FOOTNOTES:

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.," 1641â€‘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 (1604â€‘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 Â£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 1627â€‘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.

[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.," 1641â€‘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.

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 (1604â€‘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 Â£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 1627â€‘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.

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 themajor 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, 1606â€‘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 whohindered 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, 1638â€‘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 ata 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 in1644 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 Ludlowand took the Covenant and the Negative Oath in August 1646. His fine at a sixth was Â£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, 1642â€‘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 Â£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:â€”

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.

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 hadacquired 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, 1644â€‘5, was specially thanked by the House of Commons for his services to the public. This vote was repeatedafter 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, 1650â€‘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. Hisexperience 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 hisdeath, 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 1647â€‘8. His brother Major Ashhurst who had at first fought on the Parliament's side joined Charles the Second in the expedition of 1651, andWilliam 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 Molyneuxvide"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 Commonsv."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, 1643â€‘4, for not paying Â£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 Liverpoolvide"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.

[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).

"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 Molyneuxvide"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 Commonsv."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, 1643â€‘4, for not paying Â£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 Liverpoolvide"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.

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, withDeansgate 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, 1640â€‘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 foran 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 Â£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 Â£60 a year. Also in January,1642â€‘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 Â£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]

Back to Index Next