David Masson.

The quarrel between the Earl of Manchester and Oliver Cromwell: an episode of the English Civil War online

. (page 1 of 17)
Online LibraryDavid MassonThe quarrel between the Earl of Manchester and Oliver Cromwell: an episode of the English Civil War → online text (page 1 of 17)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


UC-NRLF




REESE LIBRARY



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.

Received / >»< , j88 I

Accessions No:3p/3_ <7_ Shelf No.



Ch



-3s>



THE QUARREL



THE EARL OF MANCHESTER



OLIVER CROMWELL



AN EPISODE OF THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR.



UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO,

COLLECTED BY THE LATE JOHN BRUCE, F.S.A., &c;

WITH FRAGMENTS OF

A HISTORICAL PREFACE BY MR. BRUCE,
ANNOTATED AND COMPLETED BY DAVID MASSON.




PRINTED FOR THE CAMDEN SOCIETY.



M.DCCC.LXXV.



T)A£0



WESTMINSTER \

PRINTED BY NICHOLS AND SONS,

25, PARLIAMENT STREET.



[new SERIES XII.]



COUNCIL OF THE CAMDEN SOCIETY

FOR THE YEAR 1874-75.



President ,
THE RIGHT HON. THE EARL OF VERULAM, F.R.G.S.



xii n



WILLIAM CHAPPELL, ESQ. F.S.A., Treat,

WILLIAM DURRANT COOPER, ESQ. F.S.A.

HENRY CHARLES COOTE, ESQ. F.S.A.

FREDERICK WILLIAM COSENS, ESQ.

JAMES GAIRDNER. ESQ.

SAMUEL RAWSON GARDINER, ESQ., Director.

ALFRED KINGSTON, ESQ., Secretary.

SIR JOHN MACLEAN, F.S.A.

FREDERIC OUVRY, ESQ. V.P. S.A.

JAMES ORCHARD PHILLIPPS, ESQ. F.R.S. F.S.A.

EDWARD RIMBAULT, LL.D.

REV. W. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D. F.S.A.

JAMES SPEDDING, ESQ.

WILLIAM JOHN THOMS, ESQ. F.S.A.

JR. DANIEL-TYSSEN, ESQ.



The Council of the Camden Society desire it to be understood
that they are not answerable for any opinions or observations that
may appear in the Society's publications; the Editors of the several
Works being alone responsible for the same.



INTRODUCTORY NOTE.



At the death of Mr. Bruce, in October 1869, there was found
among his papers a quantity of manuscript relating to the quarrel
between the Earl of Manchester and Cromwell in the year 1644,
and showing that he had been minutely studying that incident
in the History of the English Civil War, and meant to make it the
subject of some publication. The MSS. consisted of (1) Copies of
previously unpublished documents recovered by Mr. Bruce's research ;
(2) Fragments of a Historical Preface, in which Mr. Bruce meant
to tell the whole story at some considerable length, by weaving the
information from these documents into that otherwise accessible;
and (3) Miscellaneous jottings towards the completion of this Pre-
face, chiefly in the form of extracts from the Lords and Commons
Journals, but with notes of dates and stray facts besides.

The documentary matter, as left by Mr. Bruce, and as put to
press by the Council of the Camden Society for this volume, is
partly from the Public Record Office, partly from the Manchester
Family Papers at Kimbolton. From the Letter- Books of the Derby
House Committee or Committee of Both Kingdoms, preserved in
the Record Office, are the copies of the correspondence between
that Committee and the Earl of Manchester from July to November
1644, occupying pp. 1-58 of the present volume; and from the
Domestic State Papers in the Record Office is the document entitled
Cromwell's Narrative (pp. 78-95). The remaining three documents,
entitled Narrative of the Earl of Manchester s Campaign (pp. 59-70).
Statement by an Opponent of Cromwell (pp. 71-77), and Notes of
Evidence, &c. (pp. 96-99), are from the Kimbolton Papers. The
footnotes to the documents are by Mr. Bruce, except those signed
" G. C," which are by Colonel Colomb.

The Council of the Camden Society having sent me the docu-
ments in their present printed form, together with the MS. fragments
of Mr. Bruce's intended Historical Preface and the miscellaneous

CAMD. SOC. b



11 INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

MS. jottings he had left besides, I have had much pleasure, both
from respect to Mr. Bruce's memory and from interest in the
subject, in complying with their request that I would do what
might be necessary or possible towards completing the Preface.
The result has been as follows : — Every word of Mr. Bruce's Preface,
so far as it had been written, has been religiously kept ; and the
completion has been endeavoured in the three forms of Notes,
Insertions, and Continuation. The Notes (initialed where they are
not Mr. Bruce's own) are few. The Insertions, always given within
brackets, are either attempts to fill up gaps left in Mr. Bruce's
manuscript, and which he meant to fill up at his leisure, or they
are additions necessary for the coherence of the story at points
where I could perceive that Mr. Bruce would almost certainly have
made some such additions in revising what he had written. The
Continuation was a more troublesome affair. Mr. Bruce had,
unfortunately, broken off just as he was approaching the heart of
his subject, and when he had begun a more minute style of narra-
tive in preparation for what was coming. To have huddled up
the sequel in a mere casual paragraph or two would have been to
leave Mr. Bruce's design unintelligible. It would have done no
manner of justice either to the documents he had collected or to the
perception that had actuated him in collecting them and in writing
his Preface so far — the perception, namely, of the significance of the
quarrel between Manchester and Cromwell, and its involution with
all that was most important in a whole important year of English
history. I tried, therefore, to put myself in Mr. Bruce's place, and
to finish his Preface on his own plan, by combining the material
supplied by the documents with that to be found in Rush worth,
Baillie, the Journals of the Lords and Commons, and other standard
authorities. The extracts he had himself made from the Journals,
with such hints as I could gather from his other MS. jottings, have
been of use both in the Continuation and in the Insertions ; and
I have thought it right carefully to note every instance of help thus
received from his own dead hand.

David Masson.

Edinburgh: February 1875.



CONTENTS.



PAGE

Historical Preface ... v
Documents : —

I. Correspondence between the Earl of Manchester

and the Committee of Both Kingdoms . 1

II. Narrative of the Earl of Manchester's Campaign 59

III. Statement by an Opponent of Cromwell . . 71

IV. Cromwell's Narrative . . . .78
V. Notes of Evidence against the Earl of Manchester 96



C4LIF



HISTORICAL PREFACE



It is a mere truism in the history of revolutions to assert that
they are seldom brought to a close by the persons or political parties
with whom they originate. Men whose existence was perhaps
scarcely known to the world at large when the onward movement
took its origin rise in succession to the surface, acquire the govern-
ment, and carry forward the work to lengths and heights which
their predecessors never contemplated. It is in tracing this sequence
of political parties, the gradual growth of what was looked upon in
the first instance as a contemptible and almost senseless faction, its
struggles for the mastery, the arts (too often unworthy) by which
it acquired the ascendancy, its acts whilst in a condition of
dominancy, and finally the errors by which it forfeited power and
made way for the next in turn, that much of the interest of historical
narrative is found.

It is to an incident in a movement of this nature which took
place in the course of our great national revolution in the reign of
Charles I. that I have now to direct attention.

The Quarrel between Oliver Cromwell and the Earl of Manchester,
at the close of the campaign of 1644, is a great leading incident in
the history of our Civil War. It brought to the surface and into
direct antagonism principles of the very deepest significance in
reference to the management of the war, and the triumph of the
movement party on that occasion led directly to the ruin of the
royal cause.

Our information respecting this important incident is singularly
incomplete. Brief entries which refer to it occur on the Journals



VI HISTORICAL PREFACE.

of the two Houses of Parliament; some papers and notes of speeches
relating to it are published in Rush worth and Nalson ; and Clarendon
and the memoir-writers have told us with more or less inaccuracy
what they could recollect, mostly after the lapse of many years. a
From such weak and incomplete authorities historical writers have
inferred the particulars of what occurred, and the degree in which
their statements are mere guesswork may be gathered from the fact
that in none of the authorities to which we have alluded is there
any definite statement of the facts which Cromwell alleged in the
House of Commons against the Earl of Manchester in the way of
charge, nor of those which the Earl adduced against Cromwell in
the House of Lords in the way of answer and recrimination. 13

In the course of the operations which are in progress among the
State Papers under the direction of the Master of the Rolls, some
documents have lately been found which establish upon the most
certain of all authorities, that of Cromwell himself, what were the
assertions on one side of this momentous controversy. These are
the papers to which attention is now solicited ; but in order to make
their meaning and importance palpable we must preface them with
some notice of the events out of which they arose.

The Earl of Manchester, whose conduct forms the special point
of this inquiry [i.e. Edward Montagu, second Earl of Manchester],
is principally known in our history by the circumstance that, when

a Mr. Bruce's references here are to Rushworth, v. 732-736 ; Clarendon, 514 et
seq. (ed. 1843); and, perhaps, under the name of "Memoir-writers," to Baillie, ii.
229-30, 234-5, 244-7 ; Whitlocke, i. 343 et seq. (ed. 1853) ; Walker's History of
Independency, part i.; and Holles's Memoirs, 18-28. Baillie's jottings on the
subject are, however, strictly contemporary. — D.M.

b Among modern accounts of the quarrel between Cromwell and Manchester are
Godwin's in his History of the Commonwealth (i. 378-413) and Mr. Carlyle's in
his Letters and Speeches of Cromwell (i. 146-150, and 159-163, ed. 1857). Godwin
does found only on the authorities mentioned by Mr. Bruce ; but Mr. Carlyle had
before him other documents, communicated to him by the Duke of Manchester from
the family papers at Kimbolton, including that printed in the present volume under
the title " Narrative of the Earl of Manchester's Campaign." — D.M.



HISTORICAL PREFACE. Vll

Lord Kimbolton, by which title he was called up to the House of
Peers during the lifetime of his father, he was joined in the charge
of high-treason with Pym, Hampden, Strode, Holies, and Haselrig,
whom Charles I. went to the House of Commons to arrest. This
circumstance, and the conjunction in which Clarendon places him
with the Earl of Bedford and Lord Saye, as the three " great con-
trivers and designers " in the House of Peers, a sufficiently mark his
political opinions. Dedications to him of religious books by clergymen
of the school then termed puritanical indicate that he belonged to
that large class of persons who, under the influence of dissatisfaction
with the conduct of the bishops and the state of the Church and
the clergy, thought it necessary for the preservation of Protestantism
that there should be large alterations in the framework of the
established Church. In his individual character, every one attests
that he was one of the most amiable and most liberal of men. If
Clarendon is to be believed, he was indeed too liberal by far. He
did not wait to play the part of the lavish heir with the estate
which his father had accumulated, by means which "exposed him
to some inconvenience and many reproaches," b but during his
father's lifetime, for the mere advantage of his party, as Clarendon
assures us, he lived far beyond " the narrow exhibition allowed
him by his wary father," and thus involved himself in " a great
debt," which drove him into seclusion for many years. Still,
whether in the country or at the Court, the Royalist historian is
obliged to admit that, " by his natural civility, good manners, and
good nature, which flowed towards all men, he was universally
acceptable and beloved. " d

[From several loose sheets containing notes and references
in Mr. Bruce 's hand, and in that of a correspondent of his, it
seems as if he had intended to involve in this Preface, or to
append to it, a somewhat detailed memoir of the Earl of Man-

a Clarendon, Hist. Retell p. 73, ed. 1843.

h Ibid. p. 22. c Ibid. p. 73.

>' Ibid. p. 74.



Vlll HISTORICAL PREFACE.

chester. The following may here suffice for that part of the
Earl's life which precedes the point at which Mr. Bruce's narra-
tive begins: — He was born in 1602, the eldest son of the law-
yer Sir Henry Montagu, who, after various intermediate pro-
motions, became in 1625-26 the first Earl of Manchester, and con-
tinued to be one of the councillors and ministers of Charles I.
He was educated at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, which -he
entered in January 161 7- 18, just after Cromwell, who was three years
his senior, had left the same college. Having returned to Court,
he attended Prince Charles to Spain ; and the intimacy thus
established between him and Charles lasted for some time after
Charles came to the throne. After having sat in the Commons as
knight for Huntingdonshire in Charles's first and second Parlia-
ments, he was raised to the Upper House in 1626 by the title of
Baron Montagu of Kimbolton ; and for the next sixteen years some
confusion is caused by the fact that he is heard of both by his proper
peer's title as Lord Kimbolton and also by his higher courtesy-
title of Viscount Mandeville, son and heir-apparent of the Earl of
Manchester. His first wife, who was a relative of the Duke of
Buckingham, having died without issue, he had married, for his
second, the Lady Anne Rich, daughter of the Earl of Warwick;
and to this connection Clarendon ascribes, in great measure, his
detachment from the Court-party, and his identification of himself
with the Puritans. Certain it is that, through what is called the
Reign of Thorough, the fact that Lord Kimbolton, the son of one of
Charles's chief ministers, had abandoned his Court prospects and
joined the ranks of the then suppressed Puritans, was much com-
mented on, and that, in 1640, when the Scottish troubles compelled
Charles again to summon an English Parliament, and the hopes of
the Puritan party were thus revived, Kimbolton stepped forth as
one of their chiefs. His activity and importance on the popular
side in the first year of the struggle between the Long Parliament
and the King were signally attested in January 1641-2, when he
alone of the peers was conjoined by Charles, as Mr. Bruce mentions,



HISTORICAL PREFACE. IX

with the five leading Commoners whose arrest Charles attempted
in his famous and fatal coup d'etat. Seven months afterwards,
when the actual Civil War began (August 1642), it was natural that
a nobleman already so distinguished should be one of the small
body of about thirty peers who stood by Parliament at all risks,
while the rest of their oi'der, to the number of about one hundred,
went with the King. He was then still only Lord Kimbolton or
Viscount Mandeville ; and he did not become Earl of Manchester
till his father's death, November 7, 1G42.— D.M.]

When King and Parliament adjourned the decision of the war of
addresses and messages from Westminster to the tented field, Lord
Manchester [still only Lord Kimbolton] took the command of a
regiment of foot in the army of the Earl of Essex, and was present
at the Battle of Edgehill. a He had not had any previous military
experience; but, like other noblemen on both sides, he came forward
at the commencement of the war as a leader in the field of the party
which he espoused. [In a pamphlet, dated September 14, 1642,
and entitled "The List of the Army raised wider the Command of
his Excellency, Robert Earl of Essex" one of the twenty regiments
of Foot of the Parliamentarian army at that date, each calculated
at 1,200 men, is styled " Lord Mandeville's Regiment," Mandeville
or Kimbolton himself taking rank as colonel of the regiment,
with John Parkinson for his lieutenant-colonel, John Drake for his
major, seven captains of companies under these, and Simeon Ashe as
the regimental chaplain. Among the other colonels of Essex's foot
regiments, each with his subordinate lieutenant-colonel, major, and
captains, were the Earl of Stamford, Viscount Saye and Sele, Lord
Wharton, Lord Brooke, and Lord Ptoberts, from the House of Lords,
and Hampden and Denzil Holies from the House of Commons. The
same list gives the Horse of Essex's army as divided into seventy-

a Fought on Sunday, October 23, 1642, near Keinton iu South Warwickshire, the
first important battle of the Civil War. The Parliament had, on the whole, the
victory, though not a very decided one. Among the slain was Robert Bertie, Earl
of Liudsey, commander-in-chief of the King's army. — D.M.
CAMD. SOC. c



X HISTORICAL PREFACE.

five troops of sixty men each. Of one of these troops, numbered the
67th, Oliver Cromwell, M.P. for Cambridge, was captain ; and
among the captains of other troops were several of the Parlia-
mentarian peers and several of Cromwell's colleagues of the Lower
House. But, superior to the mere captains of individual horse-troops,
were six of their number, taking rank as colonels of horse: viz.,
the Earl of Bedford, Sir William Balfour, Lord Fielding, Lord
Willoughby of Parham, Sir William Waller, and Edwin Sandys ;
besides whom there was a colonel of Dragoons in the person of
John Browne, M.P. for Dorsetshire, commanding five troops of
dragoons, each of 100 men, and each with its separate captain. — The
relative military positions of the peer Lord Kimbolton and the com-
moner Oliver Cromwell in Essex's main Parliamentary army at the
beginning of the Civil War may thus be easily conceived. Under
Essex himself, as commander-in-chief, there were five chief officers
ranking as generals (the Earl of Bedford and Sir William Balfour
two of them) ; under these were 27 colonels, with about as many
lieutenant-colonels and majors ; and under these again were about
210 captains of foot, horse, and dragoons. Lord Kimbolton was
one of the 27 colonels, commanding a foot regiment of 1200 men;
Cromwell was one of the 210 captains, commanding a horse troop
of 60 men. The captaincy of a troop of horse, however, was a
somewhat higher thing in reputation than the captaincy of a
company of foot. — Farther, it has to be noted that the above state ,
of the army was little more than its state on paper at the outset,
and that the first shocks and exigencies of the war greatly deranged
the paper scheme. Officers that figure on the first paper list dis-
appear, or even desert; others flash into note at once, and are
promoted rapidly. It was not Essex alone that regulated the pro-
motions ; the Parliament was watching, and selected those that seemed
fittest. Indeed, very soon there were other masses in the field in
various parts of England, with the style of armies for the Parliament,
besides Essex's main or original army, although Essex continued
nominally the commander-in-chief. — D.M.]



HISTORICAL PREFACE. XI

When subsequently, in the year 1643, County Associations
were formed, primarily for local defence, the Earl was put at the
head of that one which comprised the Eastern Counties. In that
capacity he came into direct military communication with Oliver
Cromwell, whose regiment of Ironsides was principally raised and
recruited in the county of Huntingdon, in which the Earl had
great property and influence, and where he must have known
Oliver Cromwell for many years.

[Mr. Bruce has here rapidly skipped the period of about fifteen
months intervening between the Battle of Edgehill and the opening
of the year 1644; but it seems necessary, for the understanding of
what follows, that the reader should have some notice of the course
of events during that interval, and especially of the steps by which
Colonel Lord Kimbolton and Captain Oliver Cromwell had risen
above their first ranks in the Parliamentary service.

After the Battle of Edgehill, the King, foiled in an attempted
march upon London, had retired to Oxford, which became thence-
forward his head- quarters; and through the winter of 1642-3, and
the early summer of 1643, the war resolved itself into what may be
called district-struggles, in which the Royalists and the Parlia-
mentarians ascertained each other's strength by fights and sieges in
the various parts of England, and, when any district had manifestly
declared for the one side or the other, tried to keep it fast to that
side by suppressing hostile risings within it, or repelling inroads
from other districts. Rupert in the Midlands, Lord Herbert on the
South- Welsh border, the Marquis of Hertford and Sir Ralph Hopton
in the South- W r estern counties, and the Marquis of Newcastle in the
North, were the Royalist chiefs most heard of; on the side of Par-
liament, Essex was still generalissimo, but with Sir W T illiam Waller
as his most active lieutenant in the South, Earl Stamford and others
in command in the South- West, and Lord Ferdinando Fairfax and
his son Sir Thomas Fairfax doing their best in the North. On the
whole, the military hero of the Parliament through those first few
months of the war was Sir William Waller. His brilliant successes,



xii HISTORICAL PREFACE.

first in the South-East and then in the West, contrasted favourably
with Essex's heavy strategy, and suggested to some the idea that
he might be the better commander-in-chief. For the rest all was
dubious; nay, surveying the map of England, and observing that
the King had a strong hold of the Midlands, with Wales behind
him as one unbroken magazine of Royalism, the South-West counties
as far as Cornwall almost wholly his, and the North tending to be
his, one might have pronounced the chances to be greatly in his
favour.

The strength of Parliament was mainly in the Eastern and South-
Eastern counties, nearest London ; and within that region the six
eastern counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Herts, and
Hunts, had acquired especial distinction. Although, as Mr. Bruce
mentions, the association of neighbouring counties into groups all
over the map was part of the policy of the Parliament, and five or
six such associations had sprung up in the winter of 1642-3 or early
in 1643, the six counties named (five only at first, but Hunts was
added) had come to be known as " The Associated Counties" par
excellence. This was owing in a great measure to the energy and
activity of Cromwell. As a native of the district, and as repre-
sentative in Parliament of one of its chief towns, he had naturally
begun his soldiering there, and proved there first, at the age of forty-
three, his inborn military genius. From the very first, in raising the
single Cambridgeshire horse-troop of which he was captain, he had pro-
ceeded instinctively on his famous principle of selecting " men with
a spirit for the business," men like-minded religiously with himself;
and gradually, after having himself learnt his drill, and drilled his
first troop, he had applied the same principle with greater and
greater confidence in recuiting that troop, and in raising others.
Accordingly, in March, 1643, he was no longer "Captain Crom-
well," but " Colonel Cromwell," at the head of a whole regiment of
the sort of men that were afterwards known as Cromwell's Iron-
sides. The nominal head of the Eastern Counties Association was
then Lord Grey of Wark ; but the soul of the Association was Colonel




f&" or Jt-i

TJNJVF.fc^



HISTORICAL PKE



Cromwell. The particulars of his soldiering and miscellaneous
activity from March to August, 1643 — mostly at Cambridge or else-
where within the Association, but with some important excursions
beyond it, and especially one into Lincolnshire tor the rescue of that
county from risings of its native Eoyalist elements, aided by " in-
falls " of Royalists from the north — will be gathered best from Mr.
Carlyle's narrative {Letters and Speeches of Cromwell, i. 103-132,
ed. 1857).

Meanwhile in other parts of England the cause of Parliament
had met with alarming disasters. The Fairfaxes had lost an im-
portant battle in the north; Sir William Waller, despatched into
the south-western counties as the likeliest man to retrieve former
failures there, had been twice beaten; the city of Bristol, in-
sufficiently defended, had surrendered to Rupert. Under the pres-
sure of these misfortunes the Parliament had resolved on what they
had for some time contemplated, and had sent envoys to Edinburgh
to solicit the armed aid of the Scots. Various changes of command
were at the same time made within England itself, and among them


1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Online LibraryDavid MassonThe quarrel between the Earl of Manchester and Oliver Cromwell: an episode of the English Civil War → online text (page 1 of 17)