) the business is ended in England,"
wrote Baillie on June 9th, and in the same strain Colonel Robert Byron
wrote to Ormond after the battle but before its result was known: "And
doubtless it is the greatest business that hath been since the war
began. God Almighty give the Prince good success."[159] Perhaps nowhere
was the event of the battle awaited with greater anxiety than in
Lancashire. Rupert's coming had changed again the whole state of affairs
in that county. "Half of the county at this time was under their power,
viz., Derby, Leyland, and Amounderness Hundreds from the taking of
Bolton, May 14th, till the 20th August." While the Prince was in
Lancashire the royalists showed great activity so that they might hold
out after he had gone. On the result of Marston Moor depended whether or
not this state of things should remain; but with the defeat of the
royalists the tables were turned again. Instead of having to fight
on the defensive against the victorious enemy the Lancashire
Parliamentarians had now only fugitives to deal with. After the battle
Rupert stayed one night in York, then made his way back by the Yorkshire
Dales into Lancashire; but while his first appearance in the county had
been a progress of victory, at his second coming he headed only
fragments of a defeated army, which were anxious to escape without
further fighting. Indeed what fighting there was took place with his
lieutenants. The Prince himself was at Hornby Castle on July 8th; from
there he marched hastily through the Fylde to Preston and then down the
western coast and so over Hale Ford into Cheshire. His forces, however,
remained in Lancashire for a month afterwards. The Committee of Both
Kingdoms were still in great fear of what Rupert might do, and urged
Fairfax to send forces after him; but Rupert was anxious to get out of
Lancashire as fast as he could, and the forces which he left were in a
scattered condition and without ammunition. They were under the command
of Goring, Molyneux and Tyldesley, and they remained in Amounderness
Hundred, until at length Sir John Meldrum was despatched from York with
1,000 horse to clear the county. Reinforced with Lancashire foot, he set
out in search of the enemy about August 10th, and the royalists on
hearing of his approach retreated again over the Ribble into the Fylde.
Some of them, however, under Lord Ogleby and Colonel Huddleston of
Millom attempted to reach Lathom House and were encountered near Walton
by Colonel Dodding. The royalists, consisting of 400 horse, outnumbered
Dodding, but word being sent to Colonel Nicholas Shuttleworth who was
near Blackburn, he hastened up and thus reinforced, Dodding routed the
royalists and captured 40 or 50 prisoners, including Huddleston and
Ogleby (Aug. 15). The remainder escaped to Lathom, but few of them could
get through the lines there, the siege having been renewed. There seems
to have been a further skirmish at Ribble Bridge a few days later.

Colonel Dodding then joined Sir John Meldrum, who reached Preston late
on Friday, August 16th, and quartered there on the following Saturday
and Sunday. On August 17th Goring joined the other royalists who were
encamped about Lytham and Kirkham, plundering greatly; they now numbered
about 2,700, nearly all cavalry. A rendezvous was appointed on
Freckleton Marsh on Monday, August 18th; and on the same day Meldrum
drew up his forces on Penwortham Moor, south of Preston, intending to
attack them. But he seems to have been ignorant of the country.
Intending to cross the Ribble below Preston, he found the passage
impracticable on account of the tide; and having wasted much time he was
forced to return to Preston and to march along the north bank of the
Ribble by way of Greaves Town and Lea Hall. From the latter place the
royalists were discovered across Freckleton Marsh crossing the river
some three miles away. Meldrum at once gave chase as fast as possible,
the horsemen each taking up a musketeer behind him for greater speed;
but when they reached the water the tide had again risen too high for
them to cross, and they were only in time to send a parting shot or two
after the royalists. Meldrum waited for the rest of his foot, and the
same night returned to Preston. Next day (Aug. 19th) he again set out in
pursuit, marching south-westward; and in the evening he encountered the
royalists near Ormskirk. They had been forced to make a detour on
reaching the southern bank of the Ribble in order to avoid Colonel
Assheton who lay with some troops near Hesketh Bank, and so had been
unable to escape further. Though it was 8 o'clock in the evening when
Meldrum came up with the royalists, he at once ordered an attack.
Colonel Booth's foot regiment opened fire and the royalists made very
little resistance; their defeat was completed by a charge of cavalry who
pursued as long as the light would allow. The royalists were quite
scattered. Their chief men managed to escape, but most of the officers
and 300 men were taken prisoners. The few who escaped fled southwards
and over Hale Ford into Cheshire. Prince Rupert was said to be on the
southern bank of the Mersey waiting for a chance to invade Lancashire
again; but this defeat made it impossible for him to do so.[160]

FOOTNOTES:

[137] "Cambridge Modern History," Vol. 4, pp. 320, 321; "C.S.P.," pp.
35, 39.

[138] Derby to Rupert, Chester, March 7, 1643-4: "I have received many
advertisements from my wife of her great distress and imminent danger,
unless she be relieved by your Highness, on whom she doth more rely than
any other whatever, and all of us consider well she hath chief reason so
to do" ("Rupert MSS.," Add. MSS. 18980, fol. 81). Derby's information
was that there were only 50 men each in the towns of Liverpool and
Warrington, the garrisons having been withdrawn to the siege of Lathom.

Sir John Byron to Rupert, Apr. 7, describes Lathom as in danger of being
lost: "The constant intelligence from that county every day is that if
your Highness only appear there, the greatest part of the rebels' forces
will desert them and join you, and that county being once reduced, all
this part of England will presently be clear." "Rupert MSS.," fol. 137;
"Clarendon" (Macray), Vol. 3, p. 339 (book 8, par. 17).

[139] Assheton to Moore, March 18 (Stewart MSS., "Hist. MSS. Com.," rep.
10, app. 4, p. 71). He has heard that the Princes are joined, and fears
that their objective may be Lancashire by way of Hale Ford or Liverpool.
In the meantime Derby continued to address urgent appeals to Rupert. He
has not been able to raise the regiments which the Prince had required
in order to raise the siege, "and the time is now past, for the enemy is
so close to the House that it is impossible for that design to take
effect which might have been some relieving of a distressed woman whose
only hope, next to Almighty God, is in your Highness's help." ("Hist
MSS. Com.," report 9, app. 2, p. 437.)

[140] Newspapers in "C.W.T.," 187; "C.S.P.," 173, 174.

[141] "C.S.P.," 1644, pp. 206, 207. They urged that there were only two
ways for Rupert to go, either through Warrington or Stockport; and that
both should be well guarded.

[142] Lancashire Committee to the Earl of Denbigh, May 16: "They profess
willingness to send some troops, but that if the older soldiers are
withdrawn the new recruits are not to be trusted" ("C.S.P.," 1644, p.
164). The regiments intended for Denbigh were Holland's and Booth's
(_ibid._, pp. 111, 123). Cf. also H. L. Calendar, "Hist. MSS. Com.,"
report 6, p. 13.

[143] "C.S.P.," pp. 173, 200. Cf. Rosworm's "Good Service," "C.W.T.,"
pp. 230-232. Some action of Fairfax's, it does not appear what, had
evidently provoked resentment. Dodding afterwards marched with his
regiment into Yorkshire, and fought at the battle of Marston Moor, where
he lost many of his men ("Discourse," p. 50).

[144] "Perfect Diurnall," June 3 ("C.W.T.," p. 188).

[145] Rosworm's "Good Service," "C.W.T.," p. 229. But cf. "C.S.P.,"
1644, p. 205, where a reference is made to a letter from Col. Moore
before Lathom on May 9, stating that Heywood's plot had then been
discovered and that he had fled. Rosworm says that Heywood was captured,
but released through Holland's influence.

[146] "Discourse," p. 49. The details are probably correct, though all
the dates in this narrative during May, 1644, are a fortnight too early.

[147] "C.W.T.," pp. 183, 188; "Seacome," p. 93; "Discourse," pp. 50, 51.

[148] For a full and thoroughly sound discussion of this incident,
_vide_ "Discourse" note, pp. 134-142. The only possible doubt of Derby's
innocence of the crime is that the charge is made with great detail by
the author of the "Discourse," who is an unusually impartial writer, and
had, moreover, a high opinion of Derby.

[149] Arthur Trevor to Ormonde, June 29: "My Lord of Derby is now
sending over to your excellency to barter for or buy arms and
ammunition. I shall, on his lordship's behalf, desire he may pay well. I
promise he is well able to do it, for upon the relief of Lathom he
presented the Prince with a ring worth twenty pounds sterling at most;
Sir Richard Crane, who carried the 22 colours to be left as trophy in
his house, a ring price 40 shillings, and W. Legge with four
candlesticks worth £10 in all." ("Carte MSS.," Vol. II, fol. 315.) The
rather cynical tone of this letter may be taken as an example of the
Earl of Derby's unpopularity with the royalist leaders. The ford at Hale
was for a long time the principal pass over the Mersey between Liverpool
and Warrington. It ceased to be generally used about 150 years ago; but
almost within living memory horses were taken over by this way for
hunting in Cheshire. It is now impossible to get across.

[150] "Baillie's Letters" (ed. Laing, 3 vols., 1841-2), Vol. 2, p. 203.

[151] "C.W.T.," p. 199.

[152] "C.S.P.," 1644, pp. 192, 200, 207, 223-225.

[153] "C.S.P.," 1644, p. 217.

[154] _Vide_ p. 37. "Discourse," p. 52; "C.W.T.," p. 199; "Seacome," p.
95. Ramsay Muir, "History of Liverpool" (1907), chap. 9, p. 16. Legge to
Trevor, June 13: "And now Liverpool is in our hands, I hope we shall
have a freer intelligence from Ireland than before we had. I assure you
that was the end we stopped ther for." In spite of this advantage, the
siege of Liverpool was not worth while, and the royalists admit that the
100 barrels of powder which it cost, left Rupert but ill provided.
("Carte MSS.," Vol. II, fol. 184, 313.) "Seacome," p. 96, says that the
siege lasted nearly a month, but this is evidently an error, for it
cannot have begun before May 30.

[155] "Seacome," p. 97. "July 30, 1644: My wife landed in the Isle of
Man." Derby's Diary, "Stanley Papers" (C.S. 70), ed. Raines, pt. 3, Vol.
3, p. 4.

[156] "Discourse," p. 52.

[157] "C.S.P.," 1644, pp. 231, 248, 272, 292.

[158] Trevor to Ormonde, Chester, June 26, 1644 ("Carte MSS.," Vol. 11,
fol. 312, 313; "Discourse," p. 52.

[159] Baillie to Spong, June 9 ("Letters," Vol. 2, p. 193). Col. R.
Byron to Ormonde, July 5 ("Carte MSS.," Vol. 11, fol. 495).

[160] "Discourse," pp. 57, 58; "C.W.T.," p. 204; "Denbigh MSS.," Vol. 1,
p. 275. It seems evident that if Meldrum had been better informed of the
fords across the Ribble below Preston, he might have caught the
royalists a day before he did. In the Parliamentarian newspapers the
number of prisoners taken was placed as high as 1,000 men. On July 15,
Sir George Booth at Dunham was informed that Prince Rupert was still at
Preston with 6,000 horse and some foot.




CHAPTER VIII.

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.




CHAPTER IX.

The Second Civil War. The Scots in Lancashire; Battle of Preston.


The Second Civil War was fought under a strange re-arrangement of the
old parties in the struggle, the all-supreme Army having aroused against
it a variety of otherwise conflicting interests. Presbyterians and
Anglicans, Royalists and the Scots, all had their share, and there were
outbreaks of one kind or another in half a dozen counties. That part of
the war which concerns us here is the Scotch Invasion which passed
through Lancashire, and was defeated within the borders of this county.
"Though this was not any of the Lancashire wars yet was it acted in this
county and God's goodness therein is to be kept in remembrance." The
campaign of Preston was not a part of the Lancashire Civil War in that
the causes which led up to it concerned the general history of the
country; but local troops were engaged both on the side of the
Parliament, and among the English royalists who joined the Duke of
Hamilton. And the royalists were probably disappointed that Lancashire
did not rise much more decidedly in their favour.

When Charles I. had refused all the propositions of the Army he turned
once more to the Scots, and accepted from them the terms which he had
previously refused, making with them the Engagement by which he bound
himself to establish Presbyterianism for three years. When the Duke of
Hamilton, the leader of the party of the nobility, secured a majority in
the Scotch Parliament he procured a vote to the effect that the
agreement between the two Kingdoms had been broken, and urged an
invasion of England to assist the King to carry out the Engagement by
force of arms. Though his army was very much less numerous than he
expected, he made preparations to cross the border, hoping to be joined
in England by large numbers of the old royalist party, and by a
detachment of Scots from Ulster under Sir George Munro.[192] In
preparation for his coming, Langdale surprised Berwick, and Sir Philip
Musgrave occupied Carlisle. When the news of this reached Lancashire the
leaders there were in considerable difficulty. They were Presbyterians
of the Scotch type, and were therefore averse to fighting against
Hamilton; they were by no means in accord with the direction of affairs
in London and feared the consequences of openly joining either party.
Yet they could not remain neutral. Their dilemma is illustrated in a
Declaration made by the officers and soldiers in the county on the 9th
May, 1648, which was directed to the Ministers of the county. They
expressed their adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant, and
declared that they stood "for the fundamental government of the Kingdom
by King Lords and Commons, according to the laws of the land, and the
declarations of this present Parliament before our first engagement;
that we love desire and should much rejoice in the regal and regular
Government of His Majesty that now is." It is evident that the
Revolution had already gone too far for the Presbyterians in Lancashire.
A private letter written at the same time as this Declaration, and
printed with it, further expresses the same difficulty, "our soldiery
apprehend themselves in great straits; for if the Army come down, and
they join with them to suppress the Cavaliers, they fear and are very
jealous that the Army will afterwards fall upon them and suppress them."
It was evidently thought that unless Parliament got the better of the
Army, there was little prospect of a peaceful settlement. "For should
the Presbyterian party and the Sectaries joyn to suppresse the common
enemy, it is very much to be feared that they would afterwards clash
one with another; for when those that adhere to the Covenant are put
into a posture of defence, they will never lay down arms to become tame
slaves to the Sectaries, who for all their specious pretences and
flattering proposals, have not hitherto really acted one thing whereby
our distractions may be removed, and truth and peace, which is the
desire of all good men, may be perfectly accomplished." It is
sufficiently apparent that though they were unwilling to join a foreign
invader, and especially one who was assisted by the old royalist party
which they themselves had helped to overthrow, the Lancashire
Presbyterians were very apprehensive of what would happen if the Army
should gain still more power than it already possessed. This Declaration
was not signed by any of the Lancashire Members of Parliament, but among
the 17 names attached to it were those of Nicholas and Ughtred
Shuttleworth, Richard Radcliffe and John Ashhurst.[193]

The inhabitants of Lancashire were dismayed by the prospect of another
war, and many persons fled from their homes; though some returned again
when it became apparent that the invasion was not so imminent as at
first appeared. Eventually the leaders made up their minds to assist the
Parliament. Colonel Rigby, who was not a very fervent Presbyterian, but
who was decidedly a man of action, was the first to move. On May 5th he
had called a meeting of the Deputy-Lieutenants, but only Holland,
Bradshaw, Birch and himself and his son attended. However, they decided
to call a general meeting of the Committee and Deputy-Lieutenants for
the following Monday at Bolton, and sent out warnings of musters
throughout all the county. Five hundred of Rigby's old soldiers, both
horse and foot, assembled without orders, and he encouraged them to
remain in arms. Owing to the Orders of Parliament for disbanding, and
against the free quarter of troops, the officers were uncertain as to
how far their action was permissible, and Rigby wrote to the Speaker for
further instructions.[194] By the end of the month, however, both Rigby
and Dodding had their men still in the field, and the newspapers
reported that "the common soldiers of Lancashire are exceeding forward
to fight the enemy." On May 17th the House of Commons desired Colonel
Assheton to go down to Lancashire and take control of the recruiting,
and when once the raising of troops was begun it was pushed on without
delay.[195] By the middle of June the Lancashire troops consisted of
four regiments of foot and two of horse. Colonel Assheton was appointed
Commander-in-chief, with Rigby, who commanded one regiment of horse, as
his Lieutenant-Colonel; the other regiment of horse was under Colonel
Nicholas Shuttleworth. The Colonel of the foot regiments were Dodding,
Standish (who commanded his own and Rigby's foot), Assheton and Ughtred
Shuttleworth. The total number seems to have been 1,500 foot and 10
troops of horse, so that the regiments of horse were not quite full, and
the foot regiments only at half strength. On July 20th the Committee of
Both Houses wrote to Assheton praising his forwardness in raising men,
and ordering him into Westmoreland to join with Colonel Lambert, who had
been sent forward to intercept Hamilton's advance.[196]

Delayed by a difficulty of transport, and by bad weather, the Scotch
army had moved very slowly. Although they had occupied Carlisle in April
it was nearly three months afterwards before their general advance
really began. The Lancashire troops who had been raised in May and June
encamped about Lancaster on June 15th, and the following day crossed the
border of the county and advanced to Kirkby Lonsdale. A few days later
they reached Kendal, having heard that a party of 200 royalists were in
that neighbourhood. Colonel Rigby advanced with three troops of horse,
and the royalists retreating before him he occupied Kendal. On the same
day Colonel Assheton sent out a party of foot to occupy Bentham House in
Westmoreland. The first summons was refused, but afterwards the
garrison, which only consisted of 30 or 40 men, surrendered and were
allowed to march away to join Langdale; two barrels of powder and 10
muskets were, however, taken by Assheton; the House itself was made
untenable.

In the first few days of July, the Lancashire troops having joined
Colonel Lambert near Carlisle, had a skirmish with the enemy at Stanwix
Bank, and encamped at Brunstock; but they were largely outnumbered by
the invaders, and Lambert was forced to fall back in order to wait for
the army with which Cromwell was marching with all speed to his
assistance. On July 5th they were at Penrith again, and on the 14th at
Appleby.[197] It was uncertain whether Hamilton would march straight
forward to Lancashire or would turn south-eastwards through Wensleydale
in order to relieve Pontefract Castle. Lambert thought the latter course
was more probable and retreated that way; but Hamilton, who had on July
31st seized Appleby Castle and on August 2nd Kendal, decided to push on
through Lancashire. By August 9th he was at Hornby, where he remained
for some days. On August 10th he directed a letter to the Ministers of
Lancashire who, on his approach, had withdrawn from the northern parts
of the county and assembled at Lancaster. He declared that the object of
his coming was "for settling Presbyterian government according to the
Covenant, liberating and re-establishing his Majesty, and for other ends
conducing to the good and peace of the Kingdom," and he denied that any
harm was intended to the Ministers or their families. But they refused
to be conciliated, or to believe his promises of safety and freedom,
"knowing our old Enemies of Religion and the Kingdom's peace are with
your Excellency."[198] They preferred to believe that the English
Parliament were more to be trusted for the establishment of Presbyterian
government. Hamilton's assurances of protection were the less to be
depended upon because his army plundered most unmercifully while on the
march. The Scots had no regard for either party in the north of England,
and provided themselves from the goods of both roundheads and cavaliers
alike. They are said to have cleared the whole district of sheep and
cattle, and even Sir Thomas Tyldesley was unable to protect the
royalists from his oppression.[199]

[Illustration: The Campaign of Preston]

About the middle of August Hamilton marched slowly southward, his
army covering many miles of country. The Earl of Callander, his
Lieutenant-General in command of the cavalry, was far in advance of the
main body of the Scottish infantry under Hamilton himself, while
Monro with the Ulster Scots was far in the rear. Langdale with the
English royalists marched on the west of the main body. By this time
Cromwell was hotly in pursuit, and as usual his rate of march was very
different from the leisurely progress of the Scots. He had reached
Leicester when Hamilton was at Kendal, and Nottingham on August 5th.
Advancing northwards he waited for three days at Doncaster for his
ammunition to come from Hull; and on August 13th he was joined near
Wetherby by Lambert, who had quartered there with 5,000 men to cover the
siege of Pontefract. Next day the combined armies marched to Otley,
sending on their guns to Knaresborough in order to march more swiftly.
Advancing along the Ribble Valley, Cromwell reached Skipton on August
14th, and on the 15th quartered his men round Gisburn; next day they
advanced to the Bridge over the Ribble, at Clitheroe.[200] Here a
council of war was held to decide whether to cross the bridge, there
being no other between that place and Preston, and so march along the
north bank of the Ribble, or to turn south-westwards through Whalley in
order to intercept Hamilton's march further on. Cromwell, however, was
determined to fight as soon as possible, though he had less than 9,000
men to 24,000 of the Scots; and believing that Hamilton would make a
stand at Preston his army crossed the Ribble and marched swiftly along
the northern bank. The 10,000 men with whom Hamilton had entered England
had been increased by reinforcement; Langdale's detachment numbered
about 4,000 and Munro's not quite 3,000 men. But their superiority in
numbers was entirely discounted by the disordered condition of their
line of march, which stretched from Wigan to Kirkby Lonsdale, a
distance of nearly 50 miles. Moreover they were evidently quite ignorant
of Cromwell's approach until the very day before he burst upon
them.[201]

On the night of August 16th Cromwell had quartered his army in
Stonyhurst Park, nine miles from Preston, the General staying at the
Hall. Next day he sent forward an advance party of 200 horse and 400
foot under Major Smithson and Major Pownall, who encountered Langdale's
royalists who were some miles to the north-east of Preston about
Ribbleton and Fulwood. The main body of the Scotch foot were then
marching through Preston, and the undecided Hamilton was persuaded to
countermand his order for them to return; they therefore hurried on
their retreat, leaving Langdale to his fate. "It was reported that when
word came to the Duke that General Cromwell was in the rear of Sir
Marmaduke Langdale's army fighting and killing them, his answer
was--'let them alone--the English dogs are but killing one another.' So
little care had he of them."[202] Langdale was thus left with his 4,000
men to resist the whole attack of Cromwell's army; and his men fought
with the utmost bravery for four hours against overwhelming numbers. The
royalist position was very well chosen at the end of a deep lane leading
towards the town, his men being sheltered behind hedges. Two regiments
of cavalry, Cromwell's and Harrison's, were set to charge along the lane
supported on either flank by infantry, by the regiments of Colonel
Read, Colonel Dean and Colonel Pride on the right, and Colonel Bright's
and Fairfax's regiments on the left. Assheton and the Lancashire foot
were in reserve, and there was a reserve of horse at each point. The
royalists fought desperately and the ground was very heavy owing to the
recent rains. "Such a wet time this time of the year hath not been seen
in the memory of man," wrote one of the Lancashire Captains who took
part in this campaign. The Parliamentarian foot on the right wing
outflanked the enemy, but there was a very severe struggle in the lane
and on Cromwell's left wing. The Lancashire men came into action here.
At length, after four hours fighting, the royalists broke and fled
towards Preston, pursued by Cromwell's horse. Four troops of his own
regiment entered the town first, and being seconded by Colonel Harrison,
they charged along the streets and cleared the town of the royalists.
Colonel Assheton's regiment was specially praised by Cromwell for its
bravery in the action, and the Committee of Both Houses directed a
special letter of thanks to him.[203]

Most of Hamilton's foot were by this time marched across Ribble Bridge,
three-quarters of a mile south of Preston; this they barricaded, and
another fierce engagement took place between them and Fairfax's and
Assheton's foot regiments, whom Cromwell sent forward in pursuit. After
severe hand-to-hand fighting the Scots were dislodged from Ribble Bridge
and chased across the bridge over the river Darwen, and up the hill to
Walton, when night put an end to the engagement. The Parliamentarians
guarded both the bridges, and Cromwell himself returned to Preston for
the night. He places Hamilton's losses at 1,000 killed and 4,000
prisoners; and 4,000 or 5,000 arms had been captured.

There is no reason to suppose that Cromwell had any decided plan of
campaign, but he had been very fortunate in taking the Scotch army on
the flank, and his bold attack had been completely successful. The
invaders' forces was now completely cut in two; moreover the English
royalists who had been defeated and almost annihilated were probably
Hamilton's best troops, and Monro's men, who were also veterans, were
now too far north to be engaged. The cavalry which should have returned
to his assistance had also taken no part in the action; and Hamilton's
foot were largely newly raised men, the old soldiers of the Covenanting
army having refused to follow him. Thus though he still largely
outnumbered the Parliamentarian army his forces were more disorganised
than ever, and his men were dispirited. Cromwell lost no time in
following up his victory. The same night (Aug. 17th) he sent off a
letter to the Committee at Manchester describing his victory and
directing them to oppose Hamilton's further advance; while next morning
he himself hastened after the Scots, leaving the Lancashire troops in
Preston to guard the prisoners. During the night Hamilton had marched
three miles on the road to Wigan. Colonel Thornhaugh was sent in advance
with three regiments of horse in order to bring them to bay, while his
foot followed as fast as possible. Thornhaugh came up with the Scots at
Chorley, and he himself was killed in the engagement. Hamilton had still
7,000 or 8,000 foot and 4,000 horse to the 3,000 foot and 2,500 horse
with which Cromwell was pursuing him; but the Scots attempted to make no
stand, except so much as was necessary to protect their retreat. On
Standish Moor, near Wigan, they drew up as if for resistance, but on the
advance of the Parliamentarians, they retreated into the town. The
pursuers were too weary to go further after their forced marches and two
days' hard fighting. The weather was still against them, "having marched
12 miles of ground as I never rode in all my life, the day being
very wet," writes Cromwell of this day's pursuit. That night the
Parliamentarians encamped in the open country close to the Scots; but
during the night there was skirmishing at intervals, and about 100 of
Hamilton's men were taken prisoners, including some officers of note.

After the capture of Preston some of the royalist horse who had escaped
rode northwards toward Lancaster. Cromwell sent a regiment of horse in
pursuit, which followed the flight for some 10 miles, killing some and
taking 500 prisoners. There was therefore no longer any danger to be
feared from this part of the army. The remaining fugitives scattered
into the Fylde district and dispersed.

On Saturday, August 19th, the Scots continued their retreat southwards
toward Warrington, still hotly pursued by Cromwell. The most determined
stand they made was at Winwick, three miles from Warrington, in a narrow
lane on the road from Newton. Here for some hours they beat off all the
attacks of the pursuers, until some country people showed the
Parliamentarians a way round through the fields, and the Scots then
retreated towards Warrington. They stood at bay for some little time on
the green on the south side of Winwick Church; but at length their
resistance was broken, 1,000 being killed and the remainder driven into
the church and made prisoners.[204] The remnant of the army reached
Warrington, and marching through the town attempted to hold the bridge
over the Mersey. But the Scots were now thoroughly beaten. They were
almost without ammunition, and many of them had thrown away their
muskets in the pursuit; Baillie, who was in command, sent to Cromwell
for terms of surrender. Considering the difficulty of crossing the
Mersey elsewhere, and the strength of the bridge, Cromwell agreed to
give quarter if they would surrender as prisoners of war. About 4,000 of
the Scots capitulated at Warrington, their whole losses during the three
days fighting being 2,000 killed and between 8,000 and 9,000 being taken
prisoners.

After the first engagement at Preston Sir Thomas Tyldesley, who was
still in command of some horse, laid siege to Lancaster, and was on the
point of taking it when news of further defeats arrived. Thereupon he
joined Monro, and attempted to persuade him to advance and attack
Cromwell's rear, as they had still an equal number of troops. The
proposal was an illustration of Tyldesley's bravery, but it was too rash
for Monro to accept, and if carried out would probably have effected
little.

Weariness alone prevented the victors from completing the ruin of the
Scots in Lancashire. Cromwell's men were too exhausted to follow up the
main body of the cavalry under Hamilton himself, which had crossed the
Mersey into Cheshire. "If I had 1,000 horse that could trot 30 miles,"
Cromwell wrote on August 20th, "I should not doubt but to give a very
good account of them; but truly we are so harassed and hagled out in
this business, that we are not able to do more than walk an easy pace
after them." As it was Cromwell himself did not follow the Scots into
Cheshire, but left Colonel Lambert to continue the pursuit, and wrote to
Lord Grey, Sir Henry Cholmondeley, and Sir Edward Rhodes to intercept
Hamilton. Indeed the Scotch army might now almost be left to melt away
of itself. They marched to Malpas and from there to Drayton, and then to
Stone and Uttoxeter, where the Parliamentarian forces fell upon their
rear and captured many prisoners, including Lieutenant-General
Middleton. But Hamilton himself was too ill to continue his flight any
further and surrendered with most of his men. A remnant of the force
under the Earl of Callander and Sir Marmaduke Langdale endeavoured to
escape northwards to return to Scotland, and reached Ashbourne in
Derbyshire; but here Callander's men mutinied, and Langdale, escaping
with three other officers was discovered, though they had tried to pass
themselves off as Parliamentarians. They were all seized and lodged in
Nottingham Castle. The Duke of Hamilton was executed in March, 1649.

On August 23rd, 1648, letters were read in the House of Commons from
Cromwell, giving an account of the fighting in Lancashire. The total
number of prisoners was stated to be 10,000, including many of the
Scottish nobility; 3,000 of the invading army had been killed, and much
ammunition, together with 150 colours, had been taken.[205] September
7th was appointed as a public thanksgiving day, and Warden Heyrick was
named as one of the preachers before the House of Commons. Cromwell
returned at once to Lancashire, where he stayed one night at Stonyhurst;
and then summoning all his troops which had been left in Lancashire to
follow him, he marched after Monro into Scotland, where he remained for
some months, returning to London in December. There was, however, still
a little to be done in the way of reducing the royalists still in arms
in the north of England, and this was entrusted to Assheton. But they
were so disorganised that little or no fighting was necessary. Assheton
and his Lancashire troops dislodged them from Cockermouth, whence they
marched to Carlisle, but they were refused admittance to the town, and
scattered in various directions; the main body of cavalry, about 1,000
in number, retreated to Appleby. Here Assheton followed them, and as the
royalists had no spirit for further fighting terms were soon agreed
upon. The inferior officers and common soldiers were to lay down their
arms and have liberty on promising to observe all the Ordinances of
Parliament; the Colonels were given six months in which to leave the
country. Appleby Castle was surrendered on Oct. 9th together with 1,000
arms and 5 pieces of ordnance. Most of the 1,200 horses of the royalists
were bought at low rates by the Parliamentarians before the actual
surrender. The chief officers were Sir Philip Musgrave, Sir Thomas
Tyldesley, Sir Robert Strickland, Sir William Huddleston; the whole list
included 15 Colonels, 9 Lieutenant-Colonels, and 65 inferior
officers.[206]

So once more the fighting in Lancashire was over, and the stricken
country had again a few years more in which to recover from its
distress. Its condition was now even more pitiable than before. Trade
was destroyed, life disorganised, and everyone suffered indirectly if
not directly from the Scotch Invasion. The care of the wounded soldiers
scattered up and down the county was an added burden. Parliament had
ordered that voluntary offerings made in all the churches and chapels of
England and Wales on the Thanksgiving day, September 7th, should be
devoted to the relief of Lancashire, one half to the care of the wounded
soldiers, and one half for the relief of the general distress. The
London treasurer of this fund was Henry Ashhurst, brother of William
Ashhurst, M.P. for Newton, and of Major John Ashhurst. But the sum
subscribed was not very large. Probably people's intentions were
generous enough, but they had little to give. In the following May a
pitiful appeal was issued by the Major and Bailiffs of Wigan, and four
well known Lancashire Ministers, describing "the lamentable condition of
the county of Lancashire and particularly of the towns of Wigan, Ashton
and the parts adjacent." These two towns were perhaps worse off than the
average, having been visited by pestilence; but the description given
would apply in a less degree to the whole county. "In this county," the
appeal runs, "hath the plague of pestilence been ranging these three
years and upwards occasioned chiefly by the wars. There is a very great
scarcity and dearth of all provisions, especially of all sorts of grain,
particularly that kind by which that country is sustained, which is full
six-fold the price that of late it hath been. All trade, by which they
have been much supported, is utterly decayed; it would melt any good
heart to see the numerous swarms of begging poore and the many families
that pine away at home, not having faces to beg. Very many now craving
almes at other men's dores, who were used to give others almes at their
dores--to see paleness, nay death appear in the cheeks of the poor, and
often to hear of some found dead in their houses, or highways, for want
of bread."[207]

During the next few years, great events were being enacted in London,
but in these Lancashire had no part. The county was full of unrest,
which found its outlet in disturbances and riots. Two years later the
Council of State was much concerned with disturbances which broke out at
Preston, Ormskirk, Manchester, and Rochdale, in resistance to the
imposition of the Excise. Large numbers of people were put in prison;
and three troops of horse under Major Mayer were commissioned to remain
in Lancashire until further orders to assist Colonel Birch and the
Sheriffs to preserve the peace of the county. The Act for bidding the
proclamation of a King was duly published in Lancashire from Feb. 5-10,
1649, but it evidently provoked no enthusiasm in the county, for the
remnants of the royalist party began to carry themselves with much more
boldness than formerly. In July, a party of them well armed and mounted,
even dared to proclaim Charles II. as King at Manchester Cross. They
then rode to Wigan and to Kendal with the same object; and it was only
after some days that meeting with a troop of Parliamentarian soldiers
they were dispersed.[208]

The same spirit of unrest was shown in the difficulties encountered in
enforcing the Ordinance for Disbanding the militia. Four thousand of
Colonel Assheton's troops, being zealous for the Covenant, at first
refused to disband. On February 10th the House of Commons ordered that
Assheton's and Shuttleworth's troops were to be disbanded by
Major-General Lambert, who was authorised to use force if necessary; but
some months at least elapsed before the order could be carried into
effect. It was not altogether zeal for the Covenant but also the fact
that their pay was largely in arrear, that caused the opposition among
the Lancashire soldiers. The matter was considered important enough to
receive the attention of Cromwell himself, and on February 27, 1648-9,
the Council of State requested him to urge on the House of Commons the
necessity of providing a further sum of money for disbanding the
Lancashire forces. On March 4th, accordingly, the Committee at
Goldsmith's Hall were ordered to pay the sum of £1,444/14/10 which had
been voted for this purpose. A month later practically all the soldiers
were dispersed except one or two free companies, who gathered all the
disorderly spirits in the county and lived by plunder. One of these
under Captain Bamber was ordered to be disbanded by force by Major
General Assheton, their horses and arms being restored to those from
whom they had been stolen. They gave out that they were appointed for
service in Ireland, but they had no commission. Bamber seems to have
preyed upon the county for two months longer before he was actually
subdued by Colonel Duckenfield.[209]

This was probably the last service which the Parliament ever asked
Assheton to undertake. He and the other leaders who had subdued the
county seven years before were now entirely out of sympathy with the
existing government of the country. When the militia was further
re-organised in 1650, the matter was taken out of their hands
altogether. Assheton, Shuttleworth, Rigby, Colonel Richard Standish, and
Sir Richard Hoghton, were formally dismissed from employment in
connection with the Militia; and the commissions which were granted in
the following summer to Lancashire officers, were nearly all given to
new men. Joseph Rigby became Lieutenant-Colonel, and there were one or
two names which had previously appeared in the records of the war; but
for the most part those previously best known are absent. Colonel Thomas
Birch seems to have been the only one of the former leaders who still
enjoyed the confidence of the Parliament, and he was for the next
few years largely entrusted with the direction of affairs in
Lancashire.[210]

FOOTNOTES:

[192] "Political History of England," Vol. 7, p. 339.

[193] "C.W.T.," pp. 248-251.

[194] Rigby to the Speaker, May 6, 1648 ("Tanner MSS.," Cary, Vol. 1,
pp. 407-410). May 5 was a Friday, and the following Monday was therefore
May 8. Rigby says that May 6 had been appointed for a general royalist
rising in Lancashire.

[195] "Letters from Scotland, etc.," No. 11. "C.J.," Vol. 5, p. 563.

[196] "Letters from Scotland, etc.," No. 13. "C.S.P.," 1648-9, p. 237.
At the same time the Deputy-Lieutenants were directed to carefully guard
the passes out of Lancashire into that county.

[197] "Letters from Scotland, etc.," No. 15. Diary of Captain Samuel
Birch, from May 15, 1648, to March 29, 1649 in "Portland MSS.," Vol. 3,
p. 173. Birch raised his troop at Manchester on May 15, and gives a
detailed itinerary of his March through Wigan, Lancaster and Kirkby
Lonsdale, to the general rendezvous at Halton. He afterwards accompanied
Lambert into Yorkshire, reaching Ripon on August 3, and Knaresborough on
the 7th. His dates agree with those given by Cromwell for the subsequent
movements; he was quartered on August 14 at Carleton, near Skipton, and
on the following night at Downham. At the battle of Preston "I had
charge of our Lancashire brigade's folorn; my lieutenant had charge of
my division of musquettiers; my ensign by command of General Assheton
lead the pykes and collours up against the defenders on Ribble Bridge
and beat them off. Allmost all my officers markt, none killed, divers
souldiers shott and hurt, some very dangerously, most performed very
well. Blessed be God for his great deliverance." Birch then remained in
Preston in charge of the prisoners and magazine.

[198] "C.W.T.," pp. 252, 253. Probably all the Lancashire ministers were
by no means of the same mind. In Feb., 1648-9, one Thomas Smith preached
two sermons in Lancaster Church and was imprisoned for the views he
expressed. Smith thought "We should have no peace till the Scotts came
to suppresse that army of Sectaries, and being asked what he intended to
do if they came he replyed that he would joyne with them." "Clarke
Papers," ed. Prof. C. H. Firth, Camden Soc. (N.S., 49, 54), Vol. 2, p.
188.

[199] "The last Newes from the Prince of Wales, etc." "C.W.T.," pp. 254,
255.

[200] "Lieutenant-General Cromwell's Letter, &c." "C.W.T.," p. 259.
Cromwell's narrative is here not quite correct. He states that the
council of war was held at "Hodder Bridge over Ribble." But Hodder
Bridge is not over the Ribble, but over the Hodder, near Mitton. The old
bridge which Cromwell used still stands. Obviously, however, the council
of war was held before crossing the Ribble. The army must first have
crossed the bridge at Clitheroe, and afterwards Hodder Bridge over the
Hodder in order to reach Stonyhurst. It would appear that Cromwell when
writing his narrative, forgot that there were two bridges, and wrote
Hodder Bridge instead of Clitheroe Bridge.

[201] The authorities for the campaign of Preston are:
"Lieutenant-General Cromwell's Letter concerning the Total Routing of
the Scots Army, etc." ("C.W.T.," p. 255); "Lt.-General Cromwell's Letter
to the Honourable William Lenthall, etc." ("C.W.T.," p. 258); "An
Impartiall Relation of the late Fight at Preston" ... by Sir Marmaduke
Langdale ("C.W.T.," p. 267); "Discourse," pp. 64-67; and "Autobiography
of Captain John Hodgson" (1882 edition), pp. 28-35. The first of
Cromwell's letters was written to the Committee at Manchester. The
second was largely reprinted in the "Perfect Diurnall," No. 265, August
21, 28; _vide_ also Whitelock's "Memorials" (1732 ed.), pp. 331, 332.
There is a map of the campaign in Gardiner's "Great Civil War," Vol. 3,
p. 431.

[202] "Discourse," p. 65.

[203] "C.S.P.," 1648-9, p. 265. Cromwell wrote to the Manchester
Committee: "In this service your countrymen have not the least share."
He also especially mentioned Assheton's regiment in the letter to
Lenthall ("C.W.T.," pp. 257, 261). Cf. "Hodgson," p. 33: "The Lancashire
foot were as stout men as were in the world, and as brave firemen. I
have often told them they were as good fighters and as great plunderers
as ever went to a field."

[204] "Discourse," p. 66, and note, p. 145. Mr. Beamont is especially an
authority on the neighbourhood of Warrington. The site of this skirmish
at Winwick may still be seen.

[205] "C.J.," Vol. 5, pp. 680, 685. On September 25 the Committee at
Derby House was asked to grant a Commission to Assheton as Major-General
in Lancashire, and for him to have 40 shillings per diem as pay in
addition to his pay as Colonel of horse and Colonel of foot. The
Lancashire Committee were also to be asked to recommend to the House of
Commons some way of paying the arrears due to the soldiers. "C.J.," Vol.
6, p. 32.

[206] "A Great Victory at Appleby, by Col.-General Ashton, etc."
"C.W.T.," pp. 273-276. Whitelock's "Memorials" (1732 edition), p. 390.

[207] "C.J.," Vol. 5, p. 680. "C.W.T.," p. 277.

[208] Sir Gilbert Ireland, Sheriff of Lancashire in 1649, wrote to the
Speaker giving a full list of the times and places at which the Act
forbidding the Proclamation of a King was published in the county
("Tanner MSS.," Vol. 57, fol. 522).

"C.S.P.," 1650, pp. 40, 44, 50, 75, 78. Complaint is made of 'pulpit
incendaries' who "have endeavoured for the setting up of an interest of
their own, destructive of that of the people, to stir up the people to
disobedience, and again to embroil us in new troubles, and enflame the
nation into another war."

[209] Whitelock's "Memorials" (1732 edition), p. 390; also quoted in
"C.W.T.," p. 277. "C.S.P.," 1649-1650, pp. 70, 98, 139, 163.

[210] "C.S.P.," 1650, p. 34. For the reorganisation of the Militia,
_ibid._, pp. 308, 509, a list of the Commissions being given.




CHAPTER X.

The Last Stand. Battle of Wigan Lane. Trial and Death of the Earl of
Derby.


During the last five years the Earl of Derby had been in the Isle of
Man. Since the failure of the former overtures made to him by the
Parliament through the agency of Sir John Meldrum, he had been living in
retirement at Castle Rushen. It was the life which he liked best, and
had it not been for the recollections of the events of the preceding
years, he might have been happy in the leisure afforded for the exercise
of the literary tastes in which he delighted. He composed, during this
period, his Commonplace Books and several Books of Devotions which
manifest his deeply religious nature. But confinement and reflection
only deepened the natural melancholy of his nature, and increased his
hatred for the enemies who had deprived him of his position and his
estates. In 1644 Meldrum had found him willing to listen to reason;
proposals made a few years later were rejected with contempt. In 1649
Derby was summoned to surrender the Isle of Man, being offered the
enjoyment of half his estate if he would do so. He had apparently
petitioned to compound in the ordinary way and particulars of his estate
were furnished by himself, upon which his fine was estimated at £15,572;
but when matters had gone so far the Earl changed his mind, and
he refused to "forfeit his allegiance and sell his loyalty for
£15,000."[211] Apparently there would have been opposition on the other
side. Representations were made to the Council of State about the
resentment with which the prospect of admitting the Earl of Derby to his
composition had been received in some parts of Lancashire and Cheshire.
It was urged that if he should complete his surrender and be free to
enter Lancashire again the peace of the county would be in danger; and
the Council of State ordered that the matter should not be proceeded
with until the pleasure of Parliament was known.[212] Evidently
therefore there were insuperable obstacles on both sides. The last
proposals had apparently been made through General Ireton, and in reply
to these the Earl of Derby wrote his famous letter of defiance. "I scorn
your proffers, disdain your favour, and abhor your treason; and am so
far from delivering up this Island to your advantage, that I will keep
it to the utmost of my power to your destruction. Take this for your
final answer, and forbear any further solicitations; for if you trouble
me with any more messages on this occasion, I will burn the paper, and
hang the bearer; this is the immutable resolution, and shall be the
undoubted practice of him who accounts it his chiefest glory to be his
Majesty's most Loyal and Obedient Servant Derby."

It has been suggested with some force that the display of anger in this
letter is so unusual in the Earl of Derby, that probably the Countess
was chiefly responsible for it;[213] but in any case after this all
possible chance of reconciliation between him and the Parliament was at
an end. And it must be admitted that the Earl himself from his
uncompromising attitude, was largely responsible for the merciless
hostility with which he was pursued to the scaffold. In a further list
of those to be exempted from Parliament, containing about 30 names, the
name of the Earl of Derby comes third, following those of Prince Rupert
and Prince Maurice.

The Isle of Man had been put into a position of defence, and plundering
expeditions were organised by the few ships which the Earl had under his
command. Since the royalist defeat he had been cut off from all
communication with England, but maintained intercourse with the Earl of
Ormonde in Ireland. Derby addressed many letters to Ormonde urging him
to send some guns and ammunition to his help, but without success;
eventually Ormonde did despatch some powder, but it was lost at
sea.[214] There is no doubt, however, that the piracy of the royalists'
vessels was a great nuisance to the shipping in the Irish Sea. In
November, 1649, the Admiralty Committee were urged to send a frigate for
service upon the coast of Lancashire and North Wales in order to protect
the shipping in those parts; but it does not seem to have had very much
effect, for the trouble continued during the following year.[215] At
length the Parliament adopted a more effective but very dishonourable
means of retaliation. In May, 1650, Colonel Birch was ordered to seize
the daughters of the Earl of Derby, who were at Knowsley, and any other
of the Earl's relatives whom they could secure; and then to send over to
Derby to release by a certain date all the Parliamentarian prisoners
whom he had, otherwise he must expect retaliation.[216] Lady Katherine
and Lady Amelia Stanley were kept in prison for some months; on October
8th, 1650, they were ordered to be set free on bail, but the order was
afterwards deferred pending the development of events in the Isle of
Man.

There was perhaps some fear in the court of Charles II. now at the
Hague, that the Earl of Derby might yield to the proposals made to him
by Parliament for surrender. At any rate in January, 1650, he was made a
Knight of the Garter, an honour which he had expected in the previous
reign. Of the four Knights elected at this time the Duke of Hamilton,
Marquis of Newcastle, the Marquis of Montrose, and the Earl of Derby,
only Newcastle lived to be installed. The letter of appointment to the
Earl of Derby makes special reference to his defence of the Isle of Man;
and in the following June Sir Marmaduke Langdale and Sir Lewis Dives
were despatched to the Island to urge the importance of preserving it.
There had been plans made in the Spring of 1650 for a royalist rising in
England, and the Earl of Derby had been named as General in Lancashire;
and when Charles II. had a prospect of regaining power, his advisers
realised that the Earl of Derby could give substantial assistance in any
attempt on the North of England.[217]

It was in June, 1650, that Charles landed at Speymouth in Scotland, took
the Covenant, and six months later was crowned King. To anticipate the
inevitable invasion of England Cromwell crossed the border and signally
defeated Leslie at Dunbar (Sept. 3rd, 1650). After his victory all the
South of Scotland submitted to the English. The following summer
Cromwell again took the field; Lambert turned the Scots' position by a
flank march through Fife, and Leslie, realising that Scotland was lost,
staked all on the desperate venture of an invasion of England. Perhaps
it did not seem so desperate as it was. They were convinced, as the
Jacobites were convinced half a century later, that the country would
rise in force out of affection for the House of Stewart; and there was
certainly more reason for the expectation in 1651 than in 1715. For the
majority of Englishmen after all favoured monarchy, and the prospect of
a military despotism alarmed most people. The tyranny of Charles I. was
being forgotten, and his tragic death had to a large extent effaced the
memory of his incompetence and duplicity. But still more powerful than
this feeling was the desire for peace and quietness. The country would
probably have accepted Charles II. in 1651 as in 1660, if it could have
done so peaceably. Perhaps a majority of the nation, certainly a
majority of the inhabitants of Lancashire would have already preferred
the restoration of the King to the rule of Cromwell but they were not so
anxious for his restoration that they would support it by force of arms.
And the old Parliamentarian leaders in Lancashire, estranged as they
were from Cromwell, had no more sympathy with their old royalist enemies
who now emerged from their retirement in the Isle of Man to welcome
Charles' march.[218]

Early in the year the King had opened a correspondence with the Earl of
Derby through the medium of Sir John Birkenhead, and had received loyal
letters from the Earl in return. It was not to be expected that Charles'
submission to the Scots and his taking of the Covenant would be in
accord with Derby's views, but it made no difference to the latter's
loyalty. When the danger from Scotland seemed imminent the Parliament
had made fresh efforts to secure the Isle of Man by force. Derby
defeated an attempt of five Parliamentarian ships on the Calf of Man on
March 29th, 1651, and shortly afterwards repulsed a second invasion of
the Island.

There was some other design of the royalists in England during the
Spring of this year for which several people were imprisoned; and by
Cromwell's order there were seized at Greenock a party of royalists who
were on their way to the Isle of Man to concert measures with the Earl
of Derby.[219]

The Scots began their march into England in June, 1651, and entered
Lancashire early in August. They had about 16,000 men, "I daresay near
double the number of those that the King of Sweden entered Germany with
if not more," wrote one of the officers. Charles was proclaimed King at
Penrith on August 7th, and afterwards at all the market towns through
which he passed. On Saturday, August 9th, the army was at Kendal; two
days later they entered Lancaster, and on the following day Charles was
proclaimed at the Cross, and all the prisoners in the Castle were
released.[220] That night the King slept at Ashton Hall, near Lancaster,
and on the 13th at Myerscough Lodge, Sir Thomas Tyldesley's house. Next
day they passed through Preston, and leaving there the same day, Charles
stayed on August 14 at Sir William Gerrard's house at Bryn Hall, six
miles from Warrington. The conduct of the royal army was very different
from that of the Scotch Invasion of 1648. No plundering was allowed, and
violence was strictly forbidden. No one was forced to join the army, and
Charles marched swiftly, staying only a night or two at each place so as
not to be too great a burden on the country. Yet in spite of this no
great enthusiasm was allowed. Few recruits joined the royal standard,
and there were a number of desertions. At Preston Charles rode on
horseback through all the streets of the town; but even here he was
disappointed by the coolness of his reception. There were already
misgivings among his followers. "We have quit Scotland," wrote Hamilton
on August 8th, "being scarce able to maintain it; and yet we grasp all;
nothing but all will satisfy us or to lose all. I confess I cannot tell
you whether our hopes or fears are greatest; but we have one stout
argument, despair; for we must now either stoutly fight it or die. All
the rogues have left us; I shall not say whether for fear or disloyalty;
but all now with His Majesty are such as will not dispute his
commands."[221]

The Council of State had not been idle in view of the projected Scotch
invasion. On April 19th they had issued instructions to Major-General
Harrison to go down to Lancashire with three troops of horse, of his own
regiment, and on his arrival to replace Colonel Rich, who was to return
to headquarters with the three troops under his command. Harrison
remained in Lancashire to keep order. When the Scots approached nearer,
Colonels Duckenfield, Birch, and Mackworth were commissioned to raise
ten new companies of foot of 100 men each out of the late militia forces
in the counties of Lancashire, Cheshire and Salop. Liverpool was to be
especially guarded, and Duckenfield, who was Governor of Chester,
addressed an appeal to the Council of State for the replacement of forty
barrels of powder and a quantity of arms which he had previously
furnished out of the magazine under his charge for use of the troops in
Ireland.[222] The Council of State were evidently quite satisfied with
the preparations which were being made in these three counties for
resistance. Meanwhile Cromwell had sent Major-General Lambert with a
detachment of cavalry to follow the Scots, and he hung on their rear all
along the line of march without being strong enough to engage them. On
their way through Lancashire, however, Lambert slipped round them and
effected a junction with Harrison somewhere south of the Ribble (Wed.,
Aug. 13th). Their combined forces, together with the newly raised local
troops, amounted in all to 12,000 horse, foot and dragoons; but they
were still unwilling to engage the Scots before they had been joined by
Cromwell. When Lambert and Harrison met Charles was still north of
Preston, and still retreating before him they passed through Bolton on
Thursday, August 14th.[223] On reaching Warrington, however, Lambert
decided to oppose the Scots' advance. Sending out a few troops to
skirmish with their advance guard, he occupied Warrington Bridge by a
detachment of foot, whose retreat was secured by cavalry. The
skirmishing party encountered the royalists two miles north of
Warrington, and were soon dispersed; the royalist scouts entered the
town about noon, and being followed by the rest of the army, at once
attacked the bridge. The Cheshire foot who were posted there, held their
ground for an hour and a half; as 2,000 of the Scots pressed upon them
their position was for a time somewhat perilous; but at length, breaking
down as much of the bridge as they could, they regained the main body of
the army in safety. The Scots following, engaged the Parliamentarian
rearguard, consisting of Major-General Lambert's, General Whalley's and
Colonel Twistleton's regiments, but they were beaten off; and Lambert
withdrew in safety to Knutsford, a more favourable place for cavalry
operations, expecting Charles to follow him; but the King continued his
march through Cheshire in a more direct line.[224]

The Parliamentarians had really the better of the skirmish, but it was
magnified by the royalists into a great victory for themselves. Charles
issued from Higher Whitley on the same evening, a statement of his
affairs in which he declared that he might have crossed the Mersey by
several fords, but attacked the bridge directly in order to give his
troops confidence.[225] The fact that it was thought necessary to
magnify so greatly this small success, showed how much the royalists
lacked confidence. Even Clarendon admits that the extent of the
achievement was to force Lambert to retire somewhat faster than he had
intended; and it was thought that the disorder of his retreat was partly
feigned in order to draw the royalists on. And even in the army there
was misgiving in spite of the apparent success. The King perceiving
David Leslie's gloomy expression, rallied him upon it, and asked him
what he thought of the troops now. Leslie replied that however well the
army looked it would not fight.[226]

This was on August 16th. It seems to have been the day before this that
the Earl of Derby landed his men from seven ships on Preesall Sands, on
the eastern side of the estuary of the River Wyre. He had been delayed
by contrary winds from sailing out of Douglas Harbour for some days.
After all the announcements of his coming, which had been talked about
in Lancashire for months beforehand, the country was surprised to find
that he had with him only some 300 foot and 60 horse, not very well
armed. On account of the delay Derby had arrived too late to meet
Charles in Lancashire, but at once hastening after the main army he had
an interview with his royal master between Northwich and Nantwich on
August 17th. On the previous day a warrant had been made out to Derby as
Captain-General of all the royal forces in Lancashire, authorising him
to raise troops by summoning all men "of what quality and condition
soever from sixteen to sixty years of age." He was instructed not to
make "any distinction of persons with reference to former differences."
On Derby's arrival at the royal camp he was directed to return to
Lancashire in order to put the warrant into force.[227] According to
Clarendon this was a mistake, for Derby's following consisted for the
most part of officers and gentlemen, whose presence in the main army
would have given it a strength which it very much needed. The Earl
thereupon returned to Lancashire, and on August 20th met at Warrington a
deputation of the Presbyterian ministers of the county, Major-General
Massey also being present. Massey was regarded as a martyr for the
Presbyterian cause, and had been especially commissioned by the King to
remain behind; he was also personally known to many of the Lancashire
Presbyterians. It would almost appear that it had been originally
intended to hold this meeting in Manchester, and that the place was
afterwards altered on account of the approach of some hostile troops.
Massey wrote from Cadishead on August 19th that his journey to
Manchester had been interrupted, and he had therefore been unable to
meet the gentlemen as expected, but he had sent for them to have an
interview with Ashhurst and himself the same evening; and he urged Derby
to send a detachment of horse to Manchester. A large number of the local
Presbyterians, however, met Derby and Massey at Warrington the following
day (Aug. 20); but the conference was of no service to the royalist
party. The estrangement between the local leaders and the ruling powers
was complete; "they are the men who are grown here more bitter and
envious against you than others of the old Cavaliers stamp," wrote
Robert Lilburne to the Speaker: and Manchester itself was "very
malignant." But the Presbyterians would not go so far as to make an
alliance with their old enemies. The Earl of Derby before his coming
over had been promised substantial help by them; but when it came to the
point, the Presbyterian ministers, who really ruled the councils of
their party, would give no help except on their own terms. There was
indeed no bond between these two ill-assorted allies but hatred of the
Sects, and that was not sufficient to bridge over the gulf which
otherwise divided them. The ministers began with a demand that Derby
should put away all the papists whom he had brought with him from the
Isle of Man, and himself take the Covenant. The Earl replied that on
those terms he might long ago have been restored to all his estates, and
the late King to his throne; and urged that this was not a time to argue
but that everyone who was desirous for the restoration of Charles II.
should fight for him. He added that he would refuse none who came to him
with that purpose. The Presbyterians, however, refused to make the
slightest concession, and after Derby and Massey had both argued in vain
for some time, the meeting broke up without having arrived at any
decision. The Earl made one last appeal for support; if this was refused
"I cannot hope to effect much, I may perhaps have men enough at my
command, but all the arms are in your possession without which I shall
only lead naked men to slaughter; however I am determined to do what I
can with the handful of Gentlemen now with me for His Majesty's service,
and if I perish I perish; but if my master suffer, the blood of another
Prince and all the ensuing miseries of this nation will lie at your
doors." This appeal, however, was equally unavailing; and Derby had to
abandon all prospect of aid from the Presbyterians, and depend on the
royalists. Massey thereupon hastened after the King.[228]

On landing from the Isle of Man on August 15th, the royalists had
marched that night to Weeton, near Kirkham, and next day over the Ribble
to Lathom, proceeding the same evening to Upholland. It would have been
a sad sight for the Earl to have visited the ruins of his formerly
splendid home, but he was probably not with the march that day, having
hurried on after the King. The main body had, however, reached
Warrington before he returned there, and on his arrival a Council of War
was held on the day before the abortive meeting with the Presbyterians.
There were present the Earl of Derby, Lord Widdrington, Sir Thomas
Tyldesley, Sir William Throgmorton, Sir Francis Gamul, Sir Theophilus
Gilbey, Sir Edward Savage, and Colonels Vere, Standish, James Anderton,
Hugh Anderton, Robinson and Legge. It was resolved to raise out of
Lancashire altogether 1,300 horse and 6,000 foot. The Hundreds of
Leyland and West Derby were to provide 500 horse and 2,000 foot,
Amounderness and Lonsdale Hundred the same number, and the proportion of
the others was to be assessed on Derby's further advance. Rates of pay
were fixed. The Earl had previously issued Commissions to officers to
serve under him; they were particularly directed that there was to be no
plunder. Derby issued an appeal to the Gentlemen of Lancashire, urging
his royal warrant, and for a few days the prospect seemed bright.[229]
"He thought himself master of Lancashire (as indeed he was)" wrote
Lilburne. There were at present no troops near to the county, and no one
dared rise against the royalists in Lancashire. But Derby might well be
disappointed at the response with which his appeals were met; for not
one-fifth of the numbers estimated were raised, and probably never would
have been raised even if there had been more time. It might reasonably
have been expected that in this county where royalism was so strong,
many more troops could have been raised. It was not Derby's fault; no
one could have done so much as he, but partly the difficulty already
referred to of Presbyterians and royalists acting together was
responsible, and above all the general wearisomeness of the war.

And even in the royalist Fylde the Earl's enemies were already active.
Some of the Commissioners of the Militia collected a few soldiers, and
surprised the crews of Derby's ships at Preesall, took them prisoners
and seized the ships. The prisoners were taken first to Preston, and
then on an alarm of the royalists' march thither, to York, narrowly
escaping a rescue party under Tyldesley. The chief of them, Captain
Cotterell, who had done much service for the royalists at sea, was tried
and executed.[230] Moreover, Colonel Robert Lilburne had been ordered to
Lancashire with his regiment, and was now marching in hot haste. From
Warrington the Earl of Derby moved northwards to Preston, and remained
there for some days. He issued warrants for raising troops in the Fylde,
and arranged for musters at Singleton and at Kirkham on August 25th; but
these musters were never held. Lilburne, having made a forced march from
Cheshire, reached Wigan on August 21st, thinking to have surprised the
royalists; but they had retreated to Chorley. Next day (Friday, August
22nd) he advanced to Preston, and in the night sent 40 horse to make a
surprise attack. Colonel Vere was wounded in the skirmish and apparently
took no part in the further fighting. The royalists had now increased
their numbers to about 600 horse and 900 foot, and held a rendezvous at
Preston on Saturday, August 23rd.

Lilburne was not anxious to force on an engagement, as he had no
infantry with him, and his men were tired with their long marches from
Cheshire. Cromwell's own regiment of foot under Major-General Worsley
were following him as fast as possible, and he resolved to wait for this
reinforcement. On the same day the royalists delivered a surprise attack
on their own account. Lilburne had now encamped at Brindle, four miles
from Preston, and the royalists were informed by a secret enemy "they
being all enemies hereabouts" that the horses were turned loose and the
men off their guard. A party of about 20 horse, mostly gentlemen's sons
from the Fylde and their servants, rode out of Preston for the
adventure, and guided by byways reached the Parliamentarian camp
unperceived. Lilburne's troopers were lying on the grass by their
saddles, half asleep in the summer afternoon, with their horses grazing
near by in the fields between Brindle and Preston. Suddenly the
royalists, who had evaded the guard in the lane below burst out upon
them. For a few moments all was confusion; but "the finest soldiers in
Europe" were more than a match for a few hot-headed youths, even caught
thus at a disadvantage. Recovering their horses they fell upon the
assailants and pursued them as far as Ribble Bridge; and all the
royalists were either taken or slain, excepting one who escaped like
Charles II. after Worcester, by climbing into a tree and hiding there
until the following day. Among those killed were the sons of Mr. Butler
of Rawcliffe and Mr. Hesketh of Maines Hall, near Poulton-le-Fylde.
John Clifton, the second son of Mr. Clifton of Lytham, was badly wounded
and taken prisoner.

[Illustration: The Campaign of Wigan Lane]

Not knowing what other surprises might be delivered in such a hostile
country Lilburne moved his camp next morning (Sunday, August 24th) two
miles further east to Hoghton, and that day Colonel Richard Shuttleworth
and a number of others from the neighbourhood came to him at Hoghton
Tower and remained till evening; showing that the county was not
entirely hostile to the Cromwellians. On the previous evening Lilburne
had received two companies of foot from Chester, and there also arrived
another company of newly raised foot from Liverpool; but he was still
waiting for Cromwell's regiment which was now reported to be at
Manchester. The royalists, however, had also heard of their advance, and
thinking to surprise Worsley before he could join the cavalry, and
having also the promise of reinforcements in Manchester themselves, they
marched out of Preston towards midnight on Sunday and proceeded south.
The movement was not one of flight as has been suggested, and as
Lilburne at first thought. He did not hear of their march until 8 or 9
o'clock next morning when intelligence was brought by an old woman. At
once he started off in hot pursuit, and came up with the royalists about
mid-day near Wigan. But Lilburne, when he found that the royalists were
not flying, still held off, hoping to be able to march on their flank to
Manchester. The royalists, however, had now resolved to give him battle,
and about 3 o'clock in the afternoon they were seen advancing along the
lane which led out of the town towards Standish.

It was a gallant company of royalists who rode out of Wigan that August
afternoon to make their last stand for the King in Lancashire. In
command was the Earl of Derby, the uncompromising enemy of the
Parliament; and with him were Sir Thomas Tyldesley, the hero of many
fights, the perfect exponent of all the cavalier virtues; Lord
Widdrington, "one of the most goodly persons of that age, being near the
head higher than most tall men, and a gentleman of the best and most
ancient extraction";[231] Sir William Throgmorton, who had been
Major-General in Newcastle's Yorkshire army; Colonel Boynton, some time
Governor of Scarborough for the Parliament, and their chief instrument
in the discovery of the Hothams' plot to betray Hull; with many others
of equal bravery but of less note. Opposed to them were the stern, well
disciplined cavalry of the Cromwellian army. The two forces were
absolutely typical of the opposing armies of the Civil War. It is said
that when Lilburne's men saw that they must fight they turned on the
country people who had come out to see their march and dispersed them
with harsh words.

The two forces were nearly equal in cavalry,[232] for the Earl of Derby
had by now 600, and Lilburne his own regiment, which would be 600 if the
ranks were full; and Lilburne also had about 60 horse and dragoons which
Birch had mounted for him from the Liverpool garrison. The royalists
were superior in foot, having 800 to the Cromwellians 300; but the
advantage was not so great as it appeared, for the Manxmen whom Derby
had brought over with him were poor fighters; and moreover the battle
was essentially a cavalry engagement, in which infantry played only a
subordinate part. Wigan Lane was then a broad sandy lane bordered by
hedges, and was thus as unsuitable a position for manoeuvring cavalry
as could be imagined; but the time was too short for Lilburne to choose
any other ground. Placing his musketeers behind the hedges, he awaited
the royalist onset. The place had other memories for him, and perhaps
for some of his men; for it was here that he had driven in Hamilton's
rearguard in the campaign of 1648.

Difficult as the ground was, the combat which ensued was the fiercest of
all the 10 years fighting in Lancashire. So furious was the royalist
charge that they drove back the Cromwellians far along the lane. In the
confined space no manoeuvring was possible, and for nearly an hour the
cavalry fought at close quarters. At length at the third charge Lilburne
brought up a small reserve, and the superior steadiness of the veterans
of the new Model prevailed over the impetuous bravery of the cavaliers.
The royalists wavered and began to give ground; Widdrington fell dead,
Tyldesley was unhorsed and shot down as he attempted to extricate
himself from the press;[233] Derby himself was wounded, and Lilburne's
men chased the now broken royalist squadrons down the hill into Wigan.
The pursuit and slaughter continued through the streets and town. The
rout was complete; Throgmorton and Boynton were also among the slain
which numbered 300; 400 prisoners were taken, and the rest of the force
melted away. In an hour the hopes of the royalists in Lancashire had
been destroyed.

The Earl of Derby, who had fought with his accustomed bravery, was
surrounded by six of his men and succeeded in reaching the town, where
he slipped in through an open door of a house in the Market Place and
lay concealed until nightfall. He had a number of slight wounds about
the arms and shoulders, and his beaver which he wore over a steel cap
was picked up afterwards in the Lane with thirteen sword cuts upon it.
In the middle of the night he left his place of refuge disguised in a
trooper's old coat, and accompanied only by Colonel Roscarrock and two
servants, made his way out of the town and rode away to join the King.

Events had moved with too tragic suddenness for news to come to those
waiting in the Isle of Man. There is in the Tanner MSS. a short letter
written by Henrietta Stanley on August 11th from Castle Rushen to
Tyldesley who was superintending the embarkation of the troops at
Douglas. The girl writes light-heartedly, in high hopes of the success
of the expedition which fair winds were just about to set free to sail,
and closes with a playful message to Colonel Roscarrock about a book.
Now, just fourteen days later, the royalist army had been scattered,
Tyldesley was slain, and Roscarrock one of the three who rode away under
cover of darkness with the wounded Earl of Derby. But no tidings of the
disaster came to Castle Rushen for many weeks. After long waiting, the
Countess sent out a pinnace but it was driven by contrary winds upon the
coast of Cheshire, and fell into the enemy's hands.[234]

Journeying as quickly as his wounds and weariness would permit, Derby
reached the house of a Mr. Watson at Newport in Shropshire, where he met
a friend, who conducted him to Boscobel House, which was then only
occupied by two servants, William Penderel and his wife (Friday, August
29th). This was just a fortnight after he had landed at Preesall.
Resting there until Sunday, the Earl was then guided by Penderel to
Gatacre, and so reached Worcester. Pursued by ill-fortune to the last,
he arrived there bringing the news of his own disaster, only two days
before the Battle of Worcester; where Cromwell, with an army more than
twice as numerous as the Scots, had no difficulty in gaining a complete
victory. Derby fought in the battle, and after the defeat his chief care
was for Charles' safety. He was one of the few noblemen who attended the
King to Kinver Heath near Kidderminster; and it was by Derby's advice
that Charles was conducted to White Ladies, and from there, under the
care of the Penderels Richard and William, to Boscobel. "This is the
King," said Derby to William Penderel, "thou must have a care of him and
preserve him as thou didst me." Thus saved from the first pursuit,
Charles after many narrow escapes reached Brighton and crossed to
France.[235]

Derby then joined the retreat northwards with Leslie, the Earl of
Lauderdale, Lord Talbot and others. They were attacked by Colonel
Blundell, but managed to make their escape. Soon afterwards, however,
they fell in with another skirmish and were captured. A Lancashire
captain named Oliver Edge was riding by himself to see what had become
of the 'forlorn,' when he noticed a party of horse in the field behind
him. Fearing they were enemies he hastened back towards his regiment;
when to his surprise all the horsemen dismounted and surrendered
themselves prisoners. The Earls of Derby and Lauderdale were the most
important of those captured. Edge gave the prisoners quarter but his
action was over-ruled by the Parliament through no fault of his own.
Derby afterwards wrote of Edge as "one that was so civil to me, that I
and all that love me are beholden to him." The Earl with some other
prisoners was carried to Chester Castle.[236]

After the battle of Wigan Lane, Lilburne sent up Lieutenant Turner to
London with letters to the House of Parliament which were read on August
30th. After hearing the letters Turner was called in to give an account
of the battle; and the House made him a present of £100, at the same
time voting to Lilburne the sum of £500 and lands to the yearly value of
£200. This was to be raised out of some delinquent's lands, and was in
satisfaction of two former votes of £1,000 each which remained
undischarged. The Sunday after the battle (August 31st) was named as a
public thanksgiving.[237]

The Earl of Derby's papers were referred to the Council of State to see
whether they contained anything of importance (August 30th); for so
hasty had been his flight from Wigan that all his baggage, including his
cloaks with his Orders, fell into Lilburne's hands. On the following
Monday Sir Harry Vane, the younger, reported to the House that papers of
great importance had been found in the Earl's hampers, and as a result
of their examination the Council of State decided on September 10 to
represent to Parliament that Derby was a fit person to be brought to
trial and made an example of justice; and that he should be tried by
court-martial at Chester.[238] Parliament made the required vote on the
following day, September 11th.

The irreconcilable hostility of the Earl to the Parliament, his high
rank, and especially his prominent part in the last campaign, rather
than his personal character, probably decided the Council of State to
deal hardly with him. He was not a dangerous man. But it was thought
necessary that an example should be made. Much has been written by
royalists of the perfidy of putting him on trial for his life after
quarter had been given; but Derby must have known that Edge's promise
was liable to be over-ruled by a higher authority; and in any case it
could have made little difference, for if Derby and his companions had
not surrendered at Newport, they must have been captured during the next
few days.

The trial began at Chester on September 29th. The Earl of Lauderdale had
been sent to the Tower, and Giffard, another of those who had
surrendered, escaped from Bunbury in Cheshire. Two other prisoners, Sir
Timothy Featherstonhaugh and Captain Benbow were tried at Chester with
Derby. After the resolution of Parliament on September 11th, a
commission was directed to Major-General Mitton, Colonel Duckenfield,
Colonel Mackworth, Colonel Birch, Colonel Henry Brooke, Colonel Henry
Bradshaw, Colonel Thomas Croxton, Colonel Gilbert Ireland, Colonel John
Carter, Colonel Twistleton, Colonel Mason or any three of them. Most of
the names were those of officers of the Cheshire Militia Regiments
enrolled in Hamilton's invasion of 1648. Birch and Ireland were the only
two Lancashire names, and neither of them attended any of the sittings
of the court martial. Mackworth was chosen President. He was Governor
of Shrewsbury, and on Charles' march it was thought that he might be
prevailed upon to surrender the town, but he returned a rude denial.
Most of the other members of the commission were comparatively
unknown; indeed it was not a dignified court by which to try a great
nobleman.[239]

The articles against Derby were that he had in defiance of the Act
of Parliament of August 12th, 1651, making it treason to hold
correspondence with Charles Stewart, received a commission from him,
proclaimed him King at several places in Lancashire, had raised forces
to assist him, and on their defeat had himself fought in the Battle of
Worcester. The Earl did not attempt to deny his acts, but he asked for
more time to consider his answer, and the court was adjourned until the
following day, Derby being furnished with a copy of the articles. Next
morning (September 30th) at 8 o'clock in the morning the other two
prisoners were tried. Derby was then brought to the bar, and pleaded
that he was in the Isle of Man on August 12th and had never heard of the
Act under which he was being convicted. His request for counsel was
considered and allowed, and at the Earl's own suggestion Mr. Zancthy, a
Chester lawyer, was named. The court then adjourned, and it was decided
that the Earl should have liberty at 9 o'clock next morning to plead his
own case. Later in the day a request was made on his behalf that he
might have Sir Maurice Enslow or Sir Robert Brerewood as counsel instead
of Zancthy, but this was refused.

Next day the Earl again pleaded that he was ignorant of the Act of
Parliament of August 12th, and further that Captain Edge had given him
quarter, and therefore that a court-martial had no authority over him;
and he appealed to Cromwell to support his claim. The court, however,
over-ruled the plea, and decided with two dissentients that there was
cause to proceed to a conviction according to the articles proved. It
was objected that quarter could not be allowed to traitors, and it
cannot be supposed that Derby would have acted otherwise had he known of
the Act of August 12th. The two voting in the negative were Twistleton
and Delves, and the former desired his vote to be recorded. When the
court met in the afternoon, however, and decided that the Earl was
worthy of death and should be executed at Bolton on October 16th,
Twistleton was one of those who voted. Delves was apparently not
present, but of the nineteen members, none voted in the negative.
Regarding the place of execution ten voted for Bolton, and eight for
Manchester; against the name of Lieutenant-Colonel Finch no place is
given. So that it was only by a bare majority that Bolton was fixed
upon.

The trial of the Earl of Derby was really only a pretence of justice. As
in the case of Charles I., two years before, the verdict had been
decided upon before the court met. The result was a foregone conclusion,
for Parliament had resolved to put Derby out of the way. As a matter of
law his excuses were good enough; but no one could suppose that the
trial would be decided by technical points. Of course the Earl had not
heard of the Act of August 12th, but it would have made no difference if
he had; and he knew quite well that he had been exempted from pardon by
the Parliament years before, and must have been fully conscious of the
risk he ran in taking part in the invasion of the Scots. The Council of
State had evidently decided also that the sentence of the court-martial
should be carried into effect. They had written to Colonel Duckenfield
on September 30th "As to what you mention of the Earl of Derby, order
has been given by Parliament concerning him, which is to be effectually
pursued, without expecting any interposition from Council."[240]
Nevertheless great efforts were naturally made to secure a reprieve. On
September 29th, after the first day's sitting of the court, Derby
himself directed two petitions, one to the Council, and the other to
Parliament, promising to surrender the Isle of Man if his life should be
spared. He also wrote to Lady Derby to surrender the Island, but no hope
was given that his petition would be granted even on these terms.

As a matter of fact the Isle of Man was not surrendered until November.
After the Earl's death Duckenfield and Birch led an expedition against
it, and landed troops; but the Countess asked for terms, and before any
fighting took place capitulated. Castle Rushen was given up on November
1st, and Peel Castle on November 3rd. Duckenfield thought that the terms
were satisfactory, because "these Castles might have cost a great
expense of blood, time and charge, besides several other difficulties
which in this Island are to be undergone in a siege, which are only
obvious to such as be upon the place."[241]

To return, however, to the trial of the Earl of Derby, Charles, Lord
Strange, now appeared upon the scene. He was a worthless person of whom
his father had written "I have no good opinion of him; he is not ashamed
of his faults."[242] Strange was only 14 on the breaking out of the war,
and had therefore been too young to have any considerable part in
affairs. But a few years later the exile of the Isle of Man became
irksome to him and he left his parents and went to France, where he
spent most of the next few years. Now, however, he returned, and a
reconciliation was made; and to do him justice Strange seems to have
used great efforts on his father's behalf. He journeyed to London, but
no one in London would intercede for the Earl, the intention of
Parliament being evidently too well known. Derby then applied personally
to Cromwell, emphasising the illegality of his condemnation by a
court-martial after having received quarter. There seems to have been no
doubt that Cromwell was anxious to secure the Earl's reprieve;[243] but
Parliament would not listen to him. Other means were then used.
President Bradshaw was tried through his brother, Colonel Henry
Bradshaw, one of the Earl's judges, and Brideoak, one of Derby's
Chaplains, applied to Speaker Lenthall. Brideoak pleaded so well for
himself that he was made Lenthall's own chaplain and Preacher at the
Rolls, but he failed to secure his patron's pardon.

Finding there was no hope of reprieve the Earl made an attempt to escape
which was very nearly successful. One night he found some pretext for
being on the lead roof above his chamber, and procuring a rope slid down
and escaped from the city. The alarm, however, was raised, and he was
recaptured on the roodee, having unawares discovered himself to his
pursuers. Before attempting to escape, he left on his table a letter to
the Countess advising her to make the best terms she could with Colonel
Duckenfield "who being so much a gentleman born will doubtless for his
own honour's sake deal fairly with you."[244]

After this Derby was of course more carefully watched. He made one final
attempt in a petition to Lenthall on October 11th. In this he offered no
vindication, but cast himself entirely on the Parliament's mercy,
stating that he had been persuaded by Colonel Duckenfield that
Parliament would spare his life. He again offered to surrender the Isle
of Man, to take no further action against the Government, and to be
imprisoned or banished as the House might direct. If this was refused he
particularly asked that the place of his execution might be altered from
Bolton, because "the nation will look upon me as a sacrifice for that
blood which some have unjustly cast upon me"; and he claimed that the
charge of cruelty at the capture of Bolton was never once mentioned
during his trial, which indeed was quite true. This petition was not
brought forward in the House till Tuesday, October, 14th, the day before
that which had been fixed for the execution. The House voted by 22 votes
to 16 that the petition should be read, Sir William Brereton being one
of the tellers for the ayes; but no action could be taken, for if a
reprieve had been intended it would have been decided upon long
before.[245]

The Earl's last hours were moving and dignified enough; and told chiefly
by Rev. Humphrey Bagguley, who was in attendance upon him during the few
days before his death, they lose nothing in effect. Bagguley, with the
Rev. Henry Bridgeman, Vicar of Wigan and brother of Orlando Bridgeman,
together with Lord Strange, were the three who remained to the last. The
authorities at Chester showed unnecessary cruelty in forbidding the
Earl's children intercourse with him; but his second and third
daughters, Lady Katherine and Lady Amelia were allowed to spend most of
Monday, October 13th, with their father. Next day Derby was informed
that he must start for Bolton on the following morning, and that evening
he wrote his two last affectionate letters to his wife and children in
the Isle of Man. Next morning he duly set out for Bolton, after his
fellow-prisoners had been permitted to say farewell to him at the Castle
gate. There was one sadder farewell still to be gone through. The Earl
rode on horseback and about half a mile out of the town was met by his
two daughters in a coach. Alighting from his horse he kneeled down and
prayed for them before taking a final farewell. "This was the deepest
scene of sorrow my eyes ever beheld," says the narrator, "so much grief,
and so much tender concern and tender affection on both sides, I never
was witness of before." That night the cavalcade rested at Leigh, and
next day with a guard of 60 foot and 50 horse the Earl reached Bolton
about noon. His request to be allowed to visit Sir Thomas Tyldesley's
grave had been refused. After resting two hours at an inn the Earl was
conducted to the scaffold, which had been built near the Cross partly of
timber brought from the ruins of Lathom House.

Not very many people were present besides the soldiers on guard; but a
tumult arising from some unexplained cause interrupted Derby in his last
speech. He seems to have been afraid of the hostility of the crowd, but
the soldiers with more reason feared a demonstration in his favour, for
most of the onlookers evidently pitied him.[246] The Earl's last words
were heard by few of those present, but they were taken down in
shorthand and afterwards printed. In them he again repudiated the
charges of cruelty made against him. After having spent some time in
private prayer, the Earl gave the signal to the executioner by lifting
his hands, and his head was severed at one blow. The body was taken by
Lord Strange to Haigh Hall, near Wigan, and the next day to Ormskirk,
to be buried with the former Earls of Derby. So died, if not the
wonderful possessor of all the virtues which partisan biographers
afterwards pretended, a brave, upright and Christian gentleman, weak
rather than offending, who deserved a better fate.[247]

And with his death the Civil War in Lancashire really ends.

FOOTNOTES:

[211] _Vide_ note on p. 41. "A Declaration of the Earl of Derby, etc."
E. 566 (5). "A Message sent from the Earl of Derby, Governor of the Isle
of Man, to his dread Sovereign Charles II., 1649." E. 566 (21).

[212] "C.S.P.," 1649-1650, p. 278. It would seem that this was the real
reason for the final breaking off of the negotiations.

[213] "A Declaration of the Earl of Derby, etc." E. 566 (5). The letter
has been frequently reprinted. Cf. Marlet, "Charlotte de la Tremoille,"
p. 186: "Signé Derby; mais faut-il dire: écrit par lord Derby? On est en
droit de croire que sa femme eut une parte prépondérante à la redaction
de ses phrases hachées, vibrantes, pareilles aux coups de canon, qui,
sur les vaisseaux, saluent au lever du jour, le pavillon national,
montant fièrement dans les airs: car elles sont en parfaite conformité
avec ses mâles repliques aux assiegeants de Lathom-house: elles n'ont,
au contraire, aucun trait de resemblance avec le style flasque et
ampoulé des lettres ou des discours du comte."

[214] "Carte MSS.," Vol. 9, fol. 55, 195; Vol. 11, pp. 326, 495; Vol.
12, fol. 127; Vol. 14, fol. 12, 249, 291; Vol. 23, fol. 105. There is
also a letter referring to this matter in the "Ormonde MSS.," Hist. MSS.
Com., new series, Vol. 1, p. 99.

[215] "C.S.P.," 1649-50, p. 381; 1650, p. 290, etc.

[216] "C.S.P.," 1650, pp. 169, 282, 470.

[217] "Ashmolean MSS.," 1110, ff. 164, 165; 1112, ff. 43, 45. The
particulars are from the Garter Records of Sir Edward Walker; but,
curiously enough, the date in one of the volumes is given incorrectly as
January, 1651. The fact that the patent was directed from Castle
Elizabeth in Jersey, however, is proof of the correctness of the earlier
date.

[218] It must, however, be remembered that few of the original
Parliamentarian leaders in Lancashire were now left. Assheton had died
in February of this year, and Moore and Rigby in 1650.

[219] Gardiner, "Commonwealth and Protectorate," Vol. 2, p. 12.

[220] Cary's "Memorials," Vol. 2, pp. 299, 306.

[221] Cary's "Memorials," Vol. 2, p. 305. "Discourse," p. 70. The latter
has high praise for the moderate conduct of the royal troops.

[222] "C.S.P.," 1651, pp. 97, 156, 302. "Rawlinson MSS.," a. 184, ff.
390, 392.

[223] "C.S.P.," 1651, p. 322.

[224] "C.W.T.," p. 290. "Discourse," p. 71.

[225] "A Brief Statement of His Majesty's Affairs, etc." ("Tanner MSS.,"
Vol. 54, fol. 155, 156.)

[226] "Clarendon" (Macray), Vol. 5, p. 180 (book 13, par. 62).

[227] "C.W.T.," p. 297. The "Discourse," p. 71, says: "Besides men of
quality, some 300 Manck soldiers." In the previous month Derby had
declared himself ready to join the King with 500 men well armed. Cary's
"Memorials," Vol. 2, p. 288. "Seacome," p. 111, says that the Earl of
Derby landed with "300 gallant gentlemen." For the warrant to Derby
_vide_ "Tanner MSS.," Vol. 54, fol. 170. It was directed "To our Right
Trusty and Right Well-beloved Cosen the Earl of Derby, our Captain
Generall in our County Palatine of Lancaster," and states that owing to
his rapid march the King had been unable to send particular summonses to
Lancashire; he was now pursuing the enemy, who had been dislodged from
Warrington Bridge. Gardiner, "Commonwealth and Protectorate," Vol. 2, p.
37, gives the date of Derby's meeting with Charles as August 17.

[228] "Clarendon" (Macray), Vol. 5, p. 177, (book 13, par. 58). Massey's
letter of August 19 is printed in "Cary," Vol. 2, p. 324. He says that
his advance has been checked by a regiment of Lilburne's horse quartered
near Middleton; but this cannot have been Lilburne's own regiment, which
only left Stockport on the 22nd. Some prisoners were made by Massey.
"Seacome," pp. 112, 113, is the authority for the meeting at Warrington,
but his statements are accepted by Mr. Gardiner. Seacome's account that
Massey strongly seconded Derby's appeals is, however, not compatible
with a sentence of Mr. Gardiner's: "Too late Charles discovered that a
letter carried by Massey from the Scotch ministers attending the army
contained a warning against a too close conjunction with malignants."
"Commonwealth," Vol. 2, p. 38. It must be supposed that Seacome
overrated Massey's part in the meeting.

[229] "Portland MSS.," Vol. 1, p. 614. Several warrants issued by Derby
are given, and orders against plundering; companies on the march,
however, were to have free quarter. The Earl's appeal to the Gentlemen
of Lancashire is printed in "Cary," Vol. 2, p. 333.

[230] "Discourse," pp. 72, 73.

[231] "Clarendon" (Macray), Vol. 5, p. 185 (book 13, par. 69).

[232] The fullest accounts of the Battle of Wigan are: "A Great Victory,
etc." ("C.W.T.," p. 296); "Two Letters from Col. Robert Lilburne, etc."
("C.W.T.," p. 300); "Seacome," pp. 113, 114; Whitelock's "Memorials," p.
504; and "Discourse," pp. 72-76. The last gives most details, probably
from personal knowledge; Major Robinson was one of the Lancashire
officers to whom a commission was given in the reorganisation of the
Militia in 1650. His narrative and that of Lilburne, as those written by
eye-witnesses, may be taken as the most reliable.

With regard to the numbers of the respective forces, there can be little
doubt that they were very nearly equal. Seacome's wild estimates, which
are, as usual, unhesitatingly followed by Canon Raines, may be dismissed
as impossible; he gives Lilburne 3,000 horse and foot. It has already
been mentioned that Derby landed with less than 100 horse, and either
250 or 300 foot (p. 187). All the accounts substantially agree in
respect to these figures. In the few days after landing these numbers
were considerably increased; Seacome acknowledges that Derby had 600
horse at the battle, while Lilburne says that the royalists had
increased to 1,400 or 1,500 men, and the "Discourse" gives them 1,000
foot and 500 horse. Lilburne's estimate of his own army, as stated in
the letter to Cromwell, may be accepted as correct. He writes: "I had
only my own regiment, and those three companies of foot, and the 60
horse and dragoons." His own regiment of horse he had brought with him;
two of the foot companies had been sent from Chester, and one, together
with the 60 dragoons, from the garrison at Liverpool. "Discourse," p.
75; "C.W.T.," p. 297. The latter of these references is to a letter from
Birch, the Governor of Liverpool, who writes: "All that could be
afforded in assistance were two foot companies from Chester, one of my
Regiment, left about Manchester, not being so ready as the rest to march
out, and what musketeers I horsed from hence with some few countrymen."
A regiment of cavalry in the New Model Army numbered 600 men. Firth,
"Cromwell's Army," p. 42. Dragoons in the seventeenth century were not
cavalry, but mounted infantry. Mr. Gardiner's account of the Battle is
not quite correct ("Commonwealth," Vol. 2, p. 39). He says: "Lilburne
fell back through Wigan.... Entangled in the lanes south of the town he
was compelled to fight, etc." Wigan Lane is the road out of Wigan to the
north.

[233] A monument to Tyldesley was erected on the spot where he fell by
his cornet, Alexander Rigby, of Layton, when the latter was Sheriff of
Lancashire in 1677. The monument still stands: it was restored by the
Corporation of Wigan in 1886. The long inscription is printed by Canon
Raines. "Stanley Papers," pt. 3, Vol. 2 (C.S. 67), p. cccxxxiii.

[234] This letter is printed in "Cary," Vol. 2, p. 320; Marlet,
"Charlotte de la Tremoille," p. 239.

[235] Hughes' "Boscobel Tracts," pp. 174, 190.

[236] For the narrative of Derby's capture we are indebted to Capt.
Hodgson ("Autobiography," p. 48). Little seems to be known about Edge;
but the name of Oliver Edge occurs in a statement about the seating
of Manchester Church in 1649, which was largely signed by the
inhabitants of the town, and this signature is very probably his.
("Manchester Municipal Records.") He belonged to the family of Edge of
Birch-Hall Houses near Manchester. Halley's "Lancashire Puritanism and
Nonconformity" (2nd ed. in 1 vol., 1872), p. 286.

[237] "C.J.," Vol. 7, pp. 8, 9.

[238] "C.S.P.," 1651, pp. 422, 423. "C.J.," Vol. 7, pp. 9, 16.

[239] The official record of the trial of the Earl of Derby, from the
original in the Library of the House of Lords, is printed by Canon
Raines in the appendix to his "Stanley Papers," pt. 3, Vol. 2 (C.S. 67),
pp. cccxxxiv-ccclvii, as well as other valuable documents relating to
the Earl's trial and death. _Vide_ also "Discourse," pp. 78-85;
"C.W.T.," pp. 311-323.

[240] "C.S.P.," 1651, p. 457.

[241] Duckenfield and Birch to Lenthall. Ramsey, Nov. 2. ("Tanner MSS.,"
Vol. 55, fol. 87.)

[242] Marlet, "Charlotte de la Tremoille," p. 151.

[243] Gardiner ("Commonwealth," Vol. 2, p. 62, note) quotes a Newsletter
of Salvetti, which seems decisive on this point. As the Earl's death has
been attributed to Cromwell's own influence the quotation may be
repeated here: "Il General Cromwell fa buonissimi uffizii per salvarlo
la vita, con conditione che consegni nelle mane del Parlamento la sua
isoletta di Man, della quale se ne intitole Re."

[244] "Seacome," p. 133.

[245] "Raines," _op. cit._, p. ccxvii, ccvxiii. Canon Raines here
repeats a wild story from Seacome, to the effect that this petition
would have been allowed by the House, had not Cromwell and Bradshaw
contrived to reduce the number of Members present to less than 40, so
that no question could be put. There is no foundation for this
statement. As a matter of fact, the House voted that Derby's petition
should be read, but it could not possibly be dealt further with owing to
the impossibility of sending a messenger into Lancashire in time to stop
the execution, had that been intended. ("C.J.," Vol. 7, p. 27.) For
Cromwell's real attitude towards the reprieve, _vide_ note on p. 201.

[246] "The Earl of Derby's Speech on the Scaffold, etc." ("C.W.T.," p.
320). The best account of the Earl's last hours is naturally given by
Seacome, who quotes Bagguley's "Narrative" (pp. 120-127), "Discourse,"
pp. 82-85: "The Earl was no good Orator, and the tumult put him out of
speaking what he intended; he was much afraid of being reviled by the
people of the town, but they rather pitied his condition."

[247] "The Earl of Darby was a man of unquestionable loyalty to the
King, and gave clear testimony of it before he received any obligations
from the Court, and when he thought himself disobliged by it.... He was
a man of great honour and clear courage; and all his defects and
misfortunes proceeded from his having lived so little time among his
equals, that he knew not how to treat his inferiors: which was the
source of all the ill that befell him, having thereby drawn such a
prejudice from the persons of inferior quality, who yet thought
themselves too good to be contemned, against him, that they pursued him
to death." ("Clarendon," Macray, Vol. 5, p. 184, bk. 13, par. 68).




INDEX.


 Aberconway, 146.

 Acton Church, Royalist defeat at, 98.

 Adwalton Moor, Battle of, 5, 68, 89-90.

 Allen, Rev. Isaac, Rector of Prestwich, 41.

 Albany Mill, Middleton, 32_n_.

 Alport Lodge, 42.
 ---- burnt down, 42_n_.
 ---- demolished, 55.

 Amounderness Hundred, 54, 58, 67, 131, 188.
 ---- Royalist collectors for, 58.
 ---- Parliamentarian captains in, 93.

 Anderton, Christopher, of Lostock, 137.
 ---- Hugh, 188.
 ---- James, 58, 188.

 Appleby, 163.
 ---- Castle, 164, 172.

 Ardern, Captain, 80.

 Array, Commissions of, 11, 13, 14.
 ---- voted illegal by Parliament, 11.

 Ashhurst, Henry, 35_n_, 172.
 ---- Captain John (afterwards Major), 34, 161, 186.
 ---- ---- at Bolton, 69-70.
 ---- ---- at Lathom, 103.
 ---- ---- appointed Governor of Liverpool, 137.
 ---- ---- his negotiations with Lord Derby, 138.
 ---- William, M.P. for Newton, 30.
 ---- ---- notice of, 34-5.

 Ashton Hall, Lancaster, Charles II. at, 182.

 Ashton, distress in, 173.

 Assessments, on Lancashire, 152.

 Assheton, Radcliffe, royalist collector in Blackburn Hundred, 58, 59_n_.
 ---- Ralph, of Downham, 32.
 ---- ---- of Whalley, M.P. for Clitheroe, 30, 32.
 ---- ---- of Middleton, M.P. for Lancashire, Colonel and Major-General,
   20_n_, 30, 54, 171_n_.
 ---- ---- secures the magazine at Manchester, 14.
 ---- ---- notice of, 31-2, 32_n_.
 ---- ---- his tenants at the siege of Manchester, 43, 46.
 ---- ---- commands at first defence of Bolton, 69.
 ---- ---- relieves Lancaster, 76.
 ---- ---- retreats to Whalley, 77.
 ---- ---- sacks Wigan, 79.
 ---- ---- victory in the Fylde, 86.
 ---- ---- takes Hornby and Thurland Castle, 88.
 ---- ---- at Adwalton Moor, 89.
 ---- ---- defeated at Booth Lane, near Sandbach, 97.
 ---- ---- at the siege of Lathom House, 101-2.
 ---- ---- at York, 126.
 ---- ---- serves at siege of Chester, 149.
 ---- ---- Commander-in-Chief in Lancashire in 1648, 162.
 ---- ---- takes Bentham House, Westmoreland, 163.
 ---- ---- at battle of Preston, 167.
 ---- ---- takes Appleby Castle, 172.
 ---- ---- ordered to disperse Lancashire Militia, 175.
 ---- ---- dismissed from his command, 175.

 Aston, Sir Thomas, letter of, intercepted, 16.

 Atherton, 60_n_.

 Audlem, 117.

 Aylesbury, taken by Prince Rupert, 115.


 Bagguley, Rev. Humphrey, attends Lord Derby, 202.

 Baillie, Lieut.-Gen., surrenders at Warrington, 170.
 ---- Robert, letters of, 125, 130, 153.

 Bamber, Captain, 175.

 Banquet to Lord Strange at Manchester, 17.

 Barlow Moor, near Manchester, 120.
 ---- rendezvous on, 140.

 Barton, Sir T., 56.

 Barwick, Lieutenant, 43.

 Beaumont, 30.

 Beeston Castle, 97.

 Bellasis, Lord, taken prisoner at Selby, 115.

 Benbow, Captain, 197.

 Berwick-on-Tweed, 160.

 Betley, Prince Rupert at, 117.

 Birch, Thomas, of Birch, successively Captain, Sergeant-Major and
  Colonel, 55, 161, 173, 175, 183.
 ---- ---- at the affray in Manchester (1642), 18-20.
 ---- ---- at capture of Preston, 63.
 ---- ---- occupies Lancaster, 71.
 ---- ---- seizes Earl of Derby's daughters, 179.
 ---- ---- chosen one of Earl of Derby's judges, but does not act, 197.
 ---- ---- Isle of Man surrendered to him, 200.

 Blackburn, 56, 63, 67, 74, 121.
 ---- occupied by royalists, 59.
 ---- royalist attack on, 62.
 ---- Hundred, 3, 7, 54, 55, 59, 77, 78.

 Blackstone Edge, 5.
 ---- fortified, 91, 92_n_.

 Blaire, Major-Gen., royalist commander at Wigan, 79.

 Bolton-le-Moors, 67, 74, 101, 148.
 ---- first attack on, 69, 70.
 ---- second attack on, 78.
 ---- stormed by Prince Rupert, 121-4.
 ---- collection for, in Manchester, 125.
 ---- meeting of Deputy-Lieutenants at, 161.
 ---- execution of Earl of Derby at, 203.

 Booth, Col. Sir George, 148.
 ---- John, Captain and Colonel, 43.
 ---- ---- notice of, 43_n_.
 ---- ---- his bravery at Preston, 63.
 ---- ---- at Nantwich, 98.
 ---- ---- at Ormskirk, 133.
 ---- Lane, Parliamentarian defeat at, 97.

 Bootle, Capt., 123-4.

 Boscobel, 195.

 Bourne, Rev. Wm., 46, 46_n_.

 Boynton, Col. Matthew, 192.
 ---- ---- slain at Wigan, 194.

 Braddyl, John, 56.

 Bradford, 90, 91.

 Bradshaw, Col. Henry, one of Lord Derby's judges, 197.
 ---- John, of Bradshaw, 56, 56_n_, 161.
 ---- President, 201.
 ---- Capt. Robert, 43.
 ---- ---- notice of, 43_n_.
 ---- ---- taken prisoner at Westhoughton, 54.

 Bradshawgate, Bolton, 70.

 Brereton, Lord, 56.
 ---- Sir William, of Handforth, 5, 11, 12_n_, 136, 202.
 ---- ---- in Manchester, 15, 16_n_.
 ---- ---- notice of, 15_n_.
 ---- ---- besieges Warrington, 80.
 ---- ---- takes Warrington, 86-7.
 ---- ---- at siege of Chester, 140, 148.
 ---- ---- letter of, 141.
 ---- ---- Lancashire troops with, 149.

 Bretherton, John, 58.

 Bridgeman, Edward, 81.
 ---- Rev. Henry, 202.
 ---- Orlando, M.P. for Wigan, 30.

 Bright, Col., at Preston, 167.

 Brindle, skirmish at, 190.

 Bristol, 68, 150.

 Brook, Col. H., one of Lord Derby's judges, 197.

 Bruerton, 117.

 Brunstock, 163.

 Bryn Hall, Charles II. at, 182.

 Buckley, Capt., 69.

 Buckshawe Hall, Chorley, 29_n_.

 Bury, 15, 55, 78.

 Butler, Mr., of Rawcliffe, 190.

 Butterworth, Alexander, 47.

 Byron, Sir John, royalist Governor of Chester and of Liverpool,
  116, 129.
 ---- Col. Robert, letter to Ormonde, 130.


 Cadishead, 186.

 Callander, Earl of, 164, 171.
 ---- letter of, 141.

 Cantsfield, 93.

 Carlisle, 160, 162, 171.

 Carter, Col. John, one of Lord Derby's judges, 197.

 Castle Rushen, 147, 177, 194.

 Charles I., petition to, from Lancashire, 10.
 ---- raises his standard at Nottingham, 21.
 ---- makes the Cessation in Ireland, 96.
 ---- expected to march into Lancashire, 140.
 ---- storms Leicester, 142.
 ---- defeated at Rowton Heath, 142.
 ---- surrenders to the Scots, 150.
 ---- negotiations with Parliament, 150.

 Charles II. proclaimed at Manchester Cross, 174.
 ---- appoints Earl of Derby K.G., 180.
 ---- lands at Speymouth, 180.
 ---- invades England, 181.
 ---- passes through Lancashire, 182.
 ---- defeated at Worcester, 195.
 ---- his escape, 195.

 Charnock, Capt., 104, 143.

 Chester, 65, 124, 140.

 Chetham, Humphrey, 14.
 ---- College, 14.

 Chipping, 77.

 Chisenhale, Capt., 104, 106.
 ---- sortie by, 105, 107.
 ---- made Colonel, 129.

 Cholmondeley, Sir H., 170.

 Chowbent, skirmish at, 60, 60_n_, 61.

 Clifton, Mr., of Lytham, 72, 74.
 ---- Col. Cuthbert, 129, 136.
 ---- John, 191.

 Clitheroe, 30, 92.

 Cockerham, 76.

 Committee of Both Houses, 162.

 Committee of Both Kingdoms, letters to, 129, 135.

 Conduit, Manchester, 17.

 Cotterell, Capt., 189.

 Crane, Sir Richard, 124.

 Cromwell, Oliver, 165, 174.
 ---- ---- victory at Preston, 166-8.
 ---- ---- ---- Dunbar, 180.

 Croxton, Col. Thomas, 197.


 Danson, Thomas, Under Sheriff, 14.

 Darwen, River, 167.

 Dean, Col., 167.

 Deansgate, Manchester, 43, 44, 45, 47, 50.

 Derby, Charlotte de la Tremoille, Countess of, 26-7.
 ---- ---- letters of, to Prince Rupert, 21, 80.
 ---- ---- defends Lathom House, 101-110.
 ---- ---- removes to Isle of Man, 129, 129_n_.
 ---- ---- surrenders Isle of Man, 200.

 Delamere, royalist defeat at, 98.

 Denbigh, Earl of, 126, 129.

 Derby, Earl of. _See_ Stanley, James.

 Dives, Sir Lewis, 180.

 Dodding, Col. George, 72, 120.
 ---- ---- appointed Colonel, 54.
 ---- ---- taken prisoner, 72.
 ---- ---- suspicions of, 119, 119_n_.
 ---- ---- defeats royalists at Walton, 132.
 ---- ---- besieges Greenhalgh Castle, 137.
 ---- ---- in Second Civil War, 162.

 Doncaster, 165.

 Dorsetshire, affray in, 19.

 Duckenfield, Col. Robert, 76, 183.
 ---- ---- surrenders Stockport to Rupert, 117.
 ---- ---- suppresses free companies, 175.
 ---- ---- subdues Isle of Man, 200.
 ---- ---- Lord Derby's opinion of, 201.

 Dukenhalgh Hall, 82.

 Dunbar, battle of, 180.


 Eccleston, 58_n_.
 ---- Green, 120.

 Edge, Capt. Oliver, 196_n_, 198.
 ---- ---- Earl of Derby surrenders to, 196.

 Egerton, Peter, of Shaw in Flixton, Colonel and Major-General, 54, 56.
 ---- ---- in command at second siege of Lathom, 143-4.
 ---- ---- his letter to the Speaker, 153.

 Ellel, 76.

 Emmott Lane Head, 92.


 Fairfax, Ferdinando, first Baron, 39, 89, 90.
 ---- Sir Thomas, 115, 140.
 ---- ---- victory at Wakefield, 85.
 ---- ---- at Adwalton Moor, 90.
 ---- ---- Lancashire troops with, in Cheshire, 93.
 ---- ---- relieves Nantwich, 98.
 ---- ---- at Lathom, 101-104.
 ---- ---- insubordination to, 119.
 ---- ---- defeats Goring at Langport, 150.
 ---- ---- at Preston, 167.

 Fanshawe, Anne, Lady, 30.
 ---- Sir Richard, 30.

 Farington, William, of Worden, 13, 56, 58.
 ---- ---- notice of, 29.
 ---- ---- at siege of Manchester, 42.
 ---- ---- at Lathom, 104, 143.

 Farmer, Capt., at Lathom House, 104.
 ---- sortie led by, 105.

 Featherstonhaugh, Sir T., 197.

 Fitton, Sir Edward, summoned as delinquent, 13.
 ---- ---- letters of, 16, 23.
 ---- ---- disarms his tenants, 41.

 Fleetwood, John, 56, 58.
 ---- Richard, of Rossall, 20_n_.

 Fox, Capt., 104.

 Friars Gate, Preston, 76.

 Freckleton Marsh, 132.

 Fulwood Moor, royalist gathering on, 12.


 Gamul, Sir Francis, 182.

 Gell, Sir John, 15_n_, 129.

 Gerard, Sir Gilbert, 42.

 Gilbey, Sir Theophilus, 182.

 Girlington, Sir John, Sheriff of Lancashire, 12, 18, 58, 74.
 ---- ---- notice of, 29.
 ---- ---- at siege of Manchester, 42.
 ---- ---- surrenders at Lancaster, 71.
 ---- ---- taken prisoner at Thurland, 88.
 ---- ---- reoccupies Thurland, 93.

 Gisburn, 165.

 Goring, Lord, 131, 132.
 ---- joins Rupert, 129.
 ---- defeated at Langport, 150.

 Greaves Town, 132.

 Green, Alexander, 17, 17_n_, 18.

 Greenhalgh Castle, 88, 99, 109, 135.
 ---- ---- siege of, 137.

 Grey, Lord, 129.


 Haigh Hall, Wigan, 204.

 Haleford, 86, 124, 124_n_, 142.
 ---- Prince Rupert at, 131.
 ---- guarded, 140.

 Halifax, 89, 90.

 Hamilton, First Duke of, invades Lancashire, 159, 163, 165.
 ---- ---- his letter to Lancashire Ministers, 164.
 ---- ---- at Hornby, 164.
 ---- ---- defeated at Preston, 166-168.
 ---- ---- executed, 171.
 ---- Second Duke of, 182.

 Harrison, Col., at Preston, 166, 167.
 ---- sent to Lancashire (1651), 183.
 ---- joins Lambert, 184.
 ---- Sir John, notice of, 30.

 Haslington, Cheshire, 117.

 Hastings, Mr., 19.

 Hatherton, 117.

 Hawarden Castle, 97.

 Hesketh, Mr., 190.

 Heyrick, Richard, Warden of Manchester, 10, 49.
 ---- ---- notice of, 44_n_.
 ---- ---- special preacher before Parliament, 156, 171.

 Heywood, Peter, plot to betray Manchester, 119.

 Hindley, Capt., 99.

 Hinfield Moor, 59_n_.

 Hodder Bridge, 165.

 Hoghton, Sir Gilbert, 16, 64.
 ---- ---- notice of, 29.
 ---- ---- at siege of Manchester, 42.
 ---- ---- defeated by Col. Shuttleworth, 59.
 ---- ---- attacks Blackburn, 62.
 ---- ---- at Preston, 64.
 ---- ---- ordered to Chester, 96.
 ---- Lady, 64.
 ---- Richard, killed at Preston, 64.
 ---- Tower, 59, 68_n_.
 ---- ---- beacon at, fired, 59.
 ---- ---- surrendered and blown up, 68-9.
 ---- ---- Lilburne's camp at, 191.

 Holcroft, Col. Thos., in affray at Manchester, 18, 19, 20.
 ---- ---- at Lancaster, 75.

 Holland, Richard, of Heaton, Governor of Manchester, 46, 56, 76, 161.
 ---- ---- notice of, 46_n_.
 ---- ---- at Preston, 63-4.
 ---- ---- in command at Wigan, 79.
 ---- ---- accused of cowardice, 79_n_.
 ---- ---- at Warrington, 80.
 ---- ---- at York, 89.
 ---- ---- with Fairfax in Cheshire, 98.
 ---- ---- suspicions of, 119.

 Holt, 117.
 ---- Capt., 69.
 ---- Robert, of Castleton, 15, 56, 58.

 Hornby Castle, 86, 88_n_, 93.
 ---- ---- captured, 87-8.
 ---- ---- Prince Rupert at, 131.
 ---- ---- Hamilton at, 164.

 Hotham, Sir John, 90.

 Howe Bridge, 60_n_.

 Huddleston, Col., defeated at Lindale, 94, 132.
 ---- Sir William, 172.

 Hull, 5.
 ---- first blood of the Civil War shed at, 19-20.
 ---- first siege of, 20.
 ---- powder sent from, to Lancashire, 54.
 ---- retreat of the Fairfaxes to, 90.

 Hunt's Bank, Manchester, 43.

 Hutchinson, Colonel, 129.


 Ireland, Sir Gilbert, 174_n_.
 ---- ---- chosen one of Lord Derby's judges, 197.

 Ireton, General, 178.

 Irish troops for Lancashire, 96.
 ---- ---- land in Wales, 97.
 ---- ---- defeated at Nantwich, 98.


 Kendal, 163, 165.
 ---- Charles II. proclaimed at, 174.

 Key, Capt., 143.

 Kilmorey, Lord, 56.

 King, Act forbidding proclamation of, 173.

 Kinver Heath, 195.

 Kirkby, Roger, M.P. for Lancashire, 58, 94.
 ---- ---- notice of, 30.
 ---- ---- surrenders at Lancaster, 71.

 Kirkby Lonsdale, 163, 166.

 Kirkham, 86, 132, 188, 189.

 Knutsford, royalist muster at, 16.
 ---- Lambert retreats to, 184.


 Lambert, General, 162, 163, 170, 180.
 ---- ---- joins Cromwell, 165.
 ---- ---- disbands Lancashire forces, 174.
 ---- ---- follows Scots march, 183.
 ---- ---- skirmishes at Warrington, 184.

 Lancashire, geographical features of, 1, 2.
 ---- ---- effect on Civil War, 3-5.
 ---- religious parties in, 3.
 ---- course of Civil War in, 4.
 ---- petitions from, 9, 10.
 ---- members of Long Parliament, 30.
 ---- attempted pacification in, 56.
 ---- troops from, in Yorkshire, 89.
 ---- ---- in Cheshire, 93, 141_n_.
 ---- ---- at siege of Chester, 148-9.
 ---- state of, after first Civil War, 151, 153, 154.
 ---- ---- after second Civil War, 173.
 ---- Presbyterianism established in, 156.
 ---- Ministers, Hamilton's letter to, 164.
 ---- troops refuse to disband, 174.

 Lancaster, 67, 74, 80, 120, 163_n_.
 ---- M.P.'s for, 30.
 ---- occupied for Parliament, 71.
 ---- retaken by Royalists, 75.
 ---- besieged, 87.
 ---- Castle, 75_n_.

 Langdale, Sir Marmaduke, 160, 165.
 ---- ---- at Preston, 166.
 ---- ---- taken prisoner, 171.
 ---- ---- visits Isle of Man, 180.

 Langho, 83.

 Landown, 68.

 Lathom House, 58, 61, 84, 85, 88, 96, 118, 132, 135, 188.
 ---- ---- description of, 100.
 ---- ---- first siege of, 99-109.
 ---- ---- site of, 110-113.
 ---- ---- siege of, raised, 120.
 ---- ---- garrison of, 136.
 ---- ---- second siege of, 142-6.
 ---- ---- surrender of, 147.

 Lauderdale, Earl of, 195, 197.

 Layton Common, 72.

 Lea Hall, 132.

 Leeds, 89.

 Legge, Col., 188.

 Leicester, 19, 142.
 ---- Charles I. at, 165.

 Leigh, skirmish at, 60.
 ---- taken by Manchester troops, 61.
 ---- Mr., of Adlington, 41.
 ---- ---- his house attacked, 62.

 Leslie, Alex., first Earl of Leven, 115.

 Leyland Hundred, 54, 58, 66, 67, 93, 131, 188.

 Lilburne, Col. Robert, 190.
 ---- ---- letter of, to Speaker Lenthall, 187.
 ---- ---- ordered to Lancashire, 189.
 ---- ---- at Preston, 190.
 ---- ---- defeats Derby at Wigan, 192-194.
 ---- ---- lands voted to, by Parliament, 196.

 Lindale, 94.

 Liverpool, 74, 135, 191.
 ---- M.P.'s for, 30.
 ---- occupied for Parliament, 87.
 ---- fortified by Col. Moore, 95.
 ---- captured by Prince Rupert, 127.
 ---- retaken by Parliament, 135, 136.

 Long Parliament, Lancashire members of, 30.

 Lonsdale, Hundred, 54, 58, 188.

 Loughborough, 19.

 Lowton Common, 60.

 Lygonia, 33.

 Lytham Hall, 72, 74, 132.


 Mackworth, Col., 183, 197.

 Magazines seized by royalists, 13, 14.

 Mains Hall, 190.

 Mainwaring, Col., 117.

 Malpas, 116, 170.

 Man, Isle of, 179.
 ---- ---- surrendered to Parliament, 200.

 Manchester magazine secured for Parliament, 14.
 ---- first affray at, 16.
 ---- in 1642, 37.
 ---- proposed university for, 38.
 ---- siege of, 41-51.
 ---- state of, during siege, 49-51.
 ---- importance of siege of, 51.
 ---- powder sent to, 54.
 ---- distress in, 154-5, 173.
 ---- plague in, 154.
 ---- collection for, 154.

 Market Drayton, 117, 142, 170.

 Market Stead Lane, Manchester, 43, 45.

 Markland, Capt., 101.

 Marston Moor, battle of, 125, 130, 139.
 ---- ---- result of, in Lancashire, 129, 130.

 Martindale, Adam, opinion of Col. Moore, 34_n_.
 ---- ---- description of Lancashire distress, 151.

 Mason, Col., 197.

 Massey, Major-General, 186, 188.

 Maurice, Prince, 179.

 Meldrum, Sir John, surrenders Newark, 115.
 ---- ---- in Manchester, 119.
 ---- ---- victory at Ormskirk, 132-3.
 ---- ---- negotiations with Derby, 138-9.
 ---- ---- death of, 137_n_.

 Mercer, Robert, 58.

 Middleton, Sir George, summoned as delinquent, 13.
 ---- Lieut-Gen., 171.
 ---- Church, 32_n_.

 Middlewich, 97.

 Militia, 9.
 ---- ordinance, 10, 11.
 ---- ---- in Essex, 19.
 ---- ---- in Lincolnshire, 19.
 ---- Lancashire, disbanded, 174.
 ---- ---- reconstituted, 175.

 Millgate, Manchester, 43.

 Ministers, Lancashire, Hamilton's letter to, 164.

 Mitton, Major-General, one of Lord Derby's judges, 197.

 Molyneux, Caryll, afterwards 3rd Viscount, 27.
 ---- Richard, 2nd Viscount, 12, 84, 131.
 ---- ---- raises troops for the King, 21.
 ---- ---- notice of, 27, 28.
 ---- ---- at siege of Manchester, 42.
 ---- ---- at battle of Whalley, 81.
 ---- ---- leaves Lancashire, 86.

 Monck, Col., 98.

 Moore, Edward, 34, 35.
 ---- Col. John, of Bank Hall, 6.
 ---- ---- notice of, 34, 34_n_.
 ---- ---- appointed Colonel, 54.
 ---- ---- fortifies Liverpool, 95.
 ---- ---- at siege of Liverpool, 128-9.

 Moot Hill, 81.

 Morgan, Col., 102, 102_n_, 143.

 Mort, Adam, Mayor of Preston, 58.
 ---- ---- death of, 64.

 Mosley, Sir Edward, intercepts powder for Manchester, 54.
 ---- Nicolas, boroughreeve of Manchester, 14, 18.

 Munro, Sir George, 160, 165, 168, 170.

 Musgrave, Sir Philip, 94.
 ---- ---- occupies Carlisle, 160.
 ---- ---- surrenders at Appleby, 172.

 Myerscough Lodge, 28, 28_n_, 120.
 ---- ---- Charles II. at, 182.


 Nantwich, 80, 86, 117, 185.
 ---- besieged, 97.
 ---- relieved by Sir T. Fairfax, 98.

 Newcastle, 115.
 ---- Wm. Cavendish, Earl of, 67, 68.
 ---- ---- victory at Adwalton, 89-90.
 ---- ---- summons Manchester, 91.
 ---- ---- retreats to York, 115.

 Newton, Lancashire, M.P.'s for, 30.

 Norris, Col., 87.

 Northwich, 185.

 Nottingham, 129, 165.
 ---- royal standard raised at, 21.

 Nowell, Col. Roger, of Read, 55, 56.
 ---- ---- surrenders Lathom House, 146.


 Oath imposed by Lord Derby on Lancashire, 57_n_.

 Ogle, Capt. Henry, royalist collector, 58.
 ---- at first siege of Lathom, 104, 106.

 Ogleby, Lord, 132.

 Ordinance. _See_ Militia.
 ---- for disbanding the Militia, 174.

 Ordsall Hall, 18, 18_n_.

 Ormonde, Marquis of, 96, 97_n_, 179.

 Ormskirk, 58_n_, 105, 141.
 ---- royalist defeat at, 133.
 ---- riot at, 173.
 ---- Lord Derby buried at, 204.

 Otley, 165.


 Pacifications, local, 55.
 ---- in Lancashire (1642), 56-8.

 Padiham, 81, 82.

 Palmer, Roger, M.P. for Newton, 30.

 Pateson, Capt. Wm., 95, 120.

 Penderel, Wm., 195.

 Penrith, 163.

 Penwortham Hall, 83.
 ---- Moor, 132.

 Perceval, Richard, killed at Manchester, 18.

 Petitions from Lancashire to Parliament, 9.
 ---- to King, 10.
 ---- from Lancashire recusants to King, 3, 10.

 Pontefract, 89, 163, 165.

 Poulton-le-Fylde, 72.

 Pownall, Major, 166.

 Preesall Sands, royalists land at, 188, 189.

 Presbyterianism established in Lancashire, 156.

 Presbyterians, Lancashire, difficulty of, in 1648, 160.
 ---- ---- manifesto by, 161.
 ---- ---- meeting with Lord Derby, 187.

 Prescot, 58_n_, 95.

 Preston, 67, 74, 80, 94, 120, 165, 188.
 ---- magazine seized by royalists, 13.
 ---- M.P.'s for, 30.
 ---- captured by Parliamentarians, 63-5.
 ---- importance of, 65.
 ---- retaken by Lord Derby, 76.
 ---- battle of, 166-8.
 ---- riots at, 173.
 ---- Charles II. at, 182.
 ---- skirmish at, 190.

 Prestwich Church, 41.
 ---- Mr., 14.

 Pride, Col., 167.


 Queen Henrietta Maria lands at Bridlington, 78.
 ---- ---- prepares to invade Lancashire, 85.


 Radcliffe, Sir Alexander, 13, 14, 18, 18_n_.
 ---- ---- at siege of Manchester, 42.
 ---- Molyneux, 104, 143.
 ---- Capt. Richard, 43.
 ---- ---- notice of, 43_n_.
 ---- Savile, 56.

 Raglan Castle, 150.

 Rawcliffe Hall, 190.

 Rawsthorne, Capt., at first siege of Lathom, 104.
 ---- made Colonel, 129.
 ---- at second siege of Lathom, 143.

 Read, Col., 167.
 ---- Hall, 82, 83.

 Recusants, Lancashire, petition of, 3, 10.

 Rhodes, Sir E., 170.

 Ribble Bridge, 63, 132, 190.
 ---- ---- Scots defeated at, 167.

 Ribchester, 81.

 Rich, Col., 183.

 Rigby, Alexander, of Burgh, 56, 58, 59_n_, 94.
 ---- of Layton, 194_n_.
 ---- of Middleton in Goosnargh, 6, 16.
 ---- ---- at the meeting on Fulwood Moor, 12, 13.
 ---- ---- prepares Lord Strange's Impeachment, 22.
 ---- ---- M.P. for Preston, 30.
 ---- ---- notice of, 33-4.
 ---- ---- appointed Colonel, 54.
 ---- ---- arrives in Lancashire, 93.
 ---- ---- takes Thurland Castle, 93-4.
 ---- ---- at first siege of Lathom, 102, 104, 107-9.
 ---- ---- at sack of Bolton, 120, 124.
 ---- ---- at second siege of Lathom, 145.
 ---- ---- summons Deputy Lieutenants, (1648), 161, 162.
 ---- ---- occupies Kendal, 163.
 ---- ---- dismissed from his command, 175.
 ---- George, of Peel, 58.
 ---- Major Joseph, 137, 175.

 Robinson, Col., 188.
 ---- Major, 29_n_, 148.

 Rochdale occupied by Parliament, 91.
 ---- riots at, 173.

 Roscarrock, Col., 194.

 Rossall Hall, 72, 72_n_.
 ---- Point, 71.

 Rosworm, Col. John, engaged to fortify Manchester, 40, 40_n_, 41.
 ---- ---- at siege of Manchester, 44-6, 48.
 ---- ---- at Leigh, 61.
 ---- ---- at Preston, 63.
 ---- ---- at Wigan, 79.
 ---- ---- fortifies Blackstone Edge, 92.
 ---- ---- urged to betray Manchester, 119.
 ---- ---- at siege of Liverpool, 135.

 Roundway Down, 68.

 Rowton Heath, 142, 144.

 Rupert, Prince, 100, 115, 179.
 ---- ---- letters of Lady Derby to, 21, 80.
 ---- ---- advances towards Lancashire, 116-117.
 ---- ---- occupies Stockport, 118.
 ---- ---- takes Bolton, 121-124.
 ---- ---- takes Liverpool, 127.
 ---- ---- at Lathom, 129.
 ---- ---- Court jealousy of, 130.
 ---- ---- surrenders Bristol, 150.


 St. Anne of Dunkirk, 71-74.

 Sabden Brook, 82.

 Salesbury Hall, 62.
 ---- ferry, 81, 83.

 Salford Bridge, 38, 43, 44, 46.
 ---- ---- affray on, 49_n_.
 ---- Hundred, 3, 7, 54, 58.

 Sandbach, 117.

 Say, Lord, Parliamentarian Lord-Lieutenant of Cheshire, 11.

 Schofield, Cap., 69.

 Scots invasion in 1644, 115.
 ---- ---- 1648, 163.
 ---- defeated at Preston, 166-168.
 ---- ---- Winwick, 169.
 ---- surrender at Warrington, 169-70.
 ---- invasion in 1651, 182-185.

 Seaton, Sir John, ordered to Lancashire, 53.
 ---- ---- at Preston, 63.
 ---- ---- at Lancaster, 75.
 ---- ---- unpopularity of, 77, 77_n_.

 Selby, royalist defeat at, 115.

 Sequestrations, 153.

 Sherington, Francis, 58.

 Shrewsbury, 124.

 Shudehill, Manchester, 43.

 Shuttleworth, Col. Nicholas, 132, 161, 162.
 ---- ---- at siege of Chester, 149.
 ---- Richard, M.P. for Clitheroe, 30.
 ---- Col., M.P. for Preston, 6, 12, 56.
 ---- ---- notice of, 32-33.
 ---- ---- appointed Colonel, 54.
 ---- ---- engaged in Lancashire pacifications, 56.
 ---- ---- defeats Sir Richard Hoghton, 59.
 ---- ---- at capture of Preston, 76.
 ---- ---- at battle of Whalley, 82-84.
 ---- ---- skirmishes with Prince Rupert, 130.
 ---- ---- dismissed from his command, 175.
 ---- ---- visits Lilburne at Hoghton, 191.
 ---- Col. Ughtred, 161, 162.
 ---- Capt. William, 71.
 ---- ---- death of, 75.

 Singleton, 72, 189.

 Skipton, 78, 130, 135.
 ---- Cromwell at, 165.

 Smithson, Major, 166.

 Sparrow, Sergeant-Major, at Preston, 63.
 ---- ---- in the Fylde, 71-72.
 ---- ---- at Lancaster, 75.

 Stafford, 54.

 Standish, 12, 101.
 ---- Moor, 84, 168.
 ---- Col., 188.
 ---- Thomas, killed at Manchester, 47.
 ---- ---- notice of, 47_n_.
 ---- Thomas, M.P. for Preston, 30, 47_n_.

 Stanley, Lady Amelia, 179, 202.
 ---- Charles, Lord Strange, afterwards 8th Earl of Derby, 12, 14, 200.
 ---- Lady Henrietta Maria, 27.
 ---- ---- letter of, 194.
 ---- James, Lord Strange, afterwards 7th Earl of Derby, 4, 5.
 ---- ---- character of, 6.
 ---- ---- made a Lord-Lieutenant of Lancashire and Cheshire by the
  King, 11.
 ---- ---- calls a meeting on Fulwood Moor, 12.
 ---- ---- suggests raising royal standard at Warrington, 21.
 ---- ---- joins Charles I. at Shrewsbury, 21.
 ---- ---- impeached by Parliament, 22.
 ---- ---- career and character of, 24-26.
 ---- ---- besieges Manchester, 42-51.
 ---- ---- burns Spanish ship, 72.
 ---- ---- occupies Lancaster, 75.
 ---- ---- takes Preston, 76.
 ---- ---- his attacks on Bolton, 69, 78.
 ---- ---- defeated at Whalley, 82-4.
 ---- ---- joins the Queen, 84.
 ---- ---- retires to Isle of Man, 85.
 ---- ---- urges Rupert to relieve Lathom, 116.
 ---- ---- joins Rupert's march, 119.
 ---- ---- at Bolton, 121-122.
 ---- ---- defeated by Meldrum in Cheshire, 136.
 ---- ---- negotiations with Meldrum, 138, 139, 139_n_.
 ---- ---- in Isle of Man, 177.
 ---- ---- made K.G., 180.
 ---- ---- lands in Lancashire 1651, 185.
 ---- ---- his interview with Charles II., 185.
 ---- ---- meeting with Presbyterians, 186.
 ---- ---- defeated at Wigan, 194.
 ---- ---- his capture, 196.
 ---- ---- trial and death of, 196-204.
 ---- Lady Katherine, 179, 202.
 ---- Sir Thomas, of Bickerstaffe, 14, 18_n_, 19, 20.

 Stanwix, 163.

 Stonyhurst, 166, 171.

 Starkie, Capt., 68-9.
 ---- Col., 54, 56, 59.

 Strickland, Sir R., 172.
 ---- W., 27_n_.

 Swarbreck, 120.


 Talbot, Sir J., 58, 62.
 ---- Lord, 195.

 Tarporley, 149.

 Thornhaugh, Col., death of, 168.

 Throgmorton, Sir W., 188.
 ---- ---- death of, 194.

 Thurland Castle, first capture of, 88.
 ---- ---- second capture of, 93, 94.

 Tilsley, John, Vicar of Dean, 64.

 Towneley Hall, 55.
 ---- Mr., 64.

 Townson, Mr., 72.

 Tunstall, 93.

 Turner, Capt., 196.

 Twistleton, Col., at Warrington, 184.
 ---- ---- one of Lord Derby's judges, 197, 199.

 Tyldesley, Sir Thomas, royalist Col. and Maj.-Gen., 13, 20, 74, 95,
  131, 164, 191.
 ---- ---- notice of, 28.
 ---- ---- at siege of Manchester, 42.
 ---- ---- at Whalley, 81-83.
 ---- ---- retreats before Assheton, 84, 86.
 ---- ---- joins the Queen, 86.
 ---- ---- at Bolton, 121.
 ---- ---- besieges Lancaster, 170.
 ---- ---- surrenders at Appleby, 172.
 ---- ---- at campaign of Wigan, 188.
 ---- ---- his death, 193.


 Upholland, 188.

 Uttoxeter, defeat of Scots at, 170.


 Vane, Sir Harry, at York, 126.
 ---- ---- appointed to examine Earl of Derby's Papers, 196.

 Venables, Capt., afterwards General, 61_n_.
 ---- ---- taken prisoner, 61.

 Vere, Col., at second siege of Lathom, 143, 146.
 ---- ---- wounded at Preston, 190.


 Wakefield, 89.

 Walton, 132, 167.

 Warrington, 81, 140, 165, 167.
 ---- proposal to raise royal standard at, 21.
 ---- Lord Strange's muster at, 41.
 ---- made royalist headquarters, 57.
 ---- unsuccessful siege of, 80.
 ---- captured by Sir W. Brereton, 86-7.
 ---- Scots surrender at, 170.
 ---- meeting at, 186-7.
 ---- royalist Council of War at, 188.

 Wensleydale, 164.

 Wetherby, 165.

 West Derby Hundred, 54, 95, 131, 188.

 Westhoughton, royalist victory at, 61.

 Whalley, battle of, 82-4.

 Wharton, Lord, Lord-Lieutenant of Lancashire, 11, 15, 16.

 Whitchurch, 116, 142, 149.

 Whitley, Higher, 184.

 Widdrington, Lord, 188, 192.
 ---- ---- death of, 193.

 Wigan, 67, 69, 74, 80, 101, 166.
 ---- M.P.'s for, 30.
 ---- first capture of, by Parliament, 79.
 ---- second capture of, by Parliament, 84.
 ---- distress in, 173.
 ---- Charles II. proclaimed at, 174.
 ---- battle of, 193.

 Willoughby, Lord, of Parham, 19.

 Windebank, Capt., 42.

 Winwick, 87.
 ---- Scots defeated at, 169.

 Worcester, powder sent from, to Manchester, 54.
 ---- Charles II. defeated at, 195.

 Worden Hall, 29_n_.

 Wrigley, Henry, Reeve of Salford, 39_n_.

 Wyn, Sir Richard, M.P. for Liverpool, 30.

 Wyre River, 72, 72_n_, 185.


 York, 115.
 ---- siege of, 116.


 Zancthy, Mr., Lord Derby's counsel, 198.




MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS.


ANATOMICAL SERIES.

 No. I. STUDIES IN ANATOMY from the Anatomical Department of the
    University of Manchester. Vol. iii. Edited by ALFRED H. YOUNG, M.B.
    (Edin.), F.R.C.S., Professor of Anatomy. Demy 8vo, pp. ix, 289, 23
    plates. 10s. net.                        (Publication No. 10, 1906.)

"All the papers contained in the volume are real additions to the
knowledge of the subject with which they deal. For three of the studies
Prof. Young is either in part or wholly responsible, and he is to be
congratulated on the vigour shown by the Manchester School of
Anatomists."--_Nature_.

"This work affords admirable evidence of the virility of our younger
British Universities. It is a notable addition to an already notable
series."--_Medical Review_.

"This forms the third volume of the Studies in Anatomy issued by the
Council, and contains contributions of considerable interest. The volume
is well printed and bound. It speaks well for the activity of
investigation at Manchester."--_Lancet_.

"The volume is well got up and is evidence of the continuation of the
excellent work which has been carried on for so long a period, under
Professor A. H. Young's supervision, and has been encouraged and
stimulated by his own work."--_British Medical Journal_.

"Throughout the papers, careful research and accurate observation are
manifested, and they will repay careful perusal. To the Anatomist,
as well as the practical physician or surgeon, they will prove
valuable."--_Edinburgh Medical Journal_.


CELTIC SERIES.

 No. I. AN INTRODUCTION TO EARLY WELSH. By the late Prof. J. STRACHAN,
    LL.D. Demy 8vo, pp. xvi, 294. 7s. 6d. net.
                                            (Publication No. 40, 1908.)

"The Grammar as a whole is of course a very great advance on the pioneer
work of Zeuss; Dr. Strachan had fuller and more accurate texts to work
with, and possessed a knowledge probably unsurpassed of the results of
recent progress in Celtic philology, which he himself did so much to
promote."--Professor Morris Jones in the _Manchester Guardian_.

"To Welshmen anxious to study their native tongue in a thorough and
scientific manner Dr. Strachan has here furnished an invaluable
manual."--_Aberdeen Free Press_.

"An Irishman cannot but envy the University of Manchester; long since
there should have been a University for Celtic Ireland, rearing scholars
to work at these things that largely belong to Ireland--to her interest
and to her honour--and to produce works as solid in scholarship and as
nobly turned out in material form."--_The Freeman's Journal_.

"The work is an excellent introduction to the study of early Welsh. We
can strongly recommend it to Welsh students; it is undoubtedly a work
which no student of Celtic literature can afford to be without."--_North
Wales Guardian_.

"The work is destined, of course, to become the text-book in early Welsh
wherever taught."--_Western Mail_.


CLASSICAL SERIES.

 No. I. A STUDY OF THE BACCHAE OF EURIPIDES. By G. NORWOOD, M.A.,
    Assistant Lecturer in Classics. Demy 8vo, pp. xx, 188. 5s. net.
                                            (Publication No. 31, 1908.)

"The interest of Mr. Norwood's book, which ... is a very welcome
addition to the bibliography of Euripides, and a scholarly and
interesting piece of work, displaying erudition and insight beyond the
ordinary, lies in the way in which, by applying Dr. Verrall's methods
... he first shows up difficulties and inconsistencies, some of which
have hardly been noticed before ... and then produces his own
startling theory, which he claims is the great solvent of all the
perplexities."--_Saturday Review_.

"Unless very strong evidence can be produced against Mr. Norwood's view,
it must be accepted as the true solution of the problem.... Mr. Norwood
is generally clear, and abounds in illuminating thoughts. He has added a
full bibliography (running to twenty-three pages) of writings on
Euripides, and for this every scholar will offer his sincere thanks....
He has done a very good piece of work."--_Athenæum_.

"This volume forms the first of a Classical Series projected by the
Manchester University, who are to be congratulated on having begun with
a book so original and full of interest.... It is admirably argued, and
is instinct with a sympathetic imagination. It is, at the very least, an
extremely able attempt to solve a very complex problem."--_Manchester
Guardian_.

"Mr. Norwood demonstrates on every page his scholarship and knowledge,
and gives proof of much painstaking research. The treatise is as
valuable as it is interesting."--_Manchester City News_.

"It is a most ingenious theory, and a reviewer whom it has left
unconvinced is all the more bound to give his testimony to the
consistent skill, learning, and independence of judgment with which it
is presented. The book ... strikes us as the product of vigorous and
independent thought."--_Times_.

"Mr. Norwood's learned and ingenious argument."--_Westminster Gazette_.

"Mr. Norwood's proposed solution, though novel, is extremely
plausible."--_Sheffield Daily Telegraph_.

"Lovers of Euripides may not be convinced by his subtle argument, but
they will certainly find his book suggestive and stimulating."--_Daily
News_.

"Mr. Norwood's book has even in the eyes of a sceptic the considerable
merit of stating the hypothesis in a very thoroughgoing and able manner,
and at least giving it its full chance of being believed."--Professor
Gilbert Murray in the _Nation_.

"L'interprétation de M. Norwood est certainement très ingénieuse; elle
est même très séduisante."--_Revue Critique_.


ECONOMIC SERIES.

 No. I. THE LANCASHIRE COTTON INDUSTRY. By S. J. CHAPMAN, M.A., M. Com.,
    Stanley Jevons Professor of Political Economy and Dean of the
    Faculty of Commerce. Demy 8vo, pp. vii, 30. 7s. 6d. net.
                                             (Publication No. 4, 1904.)

"Such a book as this ought to be, and will be, read far beyond the
bounds of the trade."--_Manchester Guardian_.

"There have been books dealing with various phases of the subject, but
no other has so ably treated it from the economic as well as from the
historical point of view."--_Manchester Courier_.

"The story of the evolution of the industry from small and insignificant
beginnings up to its present imposing proportions and highly developed
and specialised forms, is told in a way to rivet the attention of the
reader ... the book is a valuable and instructive treatise on a
fascinating yet important subject."--_Cotton Factory Times_.

"Highly valuable to all close students."--_Scotsman_.


(GARTSIDE REPORT, No. 1.)

 No. II. COTTON SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING IN THE UNITED STATES OF
    AMERICA. By T. W. UTTLEY, B.A., Gartside Scholar. Demy 8vo, pp. xii.
    70. 1s. net.                              (Publication No. 8, 1905.)

"Mr. Uttley is to be congratulated on the performance of a not
altogether easy task, and his book, in conception and execution, appears
to fulfil admirably the intentions of the Trust."--_Manchester Courier_.

"The writer gives ample details concerning wages and other features
connected with typical mills ... and the information thus gathered is of
interest and value to the factory operative as well as the student and
economist."--_Cotton Factory Times_.

"Mr. Uttley describes how he visited the mills in various States in a
very systematic and detailed manner. Altogether the report makes an
admirable and welcome collection of information, and will be found on
many occasions worthy of reference."--_Textile Mercury_.


(GARTSIDE REPORT, No. 2.)

 No. III. SOME MODERN CONDITIONS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN IRON AND
    STEEL PRODUCTION IN AMERICA, being a Report to the Gartside
    Electors, on the results of a Tour in the U.S.A. By FRANK
    POPPLEWELL, B.Sc., Gartside Scholar. Demy 8vo, pp. vi. 119. 1s. net.
                                            (Publication No. 21, 1906.)

"The American methods of iron and steel production are described, from
the practical as well as the statistical side."--_Manchester Courier_.

"Mr. Popplewell writes clearly and well, and he is to be congratulated
upon having carried his task through in so entirely a satisfactory
manner."--_Manchester City News_.

"America's progress in iron and steel is more wonderful than any bald
statistics of production with which we are so familiar can indicate. How
that progress has been effected--effected under labour, transport and
other difficulties--Mr. Popplewell tells us in an interesting and keenly
intelligent review."--_Manchester Guardian_.

"A minute observation of detail ... characterises the whole
work."--_Iron and Coal Trades Review_.

"Mr. Popplewell gives a clear exposition of the results of
specialisation in production, of the development of ore-handling
machinery, and of the general use of the charging machine, features that
characterise American practice. He shows, too, that the colossal
blast-furnace with huge yield due to high-blast pressure, regardless of
consumption of steam and boiler coal, is giving place to a blast furnace
of more modest dimensions....

"The impression derived from reading Mr. Popplewell's report is that
many of the most striking developments, admirable as they are, were
designed to meet special wants, and are not necessarily applicable in
Great Britain."--_Nature_.

"The book has its interest for the educationist as well as for the
manufacturer."--_Scotsman_.

"A chapter of special interest to British consumers is one devoted to
the consideration of raw materials."--_Glasgow Herald_.


(GARTSIDE REPORT, No. 3.)

 No. IV. ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES. By
    FRANK FOSTER, M.Sc., Gartside Scholar. Demy 8vo, pp. ix. 106. 1s.
    net.                                     (Publication No. 22, 1906.)

"The report under review is of very great interest to those connected
with the manufacturing branch of engineering in this country,
many of whom will have to relinquish their preconceived notions
regarding American methods, if Mr. Foster's conclusions are to be
accepted."--_Electrical Review_.

"The book altogether is very readable, and one we can heartily recommend
to all interested in the economics of engineering."--_The Practical
Engineer_.

"Mr. Foster's observation of facts is fresh and interesting ... the
technical side of his report exhibits much care."--_Manchester
Guardian_.

"The book is well worth reading."--_Iron and Coal Trades Review_.

"There is much in the book which will be new to English readers, even to
those who have studied the reports of the Moseley and other recent
'commissions.'"--_Belfast News Letter_.


 No. V. THE RATING OF LAND VALUES. By J. D. CHORLTON, M.Sc. Demy 8vo,
    pp. viii. 177. 3s. 6d. net.              (Publication No. 23, 1907.)

"A timely and temperate treatise on a subject of growing
interest."--_Pall Mall Gazette_.

"The writer is learned, intelligent, progressive, fair and
lucid."--_Progress_.

"The facts and deductions are well put."--_Western Mail_.

"Chapters upon the scheme of the Royal Commission (minority
report)--'Building Land,' 'The Future Increase of Land Values,' 'The
Municipal Bill,' and others ... set forth with clearness and detail some
of the many interesting and difficult subjects in connection with
valuation, rates and rating."--_Estates Gazette_.

"Mr. Chorlton has made a contribution to this interesting controversy
which is worthy of the serious attention of all persons interested in
the subject."--_Local Government Chronicle_.

"The arguments for and against this proposed reform in the taxation of
land have never been more fairly and freely stated."--_Liverpool Daily
Post and Mercury_.

"Mr. Chorlton deals clearly and concisely with the whole subject of
rating and land values."--_The Standard_.

"The impartiality and candour of Mr. Chorlton's method are beyond
dispute, and his book will repay careful study by all who are interested
in the question, from whatever motive."--_Westminster Gazette_.

"The first half of this book deserves to become a classic ... is one of
the best books on a practical economic question that has appeared for
many years. It is not only scientifically valuable, but so well written
as to be interesting to a novice on the subject."--_The Nation_.

"This thoughtful and judicially expressed treatise."--_Manchester City
News_.

"A very businesslike and serviceable collection of essays and notes on
this intricate question."--_Manchester Guardian_.


(GARTSIDE REPORT, No. 4.)

 No. VI. DYEING IN GERMANY AND AMERICA. By SYDNEY H. HIGGINS, M.Sc.,
    Gartside Scholar. Demy 8vo, pp. xiii. 112. 1s. net.
                                            (Publication No. 24, 1907.)

"The book will ... make a valuable addition to the technical literature
of this country."--_Tribune_.

"The work is one which ... should receive the attention of
those who desire a general view of the German and American dyeing
industries."--_Textile Manufacturer_.

"A perusal of the work leads us to the conclusion that much useful work
is being done by the Gartside scholars, which will give these young
men an excellent insight into the working conditions of various
industries."--_Textile Recorder_.


 No. VII. THE HOUSING PROBLEM IN ENGLAND. By ERNEST RITSON DEWSNUP,
    M.A., Professor of Railway Economics in the University of Chicago.
    Demy 8vo, pp. vii. 327. 5s. net.         (Publication No. 25, 1907.)

"Mr. Dewsnup's book is most valuable as it provides all essential
information on the subject."--_Standard_.

"All those who are interested in this question, no matter what their
economic predilections, may ponder with advantage Professor Dewsnup's
pages."--_Newcastle Daily Chronicle_.

"The study brings together so weighty an array of facts and arguments
that it cannot but prove instructive and suggestive to all classes of
economists interested in its subject."--_Scotsman_.

"Professor Dewsnup's view of the whole problem was stated in 1903, in a
form which won the Warburton Essay Prize at the Manchester University.
Now revised and brought up to date, his valuable work has taken
permanent form."--_Westminster Gazette_.

"Professor Dewsnup's book on the housing problem consists of three
distinct parts, each of which is a valuable contribution to economic
science. In Part I, Professor Dewsnup tries to give a clear and definite
account of the evil with which authorities in England are called upon to
cope. Avoiding all special pleading and all evidence of the sensational
kind which is apt to give a false idea of the extent and intensity of
the evil of overcrowding, he does not on the other hand fall into the
error of minimizing the evil.

"In Part II, Professor Dewsnup gives a most excellent and well-digested
summary of the legislation which has been passed by Parliament since
1851 to cope with the evils of overcrowded houses, and of overcrowded
areas.

"In Part III, the strictly informational and statistical work of the
previous parts is utilized by the author to support his own conclusions
as to the best methods of dealing with the problem of overcrowding.

"Whether or not the reader agrees with Professor Dewsnup in the
conclusions he draws from his data, every student of economics must be
grateful to him for the accuracy and care which have gone into the
collection and arrangement of his material."--_The American Political
Science Review_, vol. iii, No. 1, February, 1909.


(GARTSIDE REPORT, No. 5.)

 No. VIII. AMERICAN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE. By DOUGLAS KNOOP, M.A.,
    Gartside Scholar. Price 1s. 6d. net.     (Publication No. 30, 1907.)

"The book is calculated to give a clear and accurate description,
essentially intended for the general reader," and the author has quite
rightly eliminated everything of a technical character, giving his theme
both the simplicity and the interest that are required.... The work
might well have been doubled in length without any loss of interest....
Invaluable as a text-book."--_The Economic Journal_.

"Should on no account be missed, for it is a very good attempt at a
survey of the enormous field of American business in the true and
judicial spirit."--_Pall Mall Gazette_.

"Readable, informing, suggestive--full of interest for men engaged in
almost every department of commercial life."--_Manchester City News_.

"A report of the general conditions of industrial work in the United
States, together with a most instructive review of the education of the
business man in their commercial universities."--_Manchester Daily
Dispatch_.

"The report is full of information, and is suggestive
throughout."--_Liverpool Post_.

"Concise, business-like and informative, it emphasises the difference
between the economic positions of England and of America, and cannot but
prove instructive to anyone interested in its subject."--_Scotsman_.

"From the point of view of an intelligent observer and collator,
trained, alert, well-informed, bringing his mind to bear on the
fundamental elements of commercial progress and success, it would be
impossible to estimate it too highly."--_Belfast Northern Whig_.


(GARTSIDE REPORT, No. 6.)

 No. IX. THE ARGENTINE AS A MARKET. By N. L. WATSON, M.A., Gartside
    Scholar. Demy 8vo. 1s. net.              (Publication No. 33, 1908.)

"A treatise informed with knowledge and marked by
foresight."--_Yorkshire Post_.

"Full of first-hand information of recent date."--_Liverpool Daily Post
and Mercury_.

"A valuable and thorough examination of the conditions and future of
Argentine commerce."--_Morning Leader_.


(GARTSIDE REPORT, No. 7.)

 No. X. SOME ELECTRO-CHEMICAL CENTRES. By J. N. PRING, M.Sc., Gartside
    Scholar. Pp. xiv. 137. 1s. 6d. net.      (Publication No. 41, 1908.)

"Concise, business-like, and furnished with some valuable papers of
statistics, the report will prove well worthy of the study of anyone
specially interested in this subject."--_Scotsman_.

"In this short book a considerable amount of useful information has
been condensed, and one feels that the research has been fully
justified."--_Birmingham Post_.

"We congratulate the author upon a very readable and painstaking
production."--_Nature_.

"... The reviewer says unhesitatingly that this Gartside Report ... is
the best all-round book on industrial electro-chemistry that has so far
come to his notice."--_Electro-chemical and Metallurgical Industry, May,
1909_.


(GARTSIDE REPORT, No. 8.)

    No. XI. CHEMICAL INDUSTRY ON THE CONTINENT. By HAROLD BARON, B.Sc.,
    Gartside Scholar. Demy 8vo, pp. xi, 71. 1s. 6d. net.
                                            (Publication No. 44, 1909.)

"An instructive and suggestive volume, containing much that is likely to
be helpful to those engaged in the textile, dyeing and chemical
industries of Britain."--_Manchester City News_.

"Well informed, well systematised, and written with businesslike
precision, it deserves the attention of everyone interested in its
subject."--_Scotsman_.

"For a good general account of the chemical industry on the Continent we
think this report, so far as it goes, to be an excellent one and
is, moreover, unlike many works on the subject, interesting to
read."--_Chemical Trades Journal_.

"Clearly and intelligently handled."--_The Times_.


 No. XII. UNEMPLOYMENT. By Prof. S. J. CHAPMAN, M.A., M.Com., and H. M.
    HALLSWORTH, M.A., B.Sc. Demy 8vo, pp. xvi. 164. 2s. net paper, 2s.
    6d. net cloth.                           (Publication No. 45, 1909.)

"On the whole, the authors offer a solid contribution, both as regards
facts and reasoning, to the solution of a peculiarly difficult and
pressing social problem."--_Cotton Factory Times_.

"... deserves the attention of sociologists."--_Yorkshire Post_.

"... reproduces in amplified form a valuable set of articles, giving the
results of an investigation made in Lancashire, which lately appeared in
the _Manchester Guardian_. By way of Introduction we have an
examination, not previously published, of the Report of the Poor-law
Commission on Unemployment. There is a large accompaniment of
Charts and Tables, and indeed the whole work bears the mark of
thoroughness."--_Guardian_.


EDUCATIONAL SERIES.

 No. I. CONTINUATION SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND & ELSEWHERE. Their place in the
    Educational System of an Industrial and Commercial State. By MICHAEL
    E. SADLER, M.A., LL.D., Professor of the History and Administration
    of Education. Demy 8vo, pp. xxvi. 779. 8s. 6d. net.
                                            (Publication No. 29, 1907.)

    This work is largely based on an enquiry made by past and present
    Students of the Educational Department of the University of
    Manchester. Chapters on Continuation Schools in the German Empire,
    Switzerland, Denmark, and France, have been contributed by other
    writers.

"... gives a record of what the principal nations are doing in the
prolongation of school work. It is invaluable as a _corpus_ of material
from which to estimate the present position of the world--so far as its
analogies touch Britain--in 'further education,' as the phrase
is."--_The Outlook_.

"The most comprehensive book on continuation schools that has yet been
issued in this country."--_Scottish Review_.

"Professor Sadler has produced an admirable survey of the past history
and present condition of the problem of further education of the people
... but apart from his own contributions, the bulk of the work, and its
most valuable portion, consists of material furnished by teachers and by
organisers of schools in various parts of England and Scotland, by
officials of the Board of Education and the Board of Trade, and by local
education authorities."--_Manchester Guardian_.

"This is a book which counts. It is a worthy treatment of an
all-important subject, and he who wishes his country well must pray that
it may be read widely.... I should be glad to think that I have said
enough to send many readers post-haste to buy this invaluable
treatise."--L. J. Chiozza Money, M.P., in the _Daily News_.

"This book will for many years remain the standard authority upon its
subject."--_The Guardian_.

"It is indeed a remarkable compilation, and we hope that its circulation
and its usefulness may be commensurable with its conspicuous
merits."--_The Schoolmaster_.

"The whole question is discussed with an elaboration, an insistence on
detail, and a wisdom that mark this volume as the most important
contribution to educational effort that has yet been
made."--_Contemporary Review_.

"The subject of the work is one that goes to the very heart of national
education, and the treatise itself lays bare with a scientific but
humane hand the evils that beset our educational system, the waste of
life and national energy which that system has been unable in any
sufficient degree to check."--_The Spectator_.

"It is a treasure of facts and judicious opinions in the domain of the
history and administration of education."--_The Athenæum_.

"The volume represents an immense service to English education, and to
the future welfare and efficiency of the nation."--_Educational Times_.


 No. II. THE DEMONSTRATION SCHOOLS RECORD. No. I. Being Contributions to
    the Study of Education from the Department of Education in the
    University of Manchester. By Professor J. J. FINDLAY. 1s. 6d. net.
                                            (Publication No. 32, 1908.)

"This volume marks a new departure in English Educational literature....
Some very interesting work is being done and the most valuable part of
the book is the account of the detailed methods which have been employed
both in the regular teaching in the schools and in the efforts to foster
the corporate interests of the children and their parents. These methods
are often exceedingly suggestive, and may be studied with advantage by
these who do not accept all the theories upon which they are
based."--_School_.

"Professor Findlay and his skilled and experienced collaborators give an
interesting account of the uses of the demonstration classes, the nature
and scope of the work done in them, and the methods adopted (as well as
the underlying principles) in some of the courses of instruction."--_The
Athenæum_.

"The book gives an instructive account of the attempts made to correlate
the subjects of school instruction, not only with each other, but also
with the children's pursuits out of school hours.... The problem
Professor Findlay has set himself to work out in the Demonstration
School is, How far is it possible by working with the children through
successive culture epochs of the human race to form within their minds
not only a truer conception of human history, but also eventually a
deeper comprehension of the underlying purpose and oneness of all human
activities?"--_Morning Post_.


 No. III. THE TEACHING OF HISTORY IN GIRLS' SCHOOLS IN NORTH AND CENTRAL
    GERMANY. A Report by EVA DODGE, M.A. Gilchrist Student. Pp. x. 149.
    1s. 6d. net.                             (Publication No. 34, 1908.)

"We cordially recommend this most workmanlike, and extremely valuable
addition to pedagogic literature."--_Education_.

"Miss Dodge has much of interest to say on the limitations and defects
of history-teaching in girls' schools, but the real contribution of this
book is its revelation of how the history lesson can be made a living
thing."--_Glasgow Herald_.

"Gives a clear and detailed account of two well-organised schemes of
historical teaching in Germany."--_School World_.


ENGLISH SERIES

 No. I. THE LITERARY PROFESSION IN THE ELIZABETHAN AGE. By PH. SHEAVYN,
    M.A., D.Lit., Special Lecturer in English Literature and Tutor for
    Women Students; Warden of the Hall of Residence for Women Students.

A series of brief studies dealing with the conditions amidst which the
profession of literature was pursued under Elizabeth and James I. It
treats of their relations with patrons, publishers, and reading public,
and with various authorities exercising legal control over the press;
and discusses the possibility of earning a sufficient livelihood, in
this period, by the proceeds of literary work. Pp. xii. 221. 5s. net.

                                            (Publication No. 49, 1909.)

"... scholarly and illuminating book. It opens a new series in the
Manchester University publications, and opens it with distinction. A
more elaborately documented or more carefully indexed work need not be
desired. The subject is an engrossing one; and, although the author has
aimed rather at accuracy and completeness than at the arts of
entertainment, the result remains eminently readable."--_Manchester
Guardian_.

"A really valuable addition to the literature dealing with the
period."--_Daily Telegraph_.

"Quite interesting to the general literary reader as well as to the
special student for whom, perhaps, it is directly meant. We are always
ready to read of the Elizabethan age in authorship, and it loses none of
its attractions in Miss Sheavyn's hands."--_Daily Chronicle_.

"A series of studies that will be valuable to everyone interested in the
history of literature."--_Daily Mail_.

"She has done her work with remarkable thoroughness, and cast a strong
and searching light into many dark corners of the Elizabethan literary
world."--_Birmingham Post_.

"A close and scholarly study of an aspect of literature in a period
which amply repays investigation.... Dr. Sheavyn is a faithful
historian, with a keen sense of the human side of things, and her book
is entertaining as well as informative."--_Newcastle Daily Chronicle_.

"Is interesting and valuable."--_Daily News_.

"A notable and interesting volume.... The material has been carefully
gathered from a close scrutiny of contemporary literature and literary
gossip, and has been admirably handled throughout. There is not a dull
chapter in the book."--_The Scotsman_.


HISTORICAL SERIES.

 No. I. MEDIÆVAL MANCHESTER AND THE BEGINNINGS OF LANCASHIRE. By JAMES
    TAIT, M.A., Professor of Ancient and Mediæval History. Demy 8vo, pp.
    x. 211. 7s. 6d. net.                      (Publication No. 3, 1904.)

"Patient and enlightened scholarship and a sense of style and
proportion have enabled the writer to produce a work at once solid and
readable."--_English Historical Review_.

"A welcome addition to the literature of English local history, not
merely because it adds much to our knowledge of Manchester and
Lancashire, but also because it displays a scientific method of
treatment which is rare in this field of study in England."--Dr. Gross
in _American Historical Review_.

"La collection ne pouvait débuter plus significativement et plus
heureusement que par un ouvrage d'histoire du Moyen Age dû à M. Tait,
car l'enseignement mediéviste est un de ceux qui font le plus d'honneur
à la jeune Université de Manchester, et c'est à M. le Professeur Tait
qu'il faut attribuer une bonne part de ce succès."--_Revue de Synthèse
historique_.


 No. II. INITIA OPERUM LATINORUM QUAE SAECULIS XIII., XIV., XV.
    ATTRIBUUNTUR. By A. G. LITTLE, M.A., Lecturer in Palæography. Demy
    8vo, pp. xiii. 273 (interleaved). 15s. net.
                                             (Publication No. 5, 1904.)

"Whoever has attempted to ascertain the contents of a Mediæval
miscellany in manuscript must often have been annoyed by the occurrence
of a blank space where the title of the treatise ought to be. Mr. Little
has therefore earned the gratitude of all such persons by making public
a collection of some 6,000 incipits, which he arranged in the first
instance for his private use, in compiling a catalogue of Franciscan
MSS."--_English Historical Review_.


 No. III. THE OLD COLONIAL SYSTEM. By GERALD BERKELEY HERTZ, M.A.,
    B.C.L., Lecturer in Constitutional Law. Demy 8vo, pp. xi. 232. 5s.
    net.                                      (Publication No. 7, 1905.)

"Mr. Hertz gives us an elaborate historical study of the old colonial
system, which disappeared with the American Revolution.... He shows a
remarkable knowledge of contemporary literature, and his book may claim
to be a true history of popular opinion."--_Spectator_.

"Mr. Hertz's book is one which no student of imperial developments can
neglect. It is lucid, fair, thorough, and convincing."--_Glasgow
Herald_.

"Mr. Hertz's 'Old Colonial System' is based on a careful study of
contemporary documents, with the result that several points of no small
importance are put in a new light ... it is careful, honest work.... The
story which he tells has its lesson for us."--_The Times_.

"Both the ordinary reader and the academic mind will get benefit from
this well-informed and well-written book."--_Scotsman_.

"Mr. Hertz has made excellent use of contemporary literature, and has
given us a very valuable and thorough critique. The book is interesting
and very well written."--AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW.

"An interesting, valuable, and very necessary exposition of the
principles underlying the colonial policy of the eighteenth
century."--_Yorkshire Post_.

"A work embodying much work and research.... Three most impressive
chapters should be read by everyone."--_Birmingham Post_.

"Very enlightening."--_American Historical Review_.

"Timely and useful."--_Athenæum_.


 No. IV. STUDIES OF ROMAN IMPERIALISM. By W. T. ARNOLD, M.A. Edited by
    EDWARD FIDDES, M.A., Lecturer in Ancient History, with Memoir of the
    Author by Mrs. HUMPHRY WARD and C. E. MONTAGUE. With a Photogravure
    of W. T. Arnold. Demy 8vo, 400 pp. 7s. 6d. net.
                                            (Publication No. 16, 1906.)

"Mrs. Humphry Ward has used all her delicate and subtle art to
draw a picture of her beloved brother; and his friend Mr. Montague's
account of his middle life is also remarkable for its literary
excellence."--_Athenæum_.

"The memoir ... tenderly and skilfully written by the 'sister and
friend,' tells a story, which well deserved to be told, of a life rich
in aspirations, interests, and friendships, and not without its measure
of actual achievement."--_Tribune_.

"This geographical sense and his feeling for politics give colour to all
he wrote."--_Times_.

"Anyone who desires a general account of the Empire under Augustus which
is freshly and clearly written and based on wide reading will find it
here."--_Manchester Guardian_.

"Nothing could be better than the sympathetic tribute which Mrs. Humphry
Ward pays to her brother, or the analysis of his work and method by his
colleague Mr. Montague. The two together have more stuff in them than
many big books of recent biography."--_Westminster Gazette_.

The Memoir may be had separately, price 2s. 6d. net.


 No. V. CANON PIETRO CASOLA'S PILGRIMAGE TO JERUSALEM IN THE YEAR 1494.
    By M. M. NEWETT, B.A., formerly Jones Fellow. Demy 8vo, pp. 427. 7s.
    6d. net.                                 (Publication No. 26, 1907.)

"Tra mezzo ai tanti libri esteri di semplici divulgazione su fatti e
figure della storia italiana, questo emerge piacevalmente e si legge
volontieri. E diverso di carattere e di trattazione. Esume ... dalla
polvere degli archivi e delle biblioteche qualche cosa che ha un valore
fresco ed interessante, un valore storico e un valore umano."--A.A.B. in
the _Archivio Storico Italiano_.

"L'introduction se termine par toute une dissertation du plus grand
intérêt, documentée à l'aide des archives vénitiennes, sur le caractère
commercial des pèlerinages, dont les armateurs de Venise assumèrent,
jusqu'au XVIIe siècle l'entreprise."--J.B. in the _Revue de Synthèse
historique_.

"Casola's narrative richly deserved the honours of print and
translation. The book is a credit to its editor and to the historical
school of Manchester University."--_Morning Leader_.

"His narrative is at once simple and dignified in style, convincing and
interesting in its pictures of the conditions governing travel by sea
and land four centuries ago."--_Daily Telegraph_.

"The book is like a gallery of mediæval paintings, full of movement and
colouring, instinct with the vitality of the time."--_Birmingham Post_.

"Miss Newett's introduction is a contribution of considerable value to
the history of European commerce."--_Spectator_.

"One of the most comprehensive of the itineraries is that now
translated, an important feature of it being its full description of the
city of Venice."--_The Times_.

"One of the most delightful narratives that record the impressions of a
pious pilgrim."--_Westminster Gazette_.

"The work which Miss Margaret Newett has probably saved from oblivion is
as intrinsically interesting as it should prove instructive to the
student of history."--_Daily News_.

"Miss Newett's introduction is an admirable bit of work. She has studied
carefully what the archives of Venice have to say about pilgrim ships
and shipping laws, and her pages are a mine of information on such
subjects."--Dr. Thomas Lindsay in the _Scottish Historical Review_.

"This is altogether an exceedingly well-edited book and a distinct
credit to the History School of Manchester University."--_Glasgow
Herald_.

"This is a deeply interesting record, not merely of a Syrian pilgrimage,
but of Mediterranean life and of the experiences of an intelligent
Italian gentleman at the close of the Middle Ages--two years after the
discovery of America. It would not be easy to find a more graphic
picture, in old days, of a voyage from Venice to the Levant."--_American
Historical Review_.

"This book breaks new ground and does so in a scholarly and attractive
fashion."--_The Standard_.

"With its careful and convincing descriptions of persons and places, of
costume and manners, with its ingenuous narrative and its simple
reflections, this is a document of great interest."--_The Bookman_.


 No. VI. HISTORICAL ESSAYS. Edited by T. F. TOUT, M.A., Professor of
    Mediæval and Modern History, and JAMES TAIT, M.A., Professor of
    Ancient and Mediæval History. Demy 8vo, pp. xv. 557. 6s. net.
    Reissue of the Edition of 1902 with Index and New Preface.
                                            (Publication No. 27, 1907.)

"Diese zwanzig chronologisch geordneten Aufsätze heissen in der Vorrede
der Herausgeber _Festchrift_, behandeln zur Hälfte ausser-englische
Themata, benutzen reichlich festländische Literatur und verraten überall
neben weiten Ausblicken eine methodische Schulung die der dortigen
Facultät hohe Ehre macht."--Professor Liebermann in _Deutsche
Literaturzeitung_.

"Imperial history, local history, ecclesiastical history, economic
history and the methods of historical teaching--all these are in one way
or another touched upon by scholars who have collaborated in this
volume. Men and women alike have devoted their time and pains to working
out problems of importance and often of no slight difficulty. The result
is one of which the university and city may be justly proud."--The late
Professor York Powell in the _Manchester Guardian_.

"Esso contiene venti lavori storici dettati, quattro da professori e
sedici da licenziati del Collegio, e sono tutto scritti appositamente
e condotti secondo le più rigorose norme della critica e su
documenti."--R. Predelli in _Nuovo Archivio Veneto_.

"La variété des sujets et l'érudition avec laquelle ils sont traités
font grand honneur à la manière dont l'histoire est enseigné à Owens
College."--_Revue Historique_.

"No one who reads these essays will do so without acknowledging their
ability, both in originality and research. They deal with historic
subjects from the beginnings of Cæsar-worship to the detention of
Napoleon at St. Helena, and they deal with them in a thoroughgoing
fashion."--_Guardian_.

"Par nature, c'est un recueil savant, qui témoigne du respect et de
l'émulation que sait exercer pour les études historiques la jeune et
déjà célèbre université."--_Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique_ (Louvain).

"All these essays reach a high level; they avoid the besetting sin of
most of our present historical writing, which consists of serving up a
hash of what other historians have written flavoured with an original
spice of error.... They are all based on original research and written
by specialists."--Professor A. F. Pollard in the _English Historical
Review_.

"Sie bilden einen schönen Beweis fur die rationelle Art, mit der dort
dieses Studium betrieben wird."--Professor O. Weber in _Historische
Zeitschrift_.

The Index can be purchased separately, price 6d.


 No. VII. STUDIES SUPPLEMENTARY TO STUBBS' CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. Vol.
    i. By CH. PETIT-DUTAILLIS, Litt. D., rector of the University of
    Grenoble. Translated from the French by W. E. RHODES, M.A., and
    edited by Prof. JAMES TAIT, M.A. Pp. xiv. 152. 4s. net.
                                             (Publication No. 38 1908.)

This work consists of the translation of the studies and notes appended
by Prof. Petit-Dutaillis to his translation into French of the first
volume of Stubbs' _Constitutional History of England_. It is believed
that they will present to English students and teachers a summary of the
results of recent historical research so far as they throw light upon or
modify the conclusions expressed thirty years ago by the late Bishop
Stubbs.

"Nowhere else can the student find brought together the modern
criticisms of Stubbs, and it is a great convenience to possess them in
this slight volume."--_Morning Post_.

"In its French dress Professor Petit-Dutaillis' book has already
received a warm welcome, and this excellent translation will furnish
English teachers and students with just the kind of guidance they
require in making use of a standard text-book which is still absolutely
indispensable, and yet needs to be corrected at some important
points."--_Glasgow Herald_.

"The volume will be virtually indispensable to teachers and students of
history."--_Athenæum_.

"This task has been carefully and well performed, under the supervision
of Professor Tait, who has written a short but adequate introduction.
This little book, ought, without delay, to be added to every public or
private library that contains a copy of the classic work to which it
forms an indispensable supplement."--Dr. W. S. McKechnie in the
_Scottish Historical Review_.

"These supplementary studies impress one as a discreet and learned
attempt to safeguard a public, which is likely to learn all that it will
know of a great subject from a single book, against the shortcomings of
that book."--Professor A. B. White in the _American Historical Review_.

"C'est un complément indispensable de l'ouvrage de Stubbs, et l'on saura
gré à l'Université de Manchester d'avoir pris l'initiative de cette
publication."--M. Charles Bémont in _Revue Historique_.

"Ce sont des modèles de critique ingénieuse et sobre, une mise au point
remarquable des questions les plus importantes traitées jadis par
Stubbs."--M. Louis Halphen in _Revue de Synthèse historique_.

"Zu der englischen Übersetzung dieser Excurse, durch einen verdienten
jüngeren Historiker, die durchaus leicht wie Originalstil fliesst, hat
Tait die Vorrede geliefert und manche Note, die noch die Literatur von
1908 berücksichtigt. Die historische Schule der Universität Manchester,
an Rührigkeit und strenger Methode von keiner in England übertroffen,
bietet mit der Veröffentlichung der werthvollen Arbeit des Franzosen ein
treffliches Lehrmittel.--Professor F. Liebermann, in _Deutsche Literatur
Zeitung_.


 No. VIII. MALARIA AND GREEK HISTORY. By W. H. S. JONES, M.A. To which
    is added the History of Greek Therapeutics and the Malaria Theory by
    E. T. WITHINGTON, M.A., M.B. 5s. net.    (Publication No. 43, 1909.)

"A valuable instance of the profit that the present age may reap from
the careful study of the past."--_The Scotsman_.

"Mr. W. H. S. Jones is to be congratulated on the success with which he
has conducted what may be described as a pioneering expedition into a
practically unexplored field of history ... the publishers are to be
congratulated on the admirable way in which the book has been turned
out--a joy to handle and to read."--_Manchester Guardian_.

"This interesting volume is an endeavour to show that the decline of the
Greeks as a people for several centuries before and after the Christian
era was largely due to the prevalence of malaria in its various
forms."--_Glasgow Herald_.

"[The author] ... has amassed a considerable store of valuable
information from the Greek classics and other sources which will prove
extremely useful to all who are interested in his theory."--_Birmingham
Daily Post_.


 No. IX. HANES GRUFFYDD AP CYNAN. The Welsh text with translation,
    introduction, and notes by ARTHUR JONES, M.A., Jones Fellow in
    History. Demy 8vo. Pp. viii. 204. 6s. net.
                                            (Publication No. 50, 1910.)


MEDICAL SERIES.

 No. I. SKETCHES OF THE LIVES AND WORK OF THE HONORARY MEDICAL STAFF OF
    THE ROYAL INFIRMARY. From its foundation in 1752 to 1830, when it
    became the Royal Infirmary. By EDWARD MANSFIELD BROCKBANK, M.D.,
    M.R.C.P. Crown 4to. (illustrated). Pp. vii. 311. 15s. net.
                                             (Publication No. 1, 1904.)

"Dr. Brockbank's is a book of varied interest. It also deserves a
welcome as one of the earliest of the 'Publications of the University of
Manchester.'"--_Manchester Guardian_.

"We have a valuable contribution to local Medical Literature."--_Daily
Dispatch_.


 No. II. PRACTICAL PRESCRIBING AND DISPENSING. For Medical Students. By
    WILLIAM KIRKBY, sometime Lecturer in Pharmacognosy in the Owens
    College, Manchester. Crown 8vo, 220 pp. 5s. net.
                       (Publication No. 2, 1904, Second edition, 1906.)

"The whole of the matter bears the impress of that technical skill and
thoroughness with which Mr. Kirkby's name must invariably be associated,
and the book must be welcomed as one of the most useful recent additions
to the working library of prescribers and dispensers."--_Pharmaceutical
Journal_.

"Thoroughly practical text-books on the subject are so rare, that we
welcome with pleasure Mr. William Kirkby's 'Practical Prescribing and
Dispensing.' The book is written by a pharmacist expressly for medical
students, and the author has been most happy in conceiving its scope and
arrangement."--_British Medical Journal_.

"The work appears to be peculiarly free from blemishes and particularly
full in practical detail. It is manifestly the work of one who is a
skilled chemist, and an expert pharmacist, and who knows not only the
requirements of the modern student but the best way in which his needs
may be met."--_Medical Press_.

"This is a very sensible and useful manual."--_The Hospital_.

"The book will be found very useful to any students during a course of
practical dispensing."--_St Bartholomew's Hospital Journal_.

"The book is a model, being tutorial from beginning to end."--_The
Chemist and Druggist_.


 No. III. HANDBOOK OF SURGICAL ANATOMY. By G. A. WRIGHT, B.A., M.B.
    (Oxon.) F.R.C.S., Professor of Systematic Surgery, and C. H.
    PRESTON, M.D., F.R.C.S., L.D.S., Lecturer on Dental Anatomy;
    Assistant Dental Surgeon to the Victoria Dental Hospital of
    Manchester. Crown 8vo, pp. ix. 205. Second edition. 5s. net.
                                             (Publication No. 6, 1905.)

"We can heartily recommend the volume to students, and especially to
those preparing for a final examination in surgery."--_Hospital_.

"Dr. Wright and Dr. Preston have produced a concise and very readable
little handbook of surgical applied anatomy.... The subject matter of
the book is well arranged and the marginal notes in bold type facilitate
reference to any desired point."--_Lancet_.


 No. IV. A COURSE OF INSTRUCTION IN OPERATIVE SURGERY in the University
    of Manchester. By WILLIAM THORBURN, M.D., B.S. (Lond.), F.R.C.S.,
    Lecturer in Operative Surgery. Crown 8vo, pp. 75. 2s. 6d. net.
                                            (Publication No. 11, 1906.)

"This little book gives the junior student all that he wants, and
nothing that he does not want. Its size is handy, and altogether for its
purpose it is excellent."--_University Review_.

"As a working guide it is excellent."--_Edinburgh Medical Journal_.


 No. V. A HANDBOOK OF LEGAL MEDICINE. By W. SELLERS, M.D. (London), of
    the Middle Temple, and Northern Circuit, Barrister-at-law. With
    Illustrations. Crown 8vo, pp. vii. 233. 7s. 6d. net.
                                            (Publication No. 14, 1906.)

"This is quite one of the best books of the kind we have come
across."--_Law Times_.


 No. VI. A CATALOGUE OF THE PATHOLOGICAL MUSEUM OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
    MANCHESTER. Edited by J. LORRAIN SMITH, M.A., M.D. (Edin.),
    Professor of Pathology. Crown 4to, 1260 pp. 7s. 6d. net.
                                            (Publication No. 15, 1906.)

"The catalogue compares very favourably with others of a similar
character, and, apart from its value for teaching purposes in an
important medical school such as that of the University of Manchester,
it is capable of being of great assistance to others as a work of
reference."--_Edinburgh Medical Journal_.

"In conclusion we need only say that Professor Lorrain Smith has
performed the most essential part of his task--the description of the
specimens--excellently and an honourable mention must be made of the
book as a publication."--_British Medical Journal_.


 No. VII. HANDBOOK OF DISEASES OF THE HEART. By GRAHAM STEELL, M.D.,
    F.R.C.P., Professor of Medicine, and Physician to the Manchester
    Royal Infirmary. Crown 8vo, pp. xii. 389, 11 plates (5 in colours),
    and 100 illustrations in the text. 7s. 6d. net.
                                            (Publication No. 20, 1906.)

"It more truly reflects modern ideas of heart disease than any book we
are acquainted with, and therefore may be heartily recommended to our
readers."--_Treatment_.

"We regard this volume as an extremely useful guide to the study of
diseases of the heart, and consider that no better introduction to the
subject could possibly have been written."--_Medical Times and Hospital
Gazette_.

"We can cordially recommend Dr. Steell's book as giving an excellent
and thoroughly practical account of the subject of which it
treats."--_Edinburgh Medical Review_.


 No. VIII. JULIUS DRESCHFELD. IN MEMORIAM. Medical Studies by his
    colleagues and pupils at the Manchester University and the Royal
    Infirmary. Imperial 8vo. 10s. 6d. net.   (Publication No. 35, 1908.)

"A worthy memorial of one who left no small mark upon the study of
clinical pathology in this country."--_British Medical Journal_.

"The papers which compose the bulk of the volume have been reprinted
from the Manchester Chronicle, vol. xiv, and they are of both interest
and permanent value."--_Scottish Medical Journal_.

"The editor, Dr. Brockbank, can be congratulated upon editing
a volume that will fitly perpetuate the memory of his eminent
colleague."--_Medical Review_.


 No. IX. HANDBOOK OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES. By R. W. MARSDEN, M.D. Pp. vi.
    296. 5s. net.                            (Publication No. 39, 1908.)

"This book aims at giving a practical account of the various infectious
diseases, suitable for ready reference in everyday work, and the author
has, on the whole, succeeded admirably in his attempt."--_The Lancet_.

"Throughout the book the information given seems thoroughly adequate,
and especial attention is paid to diagnosis."--_Scottish Medical
Journal_.

"The subject matter is well arranged and easy of reference."--_The
Medical Officer_.


 No. X. LECTURES ON THE PATHOLOGY OF CANCER. By CHARLES POWELL WHITE,
    M.A., M.D., F.R.C.S. Imperial 8vo PP. 83, 33 Plates. 3s. 6d. net.
                                            (Publication No. 42, 1908.)

"The volume is a model of scientific self-restraint. In four chapters
the author covers in simple language much that is of main interest in
the present phase of investigation of cancer....

"The volume ... is well illustrated with statistical charts and
photomicrographs, and its perusal must prove profitable to all who wish
to be brought up-to-date in the biology of cancer."--_Nature_.

"Full of scholarly information and illustrated with a number of
excellent black-and-white plates."--_Medical Press_.

"These lectures give a short résumé of recent work on the subject in an
easily assimilable form."--_St. Bartholomew's Hospital Journal_.


 No. XI. SEMMELWEIS: HIS LIFE AND HIS DOCTRINE. A chapter in the history
    of Medicine. By Sir WILLIAM J. SINCLAIR, M.A., M.D., Professor of
    Obstetrics and Gynæcology in the University of Manchester. Imperial
    8vo, pp. x. 369, 2 plates. 7s. 6d. net.  (Publication No. 46, 1909.)


 No. XII. MODERN PROBLEMS IN PSYCHIATRY. By E. LUCARO, Professor of
    Nervous and Mental Diseases in the University of Modena. Translated
    from the Italian by DAVID ORR, M.D., Assistant Medical Officer and
    Pathologist to the County Asylum, Prestwich; and R. G. ROWS, M.D.,
    Assistant Medical Officer and Pathologist to the County Asylum,
    Lancaster. With an introduction by T. S. CLOUSTON, M.D., Physician
    Superintendent, Royal Asylum, Morningside, and Lecturer on Mental
    Diseases in Edinburgh University. Imperial 8vo, pp. viii, 305, 8
    plates. 7s. 6d. net.                     (Publication No. 47, 1909.)

Deals with the problems met with in studying the causation of insanity.
These problems are discussed under the headings of psychological,
anatomical, pathogenetic, etiological, nosological, social and
practical. There are 13 illustrations in the anatomical section.


PHYSICAL SERIES.

 No. I. THE PHYSICAL LABORATORIES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER. A
    record of 25 years' work. Demy 8vo, pp. 142, 10 Plates, 4 Plans. 5s.
    net.                                     (Publication No. 13, 1906.)

    This volume contains an illustrated description of the Physical,
    Electrical Engineering, and Electro-Chemistry Laboratories of the
    Manchester University, also a complete Biographical and
    Bibliographical Record of those who have worked in the Physics
    Department of the University during the past 25 years.

"The book is excellently got up, and contains a description of the
department of physics and its equipment, a short biographical sketch of
the Professor with a list of his scientific writings and a well-executed
portrait and a record of the career of students and others who have
passed through Dr. Schuster's hands. Alumni of Owens will welcome the
volume as an interesting link with their alma mater."--_Glasgow Herald_.

"This interesting and valuable contribution to the history of the
Manchester University also contains several illustrations, and forms the
first of the 'physical series' of the publications of the University of
Manchester."--_The Times_.

"A record of achievement of which no man need be ashamed."--_Westminster
Gazette_.

"It is a memorial of which any man would be justly proud, and the
University of which he is both an alumnus and a professor may well share
that pride."--_Manchester Guardian_.


PUBLIC HEALTH SERIES.

 No. I. ARCHIVES OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
    MANCHESTER. Edited by A. SHERIDAN DELÉPINE, M.Sc., M.B., Ch. M.,
    Director of the Laboratory and Proctor Professor of Comparative
    Pathology and Bacteriology. Crown 4to. pp. iv. 451. £1. 1s. net.
                                            (Publication No. 12, 1906.)

"The University of Manchester has taken the important and highly
commendable step of commencing the publication of the archives of its
Public Health Laboratory, and has issued, under the able and judicious
editorship of Professor Sheridan Delépine, the first volume of a
series that promises to be of no small interest and value alike
to members of the medical profession and to those of the laity....
Original communications bearing upon diseases which are prevalent
in the districts surrounding Manchester, or dealing with food- and
water-supplies, air, disposal of refuse, sterilisation and disinfection
and kindred subjects, will be published in future volumes; and it is
manifest that these, as they successively appear, will form a constantly
increasing body of trustworthy information upon subjects which are not
only of the highest interest to the profession but of supreme importance
to the public."--_The Lancet_.

"It is safe to say that as these volumes accumulate they will form one
of the most important works of reference on questions of public health,
and ought, at all events, to be in the library of every public
authority."--_Manchester Guardian_.


THEOLOGICAL SERIES.

 No. I. INAUGURAL LECTURES delivered during the Session 1904-5, by the
    Professors and Lecturers of the Faculty of Theology, viz.:--

    Prof. T. F. Tout, M.A.; Prof. A. S. Peake, B.D.; Prof. H. W. Hogg,
    M.A.; Prof. T. W. Rhys Davids, LL.D.; Rev. W. F. Adeney, D.D.; Rev.
    A. Gordon, M.A.; Rev. L. Hassé, B.D.; Rev. Canon E. L. Hicks, M.A.;
    Rev. H. D. Lockett, M.A.; Rev. R. Mackintosh, D.D.; Rev. J. T.
    Marshall, D.D.; Rev. J. H. Moulton, D.Litt.

    Edited by A. S. PEAKE, B.D., Dean of the Faculty.

    Demy 8vo, pp. xi. 296. 7s. 6d. net.      (Publication No. 9, 1905.)

"The lectures, while scholarly, are at the same time popular, and
will be found interesting and instructive by those who are not
theologians.... The entire series is excellent, and the volume deserves
a wide circulation."--_Scotsman_.

"This is a very welcome volume.... All these lectures were delivered to
popular audiences, yet they are far from superficial, and will be found
of great value to busy pastors and teachers."--_Christian World_.

"The lectures themselves give a valuable conspectus of the present
position of Theological research.... They are, of course, not addressed
to experts, but they are exceedingly valuable, even when allowance is
made for their more or less popular form."--_Examiner_.

"The whole volume forms a very important and valuable contribution to
the cause of Theological learning."--_Record_.

"This is a most interesting and valuable book, the appearance of which
at the present moment is singularly significant.... But it is impossible
in a brief review to indicate all the treasures of this rich volume, to
read which carefully is to be introduced to the varied wealth of modern
Biblical scholarship."--_Baptist_.

"The writers of these lectures do not attempt to offer more than samples
of their wares: but what is given is good, and it may be seen that
theology without tests is destitute neither of scientific value nor of
human interests."--_Athenæum_.


LECTURES.

 No. I. GARDEN CITIES (Warburton Lecture). By RALPH NEVILLE, K.C. 6d.
    net.                                          (Lecture No. I, 1905.)

 No. II. THE BANK OF ENGLAND AND THE STATE (A Lecture). By Sir FELIX
    SCHUSTER. 6d. net.                            (Lecture No. 2, 1905.)

 No. III. BEARING AND IMPORTANCE OF COMMERCIAL TREATIES IN THE TWENTIETH
    CENTURY. By Sir THOMAS BARCLAY. 6d. net.      (Lecture No. 3, 1906.)

 No. IV. THE SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE AND THE STUDY OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT (A
    Lecture). By JAMES HOPE MOULTON, M.A., Litt.D. 6d. net.
                                                 (Lecture No. 4, 1906.)

 No. V. THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL: ITS POWERS AND ITS WORK (A
    Lecture). By DONALD MACALISTER, M.A., M.D., B.Sc., D.C.L., LL.D. 6d.
    net.                                          (Lecture No. 5, 1906.)

 No. VI. THE CONTRASTS IN DANTE (A Lecture). By the Hon. WILLIAM WARREN
    VERNON, M.A. 6d. net.                         (Lecture No. 6, 1906.)

 No. VII. THE PRESERVATION OF PLACES OF INTEREST OR BEAUTY (A Lecture).
    By SIR ROBERT HUNTER. 6d. net.                (Lecture No. 7, 1907.)

 No. VIII. ON THE LIGHT THROWN BY RECENT INVESTIGATIONS ON ELECTRICITY
    ON THE RELATION BETWEEN MATTER AND ETHER (Adamson Lecture.) By J. J.
    THOMSON, D.Sc., F.R.S. 6d. net.                (Lecture No. 8, 1908.)

 No. IX. HOSPITALS, MEDICAL SCIENCE, AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A Lecture). By
    SIR CLIFFORD ALLBUTT, K.C.B., M.D. (Cantab.) 6d. net.
                                                 (Lecture No. 9, 1908.)

 No. X. ENGLISH POETRY AND GERMAN PHILOSOPHY IN THE AGE OF WORDSWORTH
    (Adamson Lecture). By A. C. BRADLEY, Litt.D. 6d. net.
                                                (Lecture No. 10, 1909.)

      *       *       *       *       *

 CALENDAR OF THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER. Session 1904-5. Demy
    8vo, 1100 pp. 3s. net.                         (Publication No. 17.)

 CALENDAR OF THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER. Session 1905-6. Demy
    8vo, 1200 pp. 3s. net.                         (Publication No. 18.)

 CALENDAR OF THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER. Session 1906-7. Demy
    8vo, 1300 pp. 3s. net.                         (Publication No. 19.)

 CALENDAR OF THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER. Session 1907-8. Demy
    8vo, 1400 pp. 3s. net.                         (Publication No. 28.)

 CALENDAR OF THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER. Session 1908-9. Demy
    8vo, 1460 pp. 3s. net.                         (Publication No. 37.)

 CALENDAR OF THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER. Session 1909-10.
    Demy 8vo. 1470 pp. 3s. net.                    (Publication No. 48.)

      *       *       *       *       *

    THE REGISTER OF GRADUATES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER UP TO
    JULY 1908. 2s. 6d. net, cloth 3s. 6d. net.    (Publication No. 36.)

      *       *       *       *       *

The following are in preparation and will be issued shortly:--


Celtic Series.

 A GLOSSARY TO THE BLACK BOOK OF CHIRK MANUSCRIPT OF THE WELSH LAWS. By
    TIMOTHY LEWIS, B.A. Demy 8vo.

This will include a complete glossary to the oldest copy of the "Laws of
Howel Dda," contained in the "Black Book of Chirk," and will be based on
the photographic facsimile of that manuscript which is about to be
published by Dr. J. Gwenogvryn Evans in his collection of Welsh texts.
                                                     [_In Preparation_.

 THE LANGUAGE OF THE ANNALS OF ULSTER. By TOMÁS O'MÁILLE, M.A. Demy 8vo.

The objects of this dissertation are firstly to investigate the date at
which certain old-Irish phonological developments took place, and
secondly to give an account of old-Irish declension as evidenced by the
language of the Annals of Ulster. An Appendix on the analysis of Irish
personal names is appended.
                                                       [_In the Press_.


Economic Series.

 THE COTTON INDUSTRY IN SWITZERLAND, VORARLBERG, AND ITALY. A Technical
    and Economic Study. By S. L. BESSO. Demy 8vo.       [_In the Press_.


Historical Series.

 THE CIVIL WAR IN LANCASHIRE. By ERNEST BROXAP. Demy 8vo.
                                                       [_In the Press_.

 THE CROMWELLIAN CONQUEST AND SETTLEMENT OF IRELAND. By ROBERT DUNLOP,
    M.A., formerly Berkeley Fellow. Demy 8vo.

This work will consist of a series of unpublished documents relating to
the History of Ireland from 1651 to 1659, arranged, modernized, and
edited, with introduction, notes, etc., by Mr. DUNLOP.
                                                     [_In Preparation_.


Medical Series.

 DISEASES OF THE EAR. By W. MILLIGAN, M.D., Lecturer on Diseases of the
    Ear and Nasal Surgeon to the Manchester Royal Infirmary.
                                                     [_In Preparation_.

 DISEASES OF THE EYE. By C. E. GLASCOTT, M.D., Lecturer on
    Ophthalmology, and A. HILL GRIFFITH, M.D., Ophthalmic Surgeon to the
    Manchester Royal Infirmary.                       [_In Preparation_.


Biological Series.

 THE HOUSE FLY. _Musca domestica_ (Linnæus). A Study of its Structure,
    Development, Bionomics and Economy. By C. GORDON HEWITT, D.Sc.,
    Dominion Entomologist, Ottawa, Canada, and late Lecturer in Economic
    Zoology in the University of Manchester.            [_In the Press_.


Publications of the John Rylands Library issued at the University Press.

 CATALOGUE OF THE PRINTED BOOKS IN THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY (1899). 3
    vols., 4to. 31/6 _net_.

 CATALOGUE OF BOOKS PRINTED IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND AND IRELAND, and of
    Books printed abroad, to the end of 1640 (1895). 4to, pp. iii, 147.
    10/6 _net_.

 THE ENGLISH BIBLE IN THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY, 1525 to 1640 [by Richard
    Lovett], with 26 facsimiles and 39 engravings (1899). Folio, pp.
    xvi, 275. 5 guineas, _net_.

  BULLETIN OF THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY. Vol. I (Nos. 1-6) (1903-1908).
    4to, 1-468. 6/- _net_.

 A BRIEF HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LIBRARY AND ITS CONTENTS, with
    catalogue of selection of early printed Greek and Latin classics
    exhibited on the occasion of the visit of the Classical Association,
    October, 1906. 8vo, pp. 89, illus. 1/- _net_.

    Full bibliographical descriptions are given of the _editiones
    principes_ of the fifty principal Greek and Latin writers. Of the
    first printed Greek classic the only known copy is described.

 A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE LIBRARY AND ITS CONTENTS (1907). 8vo, pp.
    53, 6 illustrations. 6d. _net_.

 CATALOGUE OF AN EXHIBITION OF BIBLES ILLUSTRATING THE HISTORY OF THE
    ENGLISH VERSIONS FROM WICLIF TO THE PRESENT TIME (1907). 8vo, pp.
    55. 6d. _net_.

 CATALOGUE OF A SELECTION OF BOOKS AND BROADSIDES illustrating the early
    History of Printing, June, 1907. 8vo, pp. v, 34. 6d. _net_.

 CATALOGUE OF AN EXHIBITION OF ILLUMINATED MANUSCRIPTS, principally
    Biblical and liturgical, on the occasion of the Church Congress
    (1908). 8vo, pp. vi, 62. 6d. _net_.

 CATALOGUE OF AN EXHIBITION OF ORIGINAL EDITIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL WORKS
    OF JOHN MILTON (Dec. 9th, 1908). 8vo, pp. 24. 6d. _net_.

 CATALOGUE OF AN EXHIBITION OF THE WORKS OF DANTE ALIGHIERI, with list
    of a selection of works on the study of Dante. 8vo, pp. xii, 55. 6d.
    _net_.

 A CLASSIFIED CATALOGUE OF THE WORKS ON ARCHITECTURE AND THE ALLIED ARTS
    IN THE PRINCIPAL LIBRARIES OF MANCHESTER AND SALFORD. Edited for the
    Architectural Committee of Manchester by H. GUPPY and G. VINE
    (1909). 8vo, pp. xxv, 310. 3/6 _net_, interleaved 4/6 _net_.

    The first catalogue of its kind to be issued either in this country
    or abroad.

 CATALOGUE OF THE COPTIC MANUSCRIPTS IN THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY. By W.
    E. CRUM (1909). 4to, pp. xii, 273. 12 plates of facsimiles. 1 guinea
    _net_.

    Many of the texts are reproduced _in extenso_. The collection
    includes a series of private letters considerably older than any in
    Coptic hitherto known, in addition to many MSS. of great
    theological and historical interest.

 CATALOGUE OF THE DEMOTIC PAPYRI IN THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY. With
    facsimiles and complete translations. By F. LI. Griffith (1909). 3
    vols. 4to.

    1. Atlas of facsimiles.
    2. Hand copies of the earlier documents.
    3. Key-list, translations, commentaries and indexes.

                                                       3 guineas _net_.

    This is something more than a catalogue. It includes collotype
    facsimiles of the whole of the documents, with transliterations,
    translations, besides introductions, very full notes, and a
    glossary of Demotic, representing the most important contribution
    to the study of Demotic hitherto published. The documents dealt
    with in these volumes cover a period from Psammetichus, one of the
    latest native kings, about 640 B.C., down to the Roman emperor
    Claudius, 43 A.D.

 THE MOSTELLARIA OF PLAUTUS. Acting edition with a translation into
    English Verse. Edited by G. NORWOOD, M.A. 1s. net.

 THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER MEDICAL SCHOOL. 6d. net.

 THE TEACHING OF HISTORY AND OTHER PAPERS. By H. L. WITHERS. Edited by
    J. H. FOWLER. Crown 8vo, 270 pp. 4s. 6d. net.

"An interesting memorial of a teacher who was a real enthusiast for
education."--_The Times_.

"We can cordially commend this little book to the somewhat limited but
slowly widening circle who are likely to be interested in educational
principles and organization."--_The Guardian_.

 A TARDINESS IN NATURE AND OTHER PAPERS. By MARY CHRISTIE. Edited, with
    Introductory Note and Memoir, by MAUD WITHERS. Crown 8vo, 331 pp.
    3s. net.

"The essays upon Thackeray, George Eliot, and R. L. Stevenson in this
volume could scarcely be bettered."--_The Guardian_.

"The life-story of a quite remarkable woman--of a woman who used her
gifts always to the furthering of all that is sweetest and noblest in
life."--_Tribune_.

 MUSICAL CRITICISMS. By ARTHUR JOHNSTONE. With a Memoir of the Author by
    HENRY REECE and OLIVER ELTON. Crown 8vo, 225 pp. 5s. net.

"Without the smallest affectation or laboured attempts at smartness, Mr.
Johnstone contrived always to throw fresh light on the matter in hand,
and at the same time to present his opinions in a form which could be
understood and enjoyed by the non-musical reader."--_Westminster
Gazette_.

"Everyone who welcomes guidance as to what is best in music, everyone
who watches with some degree of fascination the power of analysis,
everyone who reads with a sense of satisfaction English, as it may be
written by a master of the craft, should read this book."--_The Musical
World_.

 MANCHESTER BOYS. By C. E. B. RUSSELL. With an Introduction by E. T.
    CAMPAGNAC. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.

"Mr. Charles E. B. Russell has written a most interesting and
thought-compelling book on a subject of almost vital
importance."--_Yorkshire Post_.

"Altogether it is an inspiring book."--_Liverpool Daily Post and
Mercury_.

 EXCAVATION OF THE ROMAN FORTS AT CASTLESHAW (near Delph, West Riding),
    by SAMUEL ANDREW, Esq., and Major William Lees, J.P. First Interim
    Report, prepared by F. A. Bruton, M.A. Price 1s. net.

 MANCHESTER BANKS: ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLISHED BALANCE SHEETS FOR 1908. By
    D. DRUMMOND FRASER, M.Com. Price 1s. net.




    Transcriber's notes:

    The following is a list of changes made to the original.
    The first line is the original line, the second the corrected one.

    been seized, could be asked to stay to dinner. While
    been seized, could not be asked to stay to dinner. While

    see that the Souldiers did their duty.[64]
    see that the Souldiers did their duty."[64]

    [56] "Sutherland MSS." Hist. MSS. Com.," Vol. 5, p. 347. "Lancs.
    [56] "Sutherland MSS." "Hist. MSS. Com.," Vol. 5, p. 347. "Lancs.

    main guard was at Canstfield, which is only half a mile
    main guard was at Cantsfield, which is only half a mile

    [118] "Discourse, p. 41. "A True Relation of the great victory, etc."
    [118] "Discourse," p. 41. "A True Relation of the great victory, etc."

    underrated the difficulty of their task, not decause they
    underrated the difficulty of their task, not because they

    Chisendale. The royalists declared that they had spiked
    Chisenhale. The royalists declared that they had spiked

    p. 95. Ramsay Muir, "History of Liverpool (1907), chap. 9, p. 16.
    p. 95. Ramsay Muir, "History of Liverpool" (1907), chap. 9, p. 16.

    Callender's letter is given in "Portland MSS.," Vol. 1, pp. 223, 224.
    Callander's letter is given in "Portland MSS.," Vol. 1, pp. 223, 224.

    [175] The above quetation is given in "C.W.T.," p. 211; but other
    [175] The above quotation is given in "C.W.T.," p. 211; but other

    not be long delayed. "'This (however strange reports
    not be long delayed. "This (however strange reports

    Rigby became Lieutenant-Colonel, and there one or two
    Rigby became Lieutenant-Colonel, and there were one or two

    about 16,000 men, 'I daresay near double the number of
    about 16,000 men, "I daresay near double the number of

    through the streets and town. The route was complete;
    through the streets and town. The rout was complete;

    which are only obvious to such as be upon the place.[241]
    which are only obvious to such as be upon the place."[241]

    cast himself himself entirely on the Parliament's mercy,
    cast himself entirely on the Parliament's mercy,

    both sides, I never was witness of before. That night
    both sides, I never was witness of before." That night

    to death." ("Clarendon," Macray, Vol. 5, p. 184 (bk. 13, par. 68).
    to death." ("Clarendon," Macray, Vol. 5, p. 184, bk. 13, par. 68).