The Great Civil War in Lancashire (1642-1651) Part 2

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 Lancas.h.i.+re 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). a.s.sheton, 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 publis.h.i.+ng 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 Lancas.h.i.+re 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 Lancas.h.i.+re 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 mult.i.tude 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 a.s.sure 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 Lancas.h.i.+re 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 Lancas.h.i.+re 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 t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle 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 Lancas.h.i.+re, Ches.h.i.+re and the Isle of Man. Strange was not a man fitted by temperament or inclination to s.h.i.+ne 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 friends.h.i.+p," 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 leaders.h.i.+p when the King needed help from Lancas.h.i.+re.

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 Lancas.h.i.+re and Ches.h.i.+re, 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 Lancas.h.i.+re; 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 leaders.h.i.+p was marked by no foresight or capacity; he left Lancas.h.i.+re 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 Lancas.h.i.+re royalist to suffer death on the scaffold. But if unswerving loyalty and sincerity in a lost cause const.i.tute a claim to martyrdom, the leader of the Lancas.h.i.+re royalists is abundantly ent.i.tled 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 Lancas.h.i.+re. 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 Lancas.h.i.+re.

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 t.i.tle by his brother Caryll, who also had taken some little part in the war in Lancas.h.i.+re.

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 Lancas.h.i.+re 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 Lancas.h.i.+re. 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 Lancas.h.i.+re 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 Lancas.h.i.+re 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 Lancas.h.i.+re 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 Yorks.h.i.+re, where he was killed in action in the following year.[34]

William Farington of Worden had been Sheriff of Lancas.h.i.+re in 1636. He was a member of the Commission of Array and one of the royalist collectors for Leyland Hundred. His princ.i.p.al 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 Lancas.h.i.+re 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, c.l.i.theroe, 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 Lancas.h.i.+re members is as follows:--

LANCAs.h.i.+RE.

Ralph a.s.sheton, Esq.

Roger Kirkby, Esq.

LANCASTER.

John Harrison, Knight.

Thomas Fanshaw, Esq.

PRESTON.

Richard Shuttleworth, Esq.

Thomas Standish, Esq.

c.l.i.tHEROE.

Ralph a.s.sheton, 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 Lancas.h.i.+re. 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 a.s.sist 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 a.s.sheton of Middleton, one of the members for the County, was head of that branch of the ancient family. In the seventeenth century the three princ.i.p.al branches were that at Middleton, Whalley, and Downham near c.l.i.theroe, the last being now the only one which remains. He was the son of Richard a.s.sheton, and his wife Mary, daughter of Thomas Venables, Baron of Kinderton in Ches.h.i.+re, and he married Elizabeth, only daughter of John Kay of Woodsome in Yorks.h.i.+re. Born on March 31, 1606, a.s.sheton 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 Lancas.h.i.+re. 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 a.s.sheton 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. a.s.sheton 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 a.s.shetons, both of them on the Parliamentary side. These were Ralph a.s.sheton, eldest son of Sir Ralph a.s.sheton of Whalley, who was M.P. for c.l.i.theroe in the Long Parliament, and Ralph a.s.sheton 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 Lancas.h.i.+re 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 Lancas.h.i.+re Cla.s.sis. He was the only one, however, of the original Lancas.h.i.+re 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]