Читать книгу The Great Civil War in Lancashire (1642-1651) - Ernest Broxap - Страница 8

Table of Contents

[3] This petition is given in "C.W.T.," pp. 2-5. Cf. "C.J.," Vol. 2, 476. Lancashire being a Catholic county the Puritans were exceedingly afraid of their probable action. Cf. "C.S.P.," 1641‑3, p. 166.

[4] "C.W.T.," pp. 38-40. The petition and answer are also given in the "Discourse," pp. 12-14. While taking stronger measures against the recusants, Parliament ordered the documents to be printed in order to arouse public opinion against the King. On Aug. 29 the King issued instructions to the Commissioners of Array to disarm all "Popish Recusants, all Brownists, Anabapists and other sectaries." "Rushworth," Vol. 4, p. 415.

[5] The Militia Ordinance and the King's Proclamation are printed in Gardiner's "Constitutional Documents," pp. 166 and 169. For the Parliament's Order of May 28, v. "C.W.T.," p. 7.

[6] "C.J." 2, pp. 424, 486, 496. Lord Strange was the royalist of greatest influence in Lancashire and Cheshire and so could not be passed over. But he was so unpopular at court that the appointment was an unexpected one. Cf. "Hist. MSS. Com.," Rep. 9, app. 2, p. 391.

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

[8] "C.J.," Vol. 2, pp. 629, 650, 681.

[9] "L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 129. It was on June 9 that the Lancashire members were directed by the Commons to go down ("C.J.," Vol. 2, p. 615), and they must have started almost immediately. Several letters were received before the end of the month both from them and from Sir W. Brereton. On Saturday, July 16, a report from the Committee and Deputy Lieutenants was received by the House of Commons, and referred by them to the Committee for the Defence of the Kingdom. ("C.J.," Vol. 2, p. 676.)

[10] "C.W.T.," p. 14. "Discourse," p. 6. Rigby wrote a long letter giving an account of the meeting to the Speaker from Manchester on June 24. He calls the majority of the 400 adherents of Lord Strange "popish recusants." The "Discourse" implies that a majority of the meeting were in favour of the King. Cf. "L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 166.

[11] For Rigby's Letter to the Speaker, v. "C.W.T.," p. 329. He suggests that for so small an amount of powder it was not worth while to use force; but it was a sufficient reason that he did not know where the powder had been taken. On July 26th it was ordered by both Houses that the removal of magazines might be resisted by force. ("L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 242. "C.J.," Vol. 2, pp. 692, 693.)

[12] The Committee's Letter to Lenthall on June 25 ("C.W.T.," p. 16) states that Lord Strange took 30 barrels of powder and some match from Liverpool. The "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," p. 111) implies that this was all the magazine in Liverpool. The report that Strange was intercepted at Liverpool by Mr. Moore ("C.W.T.," p. 332) is probably false.

The Manchester petition and answer are given at length in the "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," p. 111). No other places are mentioned except Manchester, Warrington, Preston and Liverpool, and apparently the royalists secured all these except the first-named. Cf. A Copy of a Letter from Chester, etc., 669, f. 6 (78), where it is stated that Strange armed his troops at Chester with arms sent by the Parliament for service in Ireland.

[13] "C.W.T.," pp. 16 and 112. Cf. "Hist. MSS. Com.," Vol. 5, p. 32; and also a letter from Richard Radcliffe to Sir John Gell, July 1. 1642: "Lord Strange threatens to procure aid from the King; but we think His Majesty has not much to spare." ("Hist. MSS. Com.," Vol. 9, app. 2, p. 391.)

[14] "L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 166. Sir William Brereton (1604‑1661) was the son of William Brereton of Handforth, Cheshire, and of Margaret, daughter and co-heiress of Richard Holland of Denton. He was the Parliamentarian Commander-in-Chief in Cheshire, and was concerned in all the military operations in that county. But he was also a Deputy Lieutenant for Lancashire, having close relations with the leaders there. There is a notice of Brereton, by Mr. T. F. Henderson, in the "Dictionary of National Biography."

[15] "L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 174. Cf. a further letter to the Speaker in "H. L. Cal." ("Hist. MSS. Com.," rep. 5, p. 31), written on June 24, in which Brereton states that Lord Strange is prepared to enforce his Commission of Array when Parliament does the Militia Ordinance. He desires further instructions, for the Commission cannot be stopped without violence, which "once begun may not be so easily composed."

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

[17] The chief authority for this skirmish is a tract called "The Beginning of Civil Warres in England, etc." ("C.W.T.," p. 24). It is a circumstantial account giving the times at which the battle began and ended and the number killed on both sides. But nevertheless it is almost certainly an entire fabrication. None of the main authorities mention it; and if any skirmish occurred at all on July 4 it would certainly have been mentioned in Lord Strange's impeachment. Cf. also "C.W.T.," pp. 27 and 331. The "Victoria County History of Lancashire," referring to this date, says: "Doubt has been cast on the truth of this report," but this statement is not strong enough (Vol. 2, p. 235).

[18] Green had given £1. 10s. to the building of Salford Chapel in 1634. Judging from the amounts at which he was assessed in the levies made upon the town during the war, he was a well-to-do man; the Conduit was then one of the streets inhabited by the richer citizens ("Manchester Municipal Records"). Green does not seem to have been an ardent royalist, for he was not sequestered, but he afforded shelter to one George Leigh of Barton-upon-Irwell, who at first supported the royalist cause, but on Prince Rupert's invasion fled to Manchester ("Royalist Composition Papers," Vol. 4, p. 82).

[19] Sir Thomas Stanley was the son of Edward Stanley of Bickerstaffe, who was made a Baronet in 1627‑8. He was a consistent, if rather lukewarm, supporter of the Parliamentary cause. He was the direct ancestor of the present Earl of Derby. ("Lancashire Lieutenancy," Pt. 2, p. 246.)

[20] "C.W.T.," p. 33, note. Sir Alexander Radcliffe was committed to the Tower for his part in this disturbance, and remained a prisoner until the following year. Ordsall Hall, then about 1-1/2 miles from the town, stands now in the midst of cottages and workshops. It is the property of Lord Egerton, and was until recently used as an Anglican Training College.

[21] There are a Parliamentarian paper describing the affray, two royalist tracts and an account in the "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," pp. 29, 30, 31 and 113). The reference in the "Discourse," p. 6, may be dismissed as worthless; that writer is not often well informed on matters relating to Manchester. It is evident that the banquet was a pre-arranged affair in spite of statements to the contrary ("C.W.T.," p. 30), and also that the rising of the townsmen was not wholly the result of the Parliamentarian leaders' agitation. Probably each party in the town made its own arrangements entirely neglecting their effect on the other; and probably each side gave afterwards what it honestly thought to be the statement of the facts. There is an account of this affray in Burghall's "Providence Improved" (R.S., No. 19, p. 29); but it adds no new details.

[22] "Rushworth," Vol. 4, p. 670, 676, 678. Cf. an article by the present writer on the "Sieges of Hull during the Great Civil War," in the "English Historical Review" (1905), Vol. 20, p. 464.

[23] The account given in the "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," p. 113) suggests this. The statement that the other side were in a vast majority is, however, made by both parties.

[24] The judges in Lancashire were ordered to stay proceedings against Tyldesley, "who, as this House is informed, slew the man at Manchester," and other proceedings begun for the same reason. There is a similar order concerning proceedings against Stanley, Birch and Holcroft ("C.J.," Vol. 2, p. 714). Assheton, Rigby and Moore were members of this Committee ("C.J.," Vol. 2, pp. 689, 690). It seems probable that the man actually responsible for the death of Perceval was Richard Fleetwood of Rossall ("C.W.T.," p. 72).

[25] The authority for this statement is Seacome's "House of Stanley," p. 70-74. Though Seacome is very inaccurate, there seems to be no reason for doubting his statement here.

[26] "A Copy of Lord Strange's Warrant," 669, f. 6 (74); Marlet's "Charlotte de la Tremoille," pp. 76-7; "Clarendon" (Macray), Vol. 2, p. 342 (bk. 6, par. 67). Marlet is of the opinion that Prince Rupert would have acceded to the request, but was prevented by the King.

[27] The Impeachment was moved in the House of Commons on August 29, and Sir Robert Harley took it to the Lords on Sept. 14 ("C.J.," Vol. 2, p. 742; "L.J.," Vol. 5, pp. 353, 354, 355, 357). The order for publishing the Impeachment and carrying it out was dated Friday, Sept. 16 ("L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 358). The Impeachment and Order are printed in "C.W.T.," pp. 35-37.