The Great Civil War in Lancashire (1642-1651) Part 11

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 G.o.d 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 n.o.bility 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 t.i.tle pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sistance 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 a.s.sist 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 a.s.sheton 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 a.s.sheton 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. Circ.u.mstances 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 pa.s.sing 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 a.s.sessments 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 a.s.sessors, any three of whom had power to a.s.sess 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 pa.s.sed for raising money for the payment of the army by a weekly a.s.sessment on the whole country. The list is composed of 52 counties and towns in England and 12 in Wales, Lancashire being a.s.sessed 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 pa.s.sed for the maintenance of the Scotch army at 21,000 per month for four months, to begin on March 1st.

This time Lancashire was a.s.sessed 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 a.s.sessment 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 quant.i.ty 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 a.s.sessments 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 circ.u.mstances 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 G.o.d."[189]

In 1646 Presbyterianism was set up by the Parliament. A pet.i.tion 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 pet.i.tion was urged for the reason that the pet.i.tioners, 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 Pet.i.tion to the King at York in 1642 to return to Parliament, "which evidenceth that the pet.i.tioners 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 Pet.i.tion into consideration, and the Ordinance for division of Lancashire into nine cla.s.sical 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 s.p.a.ce 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 ent.i.tled "Memorable Dayes and Works of G.o.d, 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 pet.i.tioned 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 pet.i.tions 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 princ.i.p.al pa.s.s 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. a.s.sheton'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. a.s.sheton's and Col.

Holland's regiments except Major Radcliffe's company; and of horse the troops of Col. Nicholas Shuttleworth, Capt. b.u.t.terworth, 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 a.s.sociation. ("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 a.s.sistance 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 a.s.sessments, 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.