User:PBS/Sandbox
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Copies
[edit]Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Unacknowledged internal copying and problems with citations and Talk:Louis André#Larkin, Church and State
- "Franzen, 397" was added to History of the Catholic Church by by Ambrosius007 at15:37, 9 August 2008 it was copied into into Anti-clericalism by Pseudo-Richard at 04:36, 30 April 2009 with the comment "Reorganizing" -- without long references
In the same edit:
- "Jedin 617": re-added several times into Red Terror (Spain) by Ambrosius007 at 14:21, 17 July 2008 copied into Anti-clericalism Pseudo-Richard at 04:36, 30 April 2009 with comment "Reorganizing" -- this copy no only added "Jedin 617" it also copied in "de la Cueva 1998 355" and "Beevor 2006 pp=???"
Also later edits:
- "Okey, 44" was added to Josephinism by BillFlanigenat at 10:00, 6 November 2006 copied into Anti-clericalism Student7 at 23:42, 19 March 2008 with comment "suppression of monasteries" -- Itincluded the footnotes with "Okey, 44 "Berenger, 102" "In Germany a..." but without the long citations
- "Williford p.218": Added into La Violencia by Mamalujo (talk | contribs | block) at 17:38, 27 September 2007 copied into Anti-clericalism by Pseudo-Richard at 06:23, 25 December 2009 with comment "Latin America: New section"
h2ttp://www.economist.com/node/283148 The people against the mullahs
Sockpuppet investigations
[edit]Members of Parliament
[edit]Devon (UK Parliament constituency)
1290-1640
[edit] |
Constituency created (1290)
| Year | First member | Second member |
|---|---|---|
| 1364 | John Carew | William Carew |
| 1369 | John Carew | William Carew |
| 1371 | Sir William Bonville | |
| 1376 | Sir William Bonville |
| Year | First member | Second member |
|---|---|---|
| 1377 (Oct) | Sir William Bonville | |
| 1378 | Sir William Bonville | |
| 1379 | Sir William Bonville | |
| 1379 | John Beaumont (d.1379/80)[1] | |
| 1380 | John Beaumont (d.1379/80)[1] | |
| 1380 (Nov) | Sir William Bonville | |
| 1381 | Sir William Bonville | |
| 1382 (May) | Sir William Bonville | |
| 1382 (Oct) | Sir William Bonville | |
| 1383 | Sir Philip Courtenay | |
| 1383 | Ivo FitzWarin | |
| 1384 (Apr) | Sir William Bonville | |
| 1385 | Sir John Stretch [2] | |
| 1386 | Sir Philip Courtenay | Sir John Stretch [3] |
| 1388 (Feb) | Sir Philip Courtenay | Sir John Prideaux [3] |
| 1388 (Sep) | Sir John Stretch | Sir John Grenville [3] |
| 1390 (Jan) | Sir Philip Courtenay | Sir James Chudleigh [3] |
| 1390 (Nov) | Sir James Chudleigh | John Prescott [3] |
| 1391 | Sir James Chudleigh | Sir William Sturmy [3] |
| 1393 | Sir Philip Courtenay | Sir James Chudleigh [3] |
| 1394 | Sir John Grenville | Sir James Chudleigh [3] |
| 1395 | Sir Philip Courtenay | Sir Hugh Courtenay [3] |
| 1397 (Jan) | Sir William Bonville | Sir John Grenville [3] |
| 1397 (Sep) | Sir Hugh Courtenay | Sir William Bonville [3] |
| Year | First member | Second member |
|---|---|---|
| 1399 | Sir Philip Courtenay | John Stretch [3] |
| 1401 | Sir Philip Courtenay | Sir John Wadham [3] |
| 1402 | Sir William Bonville | Sir John Grenville [3] |
| 1404 (Jan) | Sir Thomas Pomeroy | Edmund Pyne [3] |
| 1404 (Oct) | Sir William Sturmy | Walter Reynell [3] |
| 1406 | Sir Hugh Luttrell | Sir Thomas Pomeroy [3] |
| 1407 | Sir Hugh Luttrell | Robert Cary [3] |
| 1410 | Sir Thomas Pomeroy | Robert Cary [3] |
| 1411 | Edmund Pyne | Robert Cary [3] |
| Year | First member | Second member |
|---|---|---|
| 1413 (Feb) | ||
| 1413 (May) | Sir Thomas Pomeroy | Robert Cary [3] |
| 1414 (Apr) | John St. Aubyn | Robert Cary [3] |
| 1414 (Nov) | Richard Hankford | John Arundell [3] |
| 1415 | ||
| 1416 (Mar) | Richard Hankford | Robert Cary [3] |
| 1416 (Oct) | ||
| 1417 | John Cole | Robert Cary [3] |
| 1419 | Edward Pomeroy | Robert Cary [3] |
| 1420 | Sir Robert Chalons | Thomas Archdeacon [3] |
| 1421 (May) | Sir Hugh Courtenay | Robert Cary [3] |
| 1421 (Dec) | John Copplestone | Henry Fortescue [3] |
| No | Year | First member | Second member |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 1422 | William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville | Robert Carry[4] |
| 2nd | 1423 | Richard Hankeford | John Cole[4] |
| 3rd | 1425 | William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville | Robert Carry[4] |
| 4th | 1426 | Robert Carry | John Chuddeligh[4] |
| 5th | 1427 | Philip Courtenay | William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville[4] |
| 6th | 1429 | ||
| 7th | 1430 | ||
| 8th | 1432 | James Chuddeleigh | John Hampfeild |
| 9th | 1433 | James Chuddeleigh | Richard Holland |
| 10th | 1435 | ||
| 11th | 1436 | ||
| 12th | 1439 | ||
| 13th | 1441 | John Coppleston | Nic. Bedeford |
| 14th | 1445 | ||
| 15th | 1446 | John Speke | Roger Champernoun |
| 16th | 1449 | ||
| 17th | 1449 | ||
| 18th | 1450 | ||
| 19th | 1453 | ||
| 20th | 1455 | Thomas Carminow | Robert Hill |
| 21st | 1459 | Thomas Wise | William Hinderston |
| 22nd | 1460 | ||
| 23rd | 1470 |
| Year | First member | Second member |
|---|---|---|
| 1491 | John Crocker |
| Year | First member | Second member |
|---|---|---|
| 1510–1523 | No names known[3] | |
| 1529 | Sir William Courtenay (d.1535) of Powderham, died Nov.1535 and repl. Jan 1536 by George Carew |
Sir Thomas Denys [3] |
| 1536 | ||
| 1539 | Sir Thomas Denys | Richard Pollard [3] |
| 1542 | Richard Pollard | ?Gawain Carew [3] |
| 1545 | ? | Sir Gawain Carew [3] |
| Year | First member | Second member |
|---|---|---|
| 1547 | Sir Gawain Carew | John Chichester [3] |
| 1553 (Mar) | Sir Peter Carew | John Fulford [3] |
| Year | First member | Second member |
|---|---|---|
| 1553 (Oct) | Sir Peter Carew | Sir Thomas Denys [3] |
| 1554 (Apr) | Sir John Chichester | John Prideaux [3] |
| 1554 (Nov) | James Bassett | James Courtenay [3] |
| 1555 | James Bassett | Robert Denys [3] |
| Year | First member | Second member |
|---|---|---|
| 1558 | James Bassett | George Kirkham [3] |
| 1559[3] | Sir Peter Carew | Sir John St Leger |
| 1563-1567[5] | John Chichester | Gawin Carew |
| 1571[5] | Sir John St Leger | Peter Edgcumbe |
| 1572-1583[5] | Arthur Bassett | |
| 1584-1585[5] | Walter Raleigh | William Courtenay |
| 1586-1587[5] | John Chudleigh | |
| 1588-1589[5] | William Courtenay | George Cary |
| 1593[5] | Sir Thomas Denys | Sir Edward Seymour, 1st Baronet |
| 1597-1598[5] | William Strode | Amias Bampfield |
| 1601[5] | William Courtenay | Sir Edward Seymour, 1st Baronet |
| Year | First member | Second member |
|---|---|---|
| 1604-1611[6] | Sir Edward Seymour, 1st Baronet | Thomas Ridgeway[7] |
| (from 1607)[6] | Sir John Acland | |
| 1614[6] | John Drake | Sir Edward Giles |
| 1621-1622[6] | Sir Edward Seymour, 2nd Baronet | |
| 1624-1625[6] | Sir William Strode |
| Year | First member | Second member |
|---|---|---|
| 1625[6] | Francis Fulford | Francis Courtenay |
| 1626[6] | John Drake | John Pole |
| 1628-1629[6] | John Bampfield | Sir Francis Drake, Bt[8] |
1640-1832
[edit]- Constituency abolished (1832)
Blank it
[edit]Notes on the commonwealth
[edit]1
- google search Major-General Tomlinson 1651
- 'House of Commons Journal Volume 7: 9 July 1653', Journal of the House of Commons: volume 7: 1651-1660 (1802), pp. 283. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=24202
Saturday, the 9th of July, 1653. Council of State.
2
- http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-29.htm Common wealth time line
3
- http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803105709339 Triers and Ejectors
4 http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/oliver-cromwell.htm On 20 April 1653, he led a body of musketeers to Westminster and forcibly expelled the Rump Parliament. His exact reasons for doing so are unclear; he may have come to believe that Parliament was planning to perpetuate itself. There were no plans for an alternative government in place and Cromwell made no attempt to take power himself.
The Rump Parliament was replaced by the Nominated Assembly, popularly known as "Barebone's Parliament", which first met in July 1653.
In December 1653 — less than six months after its inauguration — moderates manoeuvred to dissolve the Assembly and hand power over to Cromwell, whom they regarded as having granted it to them in the first place.
Oliver Cromwell's coat-of-armsHeaded by Major-General John Lambert, the Council of Officers proposed a new constitution. In discussions with the officers, Cromwell made it clear that he did not want to be made King.
5
Firth and Edmund Ludlow Instruments set up in secret.
6
Title The Cambridge modern history, Volume 5 The Cambridge modern history Compiled by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton Acton (Baron).) Publisher CUP Archive, 1934
History on how the 20th of April 1653 took place and a time line on how the Bearbones parliament was a compromise
7
Title English Constitutional Conflicts of the Seventeenth Century, 1603-1689 Author Joseph Robson Tanner Edition reprint Publisher CUP Archive, 1928 ISBN 0521065984, 9780521065986
Chapter The Parlaiment of Saints; The First Parliament of the Protectorate.
History and mention of the 13 members
8
- Google book search on "Thus was this important business that so highly concerned the nation, and in some measure all Europe"
- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VgPmAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA182&dq=%22Thus+was+this+imporant+business+that+so+highly+cocerned+the+nation,+and+in+some+measure+all+of+Europe%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JTZEUoKXMsGjhges0YD4Cg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Thus%20was%20this%20imporant%20business%20that%20so%20highly%20cocerned%20the%20nation%2C%20and%20in%20some%20measure%20all%20of%20Europe%22&f=false
Title Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, Esq. ...: With a Collection of Original Papers, Serving to Confirm and Illustrate Many Important Passages Contained in the Memoirs Author Edmund Ludlow Publisher A. Millar, 1751
p 181 ... The debate thus spun out, the house began to fill, so that Cromwel's party, despairing to carry their design by vote, broke off in an abrupt manner, saying, that it was not a time to debate, but to do something that might prevent those inconveniencies which they pretended did threaten them. Then Mr. Rouse, who was of the plot, descending from his chair, went out of the house, and with the rest of the cabal repaired to Whitehall, where they subscribed a writing, taking notice of the power with which the army had intrusted them, and of the sense they had of their own inability, to bring any thing to perfection for the good and settlement of the nation : and that therefore they resigned that power into the hands of Cromwel, from whom they had received it.
The other part of that assembly, who came with honest minds and sincere intentions to perform their duty and to serve their country, kept their places in the house, and would not quit them till they were removed by a guard of soldiers sent by Cromwel to that end. And it seems remarkable, that tho' this body of men had not a clear authority according to the national constitution, and were called together with a design of rendering them odious, as well as to scare the lawyers and clergy into a compliance with Cromwel j yet many being convinced of the rectitude of their intentions, were brought over daily to approve their actions. And as this treacherous and unworthy resignation of the power to Cromwel could not be carried by a vote in the house, so I have been informed that the major part of those who were members of that assembly could never be perfwaded to sign the paper for that resignation, tho' importuned to it by all politick and devilish arguments imaginable.
This convention, who derived all the authority they had from Cromwel, being dissolved, after they had driven the clergy and corrupt part of the lawyers into his net, as had been designed, all men were full of expectation what step he would take next to advance himself. And because all honest men who stood near the centre of his actions had lost all hopes of good from him, he began to court and cajole those that were at a distance, whom he hoped the more easily to surprize, as less acquainted with his treacherous designs. Amongst others, I received a message from him by one of my relations, to assure me of his friendship, and intentions to do as much for me as for any man..
After a few days, a council of field-officers was summoned, where major-general Lambert having rehearsed the several steps and degrees by which things had been brought to the present state wherein they were, and pressed the necessity incumbent upon the army to provide something in the room of what was lately taken away, presented to them a paper, intituled, " An instrument of government," which he read in his place. Some of the officers being convinced, that the contents of this instrument tended to the sacrificing all our labours to the lust and ambition of a single person, began to declare their unwillingness to concur in it. Eut they were interrupted by the major-general, and informed that it was not now to be disputed, Whether this should be the form of government or not, for that was already resolved, it having been under consideration for two months past : neither was it brought before them with any other intention, than to
p. 182
give them permission to offer any amendments they might think fit, with a promise that they should be taken into consideration. The council of officers perceiving to what terms they were restrained, proposed, that it might be declared in this instrument, that the general of the army should after this first time be held uncapable of being " protector j" (for that was the title given by this instrument to the chief magistrate, tho' some were said to have moved that it might be " king;") that none of the relations of the last protector mould be chosen at the next ensuing election j and that a general council of all the commission officers who were about the town should be summoned to consider thereof. To these propositions they could obtain no other answer, than that they should be offered to the general, which was the title they yet gave to Cromwel. At the next meeting of officers it was not thought fit to consult with them at all j but they were openly told by major-general Lambert, that the general would takecareofmanagingthecivil government; and then having required them to repair to their respective charges, where their troops and companies lay, that they might preserve the publick peace, he dismissed them.
Thus was this important business that so highly concerned the nation, and in some measure all Europe, in a clandestine manner carried on and huddled up by two or three persons ; for more there were not who were let into the secret of it, so that it may justly be called a work of darkness. This instrument appointed the legislative power to be in the representativeof the people and the protector; that a parliament should be chosen every three years, which should sit five months, if they thought fit, without any interruption: that their first meeting should be on the thirteenth of September next ensuing : that the members of whom the parliament was to consist, should be chosen by the people : that whatsoever they would have enacted, should be presented to the protector for his consent ; and that if he did not confirm it within twenty days after it was first tendered to him, it should have the force and obligation of a law; provided that it extended not to lessen the number or pay of the army, to punish any man on account of his conscience, or to make any alteration in the instrument of government j in all which a negative was reserved to the single person. It provided also, that all writs should issue out in the protector's name : that most of the magistrates should be appointed, and all honours conferred by him : that he mould have the power of the militia by sea and land : that. in the intervals of parliament, the nation should be governed by the protector and his council, who were not to exceed the number of one and twenty, nor to be under thirteen. The first persons nominated to be of his council were major-general Lambert, colonel Deftorough, Mr. Henry Lawrence, Sir Charles Wolsely, colonel William Sydenham, Mr. Francis Rouse, Philip viscount Lisle, colonel Philip Jones, colonel Montague, Mr. Richard Major, Walter Strickland, Esq; Sir Gilbert Pickering, majorgeneral Skippon, and Sir Anthony Asliley Cooper, in all fourteen. It was observed, that in the choice of this council, such were put in for the most part who had been principal instruments in the interruption of the late assembly, and leading men in the resignation of that power into the hands of Cromwel j and because nothing of honour or conscience could be presumed to oblige them to be faithful to Cromwel and his government, tho' they took an oath to that purpose, he as a publick robber having possessed himself of the purse of the nation, distributed a thousand pounds a year to each of his council. He also established a commission for the viewing and taking care of all forests, fees, and lands belonging
9
Title The Constitutional Experiments of the Commonwealth Publisher CUP Archive
Note the name of the book this page is a history including the naming of the 13
10
List of regiments of the New Model Army
[edit]- Peacock, E., ed. (1863), The army lists of the Roundheads and Cavaliers, 1642
- Sprigg, Joshua (1854) [1646], Anglia rediviva: England's recovery: being the history of the motions, actions, and successes of the army under the immediate conduct of Sir Thomas Fairfax, Oxford University Press, pp. 329–332
"From the perspective of a fragile peace which had returned by 1647, Joshua Sprigg wrote a history of
the New Model’s recent actions, in which he noted that the army’s victorious campaign of the
final year of the war, 1645-46, in effect had begun and ended in this area" (Gaunt, Peter (16 June 2013), Speech at the inauguration of the blue plaque on 'Cromwell House', 17 Mill Lane, Old Marston (PDF), Oxfordshire Blue Plaques Scheme {{citation}}: External link in |publisher=
- Dalton, Charles (1904), English army lists and commission registers, 1661-1714, vol. 1, London: Eyre & Sporttiswoode
List of regiments of the army or the Commonwealth and Protectorate
[edit]THE ARMY OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND
PROTECTORATE. I,
In accounts of the English army daring the Civil Wars there is a great gap which no one has attempted to fill. Sprigge's 'Anglia Rediviva' contains a list of the regiments and officers of the New Model army as they were in 1646; but there are no similar lists for the period of the Commonwealth and Protectorate. Mr. Dalton's admirably; edited
- Army Lists and Commission Registers of Charles II.
begins with the year 1661. Between 1646 and 1660, however, when the political importance of the army was greatest, lists are entirely lacking or extremely defective, and the State Papers, though containing numerous notices of individual regiments and officers, do not supply the iabeence of a general table of officers and regiments like that given by Sprigge.
The great difficulty in tracing the history of the army during this period is that the regiments are liatinguished not by numbers, but simply by the names of their commanding officers. As their commanders were frequently changed, and as impotant persons, such as Fairfax, Cromwell, and Lambert, frequently commanded several regiments, possibility of confusion is very great. The necessary preliminary to a detailed study of the army is to ascertain the sequence of regimental commanders ; and the list which follows was constructed with that object. It is based on the State Papers, Commons' Journals, newspapers, and on different MS. sources. It is intended to be supplemented by accounts of individual regiments, as occasion serves; and in tbose accounts the authorities for the statements made in this provisional list will be given. To add them to this list would swell it to too great a size.
It should also be noted that the present list only deals with the regiments included in Sprigge's list of the New Model. There were many other regiments raised later which will supply material for a supplementary list:
- The Foot.
1. Sir Thomas Fairfax, 1645 ; Oliver Cromwell, June, 1650 ; William Goffe, 1651 ; Edmund Ludlow, May 28, 1659 ; Herbert Morley, July 9, 1659.
2. Philip Skippon, 1645 ; Alban Coxe, 1649 ; Richard Ashfield, 1651-60.
3. Sir Hardress Waller, 1645; in 1650 five companies went to Ireland with Waller, and were made up to a complete regiment. The five companies who stayed behind were formed into another regiment under John Clarke and sent to Ireland in 1651.
4. Robert Hammond, 1645 ; Isaac Ewer, 1648. The regiment went to Ireland in Aug., 1649.
5. Barley, 1645; Thomas Pride, 1647; Richard Mosse, 1659-60.
6. Edward Montagu, 1645 ; John Lambert, Jan., 1646; Sir William Constable, Dec., 1648; John Biscoe, Oct., 1656 ; George Fleetwood, Feb. 1, 1660 ; Sir Henry Cholmley.
7. Lloyd, 1645 ; William Herbert, June,
1645 ; Robert Overton, 1647 ; George Fenwick, 1649 ; Timothy Wilkes, 1656 ; Thomas Hughes, 1660.
8. John Pickering, 1645 ; John Hewson, Dec., 1645. The regiment went to Ireland in Aug., 1649.
9. Richard Fortescue, 1645 ; John Barkstead, 1647. In 1651 the regiment was divided. A portion went to Scotland under Lieut. -Col. Ralph Cobbet, and was organized as a new regiment under his command. This was given by Monk in 1659 to Leonard Lydcott. The other portion stayed in England under Barkstead ; command was probably given to Thomas Fitch in July, 1659, and to George Twisleton, Feb., 1660.
10. Richard Ingoldsby, 1645 ; William Syden- ham, June 13, 1659 ; John Lenthall, Feb. 1, 1660.
11. Thomas Rainborowe, 1645 ; Richard Deane, Sept. or Dec., 1647. The regiment went to Ireland in Aug., 1649.
12. Weldon, 1645 ; Robert Lilburne, 1646 ;
Sir Arthur Haselrig, 1648 ; Thomas Fitch, 1653 (?) ; Henry Smith, July, 1659 ; Miles Mann, Nov. 1659.
402
NOTES AND QUERIES.
IV. Nov. 18, '93.
Horse.
1. Sir Thomas Fairfax, 1645 ; Oliver Cromwell, June, 1650 ; William Packer, June 30, 1659 ; Sir Arthur Haselrig, Jan. 12, 1660; Lord Faucon- berg, Feb. 25, 1660.
2. John Butler, 1645; Thomas Horton, 1647. The regiment went to Ireland in Aug., 1649, and on H or ton's death its command passed to Hierome Sankey.
3. Thomas Sheffield, 1645; Thomas Harrison, 1647 ; Henry Cromwell, 1654; Stephen Winthrop, 1656 ; Edward Montagu, Dec., 1657 ; Matthew Alured, Aug. 5, 1659 ; Edward Montagu, April, 1660.
4. Charles Fleetwood, 1645; Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, Jan. 11, 1660.
5. Edward Rossiter, 1645; Philip Twisleton, 1647 ; John Clobery, Nov., 1659.
6. Oliver Cromwell, 1645 ; John Desborough, Sept., 1649; Valentine Walton, Jan. 12, 3660 ; Charles Howard, Feb. 25, 1660.
7. Nathaniel Eich, 1645 ; Richard Ingoldsby, 1655 ; Nathaniel Rich, July 9, 1659 ; Richard Ingoldsby, Feb. 25, 1660.
8. Sir Robert Pye, 1645 ; Matthew Tomlinson, 1647 ; George Monck, 1654.
9. Edward Whalley, 1645 ; Robert Swallow, July 9, 1659 ; Thomas Saunders, Jan. 18, 1660.
10. Richard Graves, 1645 ; Adrian Scroope, 1647. In May, 1650, the regiment mutinied on being ordered to Ireland, and after the defeat of the mutineers at Burford, it seems to have been disbanded.
11. Henry Ireton, 1645. The regiment went to Ireland under Ireton's command in Aug., 1649.
12. The Dragoons, John Okey, 1615. This regiment developed into two regiments of dragoons and one of regular cavalry. 1. Five troops oi dragoons were sent to Ireland in 1649 under Daniel Abbott as colonel. 2. Four troops were taken in Nov., 1650, to form a regiment of regular cavalry under Okey. Okey's regiment passed in 1655 to Tobias Bridge, was given back to Okey on June 30
1659, and given by Monk to Col. Lydcott, Feb. 25
1660. 3. The troops of the original dragoon regi ment not used to form Okey's Horse, became, aboul 1651, Morgan's Dragoons, and were converted by Monk into regular cavalry about Nov., 1659.
C. H. FIRTH.
THE ARMY OP THE COMMONWEALTH AND PROTECTORATB,-II.
(Continued from 8th S. iv. 401-402.)
The regiments of the New Model, whose history was traced in the preceding paper, formed the nucleus of the standing army of the Commonwealth and Protectorate. To these a number of other regiments were subsequently added whose history it is attempted to trace in the present paper. Some of these regimens had originally been raised by local authorities. such as the Northern Association or the various county committees. Others been levied by the Government at the time of the Second Civil War, or for the service of Scotland or Ireland. The best regiments were incorporated in the standing army which thus rose to double its original numbers.[12]
A list of the several regiments in England and Scotland was laid before Parliament a few days after the battle of Worcester.[13] Taking this list as a basis and comparing it with Sprigge's list of the New Model Army the changes which had taken place in the composition of the army becomes apparent. Instead of twelve regiments of foot and twelve of horse, there are thirty regiments of foot and eighteen of horse.[12]
- Old regiments of foot
Comparing the list of 1646 with the list of 1661 appears that ten out of the thirty foot regiments of 1651 represented regiments of the New Model Army. Those regiments were the following:[12]
- (1) Goffe's regiment of foot,[a]
- (2) Ashfield's regiment of foot,
- (3) Waller's regiment of foot,
- (5) Pride's regiment of foot,
- (6) Constable's regiment of foot,
- (7) Fenwick's regiment of foot,
- (9) Cobbett's regiment of foot,
- (9) Barkstead's regiment of foot,
- (10) Iogoldsby's regiment of foot,
- (12) Fitch's regiment of foot.
- New regiments of foot
Of the twenty new regiments of foot in the 1651 list the following is a brief account:[12]
Lieutenant-General Cromwell's regiment of foot (raised in Lancashire in 1650) became in May, 1659, Lieutenant-General Fleetwood's; passed to Thomas Fitch, January 27, 1660, and to Thomas Sheffield, 23 April 1660.[12]
Major-General Lambert's regiment of foot (a Yorkshire regiment, originally raised by Colonel John Bright) passed to Lambert, July, 1650; to Charles Fleetwood, July, 1657; back to Lambert, May, 1659, to William Eyre, January 20, 1660; to Thomas Birch, 1660.[12]
Major-General Deane's regiment of foot (a Yorkshire regiment, raised about 1648 by Colonel John Maleverer) given to Deane in December 1650 (?); to Edward Salmon, 1653; to Arthur Evelyn, February 25, 1660; to the Earl of Cleveland, 1660.[12]
Colonel Charles Fairfax's regiment of foot (raised in Yorkshire in 1648). Fairfax retained command of it till the general disbanding of 1660.[12]
Colonel Sir Arthur Hesilrige's regiment of foot. This regiment was employed in garrisoning the fortresses on the northern border; given by the Protector to Charles Howard; restored to Hesilrige, July, 1659; given by Monk, first to John Mayer, then to Lord Widdrington, August, 1660.[12]
Major-General George Monk's regiment of foot (This regiment was raised in 1650, by taking five companies from Colonel Fenwick's and five from Hesilrige's).[14] It remained under Monk's command and was eventually subsumed into the Restoration army eventually becoming the Coldstream Guard.
Colonel Robert Overton's regiment of foot. Given to William Mitchell in 1655, when Overton was cashiered, and restored to Overton in July, 1669.[12]
Colonel William Daniel's regiment of foot. Raised in 1660; given to John Peirson, July, 1659, and by Monk in November 1659, to Yaxley Robson.[12]
Colonel Thomas Cooper's regiment of foot. Raised in 1650; passed to Roger Sawrey about 1658; and given by Monk to Major-General Thomas Morgan about December 1659.[12]
Colonel Thomas Reade's regiment of foot. Raised in 1650 by Edward Sexby; passed to Reade, July, 1651, when Sexby was cashiered, and remained under Reade's command till the general disbanding of 1660.[12]
Colonel Matthew Alured's regiment of foot. Raised in 1650 by George Gill; given to Alured 1651, when Gillwas cashiered; Alured was succeeded by Thomas Talbot in 1654; and Monk gave the command to John Hubblethorn about December 1659.[12]
Five regiments in the list of 1651 were ordered to be disbanded by vote of 2 October 1651: those of colonels Philip Jones, Syler, West, Gibbon, and Bennett, A new regiment of foot was raised under the command of Gibbon in 1656.[15]
Of the remaining foot regiments in the list of 1651, four were ordered to be partially disbanded, viz., those of Colonel James Heane (or Haynes), Colonel Duckenfield, Colonel Valentine Walton, and a half regiment of only four companies commanded by Robert Overton.[16]
- The Horse.
Out of the eighteen regiments of horse in the list of 1651, nine represent regiments of the New Model Army:
- (1) Cromwell's regiment of horse,[a]
- (3) Harrison's regiment of horse,
- (4) Fleetwood's regiment of horse,
- (5) Twisleton's regiment of horse,
- (6) Desborongh's regiment of horse,
- (7) Rich's regiment of horse,
- (8) Thomlinson's regiment of horse,
- (9) Whalley's regiment of horse,
- (12) Okey's regiment of horse.
Of the nine new regiments:[16]
Major-General Lambert's regiment of horse. Raised in the Northern Association about 1648, and originally commanded by Hugh Bethell; passed to Lambert, 1649 (?); Lambert lost his command in 1657, and Cromwell gave the regiment to Lord Fauconberg, January 1658; restored to Lambert, May, 1659; given by Monk to Bethell again in January 1660.[16]
Colonel Thomas Saunders' regiment of horse. Raised in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire by Colonel Francis Thornhaugh about 1643; given to Thomas Saunders 1648, on the death of Thornhaugh; Saunders was deprived of his command in 1656, and the regiment, after being for a time commanded by GoflFe, was given to Richard Cromwell, January 1658; restored to Saunders in July, 1659; and given by Monk to Ralph Knight in January 1660.[16]
Colonel Robert Lilburne's regiment of horse. Raised in the northern counties before 1650; remained under Lilburne's command till 1660, wheu Monk gave the command of it to its major, George Smithson.[16]
Colonel James Berry regiment of horse. Originally Sir Arthur Hesilrige's regiment; given to Berry, 1651; remained under his command till January 1660, when he was replaced by Unton Croke.[16]
Colonel Francis Hacker's regiment of horse. Raised before 1649; remained under Hacker's command till the spring of 1660, when Monk appointed Lord Hawley in Hacker's place.[16]
Colonel Grosvenor's regiment of horse. This regiment appears in the list of the troops in Scotland in 1651, but I cannot trace its earlier or later history.[16]
Colonel Blundell's regiment of horse, Colonel Alured's regiment of horse, and Colonel Lydoott's regiment of horse, were raised for the Scottish campaign, were all disbanded in 1651.[16]
Of the Flanders regiments six appear in the Army List of 1659: Colonel Lockhart's regiment of horse, and five of foot, commanded by colonels Lockhart, Sir Bryce Cochrane, Roger Alsop, Henry Lillingsfeon, and Samuel Clarke.[16]
These lists are only given as approximately accurate. Writing in 1894 the historian C.H. Firth stated "It is sometimes extremely difficult to get the exact date of a change in the command of a regiment, [or] to find out precisely when it was raised".[16]
To complete this lists it will be necessary to supplement them by accounts of the regiments raised for the reconquest of Ireland, for the Jamaica expedition, and for the Flemish campaigns of 1657 and 1658. The locally raised Irish and Jamaica regiments will require separate treatment.[16]
- Notes
- ^ a b Beaumont, Edward T., The Beaumonts in History. A.D. 850-1850. Oxford, c.1929, (privately published), Chapter 5, pp.56-63, The Devonshire Family, p.62 (term given as 1376-80)
- ^ "STRETCH, Sir John (1341-90), of Pinhoe and Hempston Arundel (Little Hempston), Devon". History of Parliament Online. Retrieved 12 May 2013.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap "History of Parliament". Retrieved 2011-009-12.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - ^ a b c d e Willis 1715, p. 252.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i J. J. Alexander (1915), "Devon Country Members of Parliament, Part IV, The Tudor Period (1485-1603)", Rep. Trans. Devon. Ass. Advmt Sci., XLVII: 365–370
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k J. J. Alexander (1916), "Devon Country Members of Parliament, Part V, The Stuart Period (1603-1688)", Rep. Trans. Devon. Ass. Advmt Sci., XLVIII: 330–332
- ^ Appointed Treasurer in Ireland 1607
- ^ Youngest brother (1588-1637) of Francis Drake
- ^ Died March 1641
- ^ Died December 1647
- ^ Morice may not have taken his seat before being excluded in Pride's Purge
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Firth 1894, p. 161.
- ^ Firth 1894, p. 161 cites Commons' Journals 2 October 1651.
- ^ Firth 1894, p. 161 refers to Mackinnon's History of the Coldstream Guards
- ^ Firth 1894, pp. 161–162.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Firth 1894, p. 162.
- References
- Firth, C.H. (1894), Notes and Queries, eighth series, 5, John C Francies: 161–162 http://archive.org/details/s8notesqueries05londuoft
{{citation}}:|chapter=ignored (help); Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)
Irish Army
[edit]Cromwell's Regiments
Extended content
|
|---|
|
page 144 109). Somehow he got transferred to Cromwell's regiment of foot. which he left about January, 1654. pamphleteer, writing after the Protector's death says:- 'His own regiment of Foot as Major Wiggan then major therof, and the rest of the officers very well know, did greatly scruple the oppose the signing of it: for after 3 or 4 hours debate between the then Protector (so called) Major-General Lambert and the said major about it, they could not perswade to the signing of it, upon which the Protestor and Major-General offered to make some alterations therein, the more easily to gain subscriptions from the aforesaid officers, but after calling them all together he caused the Instrument of Government to be read unto them saying "That should be their Magna Charta." and promising the he and his Council would do all the good things that had been desired by the good people, and in particular that "that ugly maintenance by Tythes " (for those were his very words) should be taken away before the 3rd of September following: hereupon and many other specious promises made unto them, all the aforesaid officers, except the said Major, subscribed the forementioned address without any alteration; but the Major and several of the officers and soldiers could by no means be perswaded to sign it.' (A true Catalogue of the Places in which R. Cromwell was proclaimed. (B.M. E.999 (12).) Obliged to resign his commission Wigan returned to his old occupation as a minister in Manchester, and succeeded finally in getting his stipend augmented by £100 a year ordered by the Protector's Council (Cal. S.P. Dom. 1656.7. p. 38; 1658.9 p. 265). Worsley, on the other hand, was an unswerving supporter of the Protectorate, He was member for Manchester in the Parliament of 1654 — the first member who ever represented it there. In October, 1055, he was one of the Major-Generals appointed by Cromwell, and had in his charge Lancashire, Cheshire and Staffordshire. In that capacity he did his work with enthusiasm. 'I plainly discern the finger of God going along with it, which is indeed no small encouragement to me.' he wrote to secretary Thurloe. His letters show the activity with which he taxed 'malignants,' ejected scandalous ministers, put into execution the laws against swearing and Sabbath-breaking, and suppressed the alehouses which he termed 'womb, that brings forth all manner of wickedness', (Thurloe Papers, iv. 149, 179, 187, 315, 322, 333. 340. 450). But coming up to London to attend a general meeting of the Major Generals, he died on June 12, 1G5G, at St. James's. Next day he was buried with great respect. 'In the evening was solemnised the funeral of Major General Worsley, which was performed with much honour, according to his merit; his hearse being attended by the rest of the Major-Generals, and divers other persons of honour and many coaches. Before him marched 4 regiments of foot, 10 troops of horse, and the life-guard of his Highness, drums being covered with mourning, pikes trailed on the ground, and trumpets mournfully sounding after the military manner usual in such solemnities, who conducted his body to Westminster Abbey, where it was interred near From other similar pages Sir William Constable in 144 Cromwell's Regiments. in the Chapel of Henry VET., three grand volleys being discharged at the interment |
Sir Charles H. Firth (1926) "Cromwell's regiments" The Journal of the Society of Army Historical research page 222 continued from page 146
223
Extended content
|
|---|
|
It is tolerably easy to trace the history of the regiments which served in England or Scotland, especially if they formed part of the New Model. In two papers printed in Notes and Queries for 18 November 1893, and 3 March 1894, I attempted to show in the first the succession of colonels in the various regiments of the New Model, and in the second the succession in the case of about 29 regiments formed later. The history of the Irish regiments is more difficult. In the case of the 24 English regiments comprised in the New Model Army the list of officers in 1645-6, printed at the end of Sprigg's Anglia Rediviva, and reprinted in Peacock's Army Lists of Roundheads and Cavaliers, furnishes a secure starting point. At the conclusion we have the lists of regiments and their officers approved by the Long Parliament in 1659, printed in the Commons' Journals (vol. vii.) or in the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, for 1659, and brought up to 1660 by the MS. list of Commissions granted by Monck, which is amongst the Clarke MSS. in Worcester College Library, Oxford. But for the Army which served under Cromwell's command in Ireland there are no such lists either at the beginning or the end of its life. Its history must be put together from fragmentary evidence of various kinds. There is, however, one useful list. That is a statement of the money paid to the different regiments in Ireland from July, 1649, to November, 1656. It is printed by Mr. Robert Dunlop in his Ireland under the Commonwealth, 1913. ii. 638-642. The list of officers to whom commissions were delivered in October, 1659, at p. 715 of the same work, elucidated by the report of the committee for the nomination of officers in 1659, in the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, for 1659-60 (p. 12), furnishes a second basis. Supplementing these by notices in newspapers, letters, and accounts it is possible to put together a meagre, but fairly accurate, history of the regiments which followed Cromwell to Ireland. On 15 March 1649, Cromwell was offered the command of the army which it was proposed to send to Ireland, and on 30 March he accepted. (Gardiner. Commonwealth and Protectorate, I. 24, 27; Cromwelliana pp. 52, 54.) He was to be Lord Lieutenant as well as commander-in- chief (Cal. S.P. Dom. 1049-50, p. xlv.). The expeditionary force was to consist of 12,000 men, and it was to include a regiment of horse and a regiment of foot, of which he was to be colonel, as well as a life-guard. The object of this paper is to trace the history of those regiments. When Cromwell returned to England at the end of May. 1650, they stayed in Ireland, and he continued throughout the Protectorate to be their nominal colonel. The life-guard also remained in Ireland, becoming the personal guard of successive governors or commanders-in-chief. The corporate existence of these different formations ended at the Restoration, but many privates continued to serve in the ranks of the reorganised army, and many officers acquired estates and founded families in Ireland. The regiment of horse was a new one, specially raised for this expedition. Four regiments of the standing army in England had been selected by lot to go to Ireland on 20 April 1049. Those of Ireton, Scroope, Horton, and Lambert were thus designed for the expedition, but about a fortnight later the revolt of the Levellers took place. It was headed by Colonel Scroope's regiment, and all Ireton's regiment except one troop joined in the mutiny. The result was that after the suppression of the revolt by Cromwell at Burford on 14 May 1649, Scroope's regiment was disbanded and Ireton's entirely reorganised, or, as it was termed, ' remoulded,' before it went to Ireland. Furthermore, as Lambert's regiment could not be spared from its post in the North of England, Morton's was the only one of the four selected regiments which actually went to Ireland. Hence it became necessary to supply the place of Lambert's and Scroope's regiments in the expeditionary force, and the expedient adopted was to raise a regiment of double the ordinary strength for the Lord-Lieutenant. ' Lieut. -Gen. Cromwell,' announced a newspaper, ' is to have a regiment of horse for Ireland consisting of 14 troops, and a Lieut. |
Location of the New Model Army regiments in 1649
[edit]- MacKinnon, Daniel (1833). Origin and services of the Coldstream guards. Vol. 1. London: R. Bentley. p. 9.
Reply GW
[edit]- http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=58659aa0-802a-23ad-49d7-3d18075e69c3&Issue_id=
- http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7
- http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
- http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/morano.html
Moeskirch
[edit]Prelude
[edit]In 1799, the French lost part of Switzerland and all their ground to the east of the Rhine. Their army of Italy had been defeated at Genoa. The Austrians occupied the plains of Piedmont and Montferrat; the French were cooped up on the other side of the Appenines, in the barren country between Genoa and the Var. Every army had been defeated, and they were without pay, clothes, spirit, or confidence in their officers.[1]
Austria raised two great armies, one of 120,000 men under Field-Marshal Kray, to defend the Rhine from General Moreau; it extended from its southern wing on the Tyrol to Basle, Kehl, and along the whole line of the Rhine as far north as Mentz.[1]
The other army of 140,000, men under Melas, was intended to take Genoa, Nice, and Toulon, where it was to he joined by 18,000 English aid 20,000 Neapolitans. To oppose this prodigious force Napoleon had only 40,000 men to guard the Appenines and heights of Genoa, and he posted 35,000 in the central position of the river Soane, so that it might support either the, army of the Rhine or that near Genoa, as occasion might require. The position of this latter corps: was admirable, for it threw the Austrians into great perplexity, as by marching to the right or left it gave Napoleon the means of making either the Rhine or Italy the principal objects of his attention.[1]
Europe now anticipated the annihilation of the French power; and had France continued under the Directory, the conquest of that country by the allies would have been certain, but the strategic planning of war the now rested with Napoleon Bonaparte, the recently appointed First Consult, and France's most gifted general.
Napoleon, in 1800, repaired all these disasters. He sent Augereau to oppose the Frederick, Duke of York in the Netherlands. General Brune was dispatched to meet the insurrection in La Vendee, and, concentrating all the armies from Switzerland and the Sambre and Meuse about Strasburgh, he increased them to 150,000 men, and gave the command General Moreau.[1]
Napoleon saw that Austria had committed a great error in making Italy the principal object of attack, for the campaign would depend upon the operations upon the Rhine. Remaining at Paris, Napoleon sent orders to General Moreau, to throw the whole of his army simultaneously over to the other side of the Rhine at Schaffhausen, to take the Austrians in their rear at Basle, and, by moving in the line of Stockach, to take in the rear the whole of their corps between the right bank of the Rhine and the defiles of the Black Forest. Napoleon computed that in six or seven days Moreau would be at Ulra, and that all Swabia and Bavaria would be in his possession.[1]
However Moreau's was a general of the old school, and he was incapable of grasping such comprehensive schemes.[1][2] General Moreau sent General Dessolles to Paris, to submit a project to the Minister of War: following the routine of the campaigns of 1796 and 1797, he proposed to pass the Rhine at Mentz, Strasburg, and Basle. Napoleon Bonaparte, was much dissatisfied with the plan, and thought at first of going himself to head the army (he calculated that he should be under the walls of Vienna before the Austrian army of Italy could reach Nice; but the internal agitations of the French Republic prevented his leaving the capital and remaining at a great distance for so long a time). Moreau's project was modified, and he was authorised to take a middle course, which consisted in making his left pass the river at Neuf-Brisach, his centre at Basle, and his right above Schaffhausen. He was, above all, enjoined to have only one single line of operation; yet this last plan appeared too bold to him when he came to execute it, and he accordingly made some alterations.
Moreau's head-quarters were at Basle; his army was composed of four corps of infantry, a reserve of heavy cavalry, and two detached divisions, that is to say:
- Lieutenant-general Saint-Suzanne, commanding the left, the divisions of Souham, and Legrand;
- Lieutenant-general Saint-Cyr, commanding the centre, the divisions of Baraguay d'Hilliers and Ney;
- the General-in-chief commanding the reserve, the divisions of Delmas, Leclerc, and Richepanse;
- Lieutenant-general Lecourbe commanding the right, the divisions of Vandamme, Montrichard, and Lorge.
- General d'Hautpoult commanding the reserve of heavy cavalry;
- General Eble the artillery.
- The detached corps were commanded by Generals Colaud and Moncey, in Switzerland.
On 25 April, Sainte-Suzanne commanding the left, crossed the Rhine at Strasburg; Saint-Cyr with the centre, crossed it the same day at Brisach; General Moreau, at the head of the corps of reserve, crossed it on 27 April at Basle. The corps of Sainte-Suzanne overthrew a body of the enemy consisting of between 12,000 and 15,000 men, who occupied a position before Offenberg; Saint-Cyr entered Friburg without opposition from the enemy; thence he advanced to Saint Blaise (Sankt Blasien), where the reserve, which had passed at Basle, was already arrived. Richepanse remained at Saint Blaise; the two other divisions, re-ascending the right bank of the Rhine, advanced to the mouth of the river Alb. On 26 and 27 April the three divisions met on the river Wutach. On 28 April they took up a position at Neukirch; Saint-Cyr advanced from Saint Blaise up the Wutach to Stühlingen.
Meanwhile Moreau felt the necessity of recalling Sainte-Suzanne, who was to pass at Kehl on 27 April, and of making him come by the east bank of the Rhine to Vieux-Brisach, recrossed the river, and form a second line to the corps of Saint-Cyr: he marched upon Friburg, crossed the Val d'Enfer (Höllental), and took up a position at Titisee-Neustadt.
Such were the positions of the reserve, of the centre, and of the left of the French, when the right, under Lecourbe, passed the Rhine near Stein, on the 1 May, scarcely meeting with any impediment, and marched against Fort Hohentwoel Hohentwoel, which capitulated. It was lined with eighty pieces of cannon. Thus, in five days from the opening of the campaign, Lecourbe was ready to begin operations. On 2 May the French army remained inactive in its positions, where it occupied a line of about 80 kilometres (50 mi), sloping towards the Danube, from Fort Hohentwoel to Neustadt,[3]
This pause allowed Field-marshal Kray time to assemble his troops. On 2 May, he occupied a position with 45,000 men before the little town of Engen, having on his left at Stockach, 34 kilometres (21 mi), the Prince de Vaudemont, with a corps of 12,000 men, which connected his position of Engen with Lake Constance, guarded his magazines, and secured his retreat upon Moeskirch.
On the 1st of May the French captured Fort Hohentwoel with eighty pieces of cannon, but Moreau's inactivity gave Field Marshal Kray time to assemble in line with his left at Stockach, and his centre at Engen, and which occasioned the battle of Hohenhoven, won by Moreau, the Austrians losing 11,000 and the French 7,000 men. The battles of Moeskirch, Biberacb, and Memmingen, were successively gained; and on the 12th of May the French were maneuvering before llui. But it appears that Moreau had lost many fine opportunities of completely ruining the Austrians, and so divided and detailed were his opperations that, after some unskilful manoeuvres and disastrous fighting before Ulm, he found himself with five of his divisions on the right and six on the left of the Danube, and his troops scattered ever a line of fourteen leagues in length. It is useless to trace the minutiae of the campaign, but suffice it to say, that Moreau with his vastly superior force, in spite of his irresolution, his tardiness, and his insulated movements, gained possession of Ulm and Munich, and compelled the Austrians to sign an armistice on the 1Mb of Jaly, 1800.
Battle
[edit]On 3 of May, at daybreak, Lecourbe, with his three divisions, advanced on Stockach; Moreau, with the three divisions of the reserve, on Engen; Saint-Cyr and SainteSuzanne, being too distant from the field of battle, could not reach it in time. Lecourbe's corps marched in three columns; Vandamme, on the right, turned Stockach; Montrichard, in the centre, entered the city in charging time; General Lorge, on the left, with one brigade cut off the communication between Stockach and Engen, and with his other seconded the attack of the reserve.
The Prince de Vaudemont was routed, and fell back precipitately on Moeskirch, leaving 3,000 prisoners, five pieces of cannon, and his colours, in the hands of Lecourbe. During this time the three divisions of reserve engaged the advanced guards of Field-marshal Kray, on one of the roads to Engen, at the approaches of the river Aach. The engagement quickly became warm at Wetterdingen and Mulhausen; but Moreau soon extended his line on the left: he ordered Richepanse to attack the little promontory of Hohenhoven, which attack was carried on the whole day without success. The three divisions of reserve, with the brigade of Lorge's division, and the reserve of heavy cavalry, formed a force of 40,000 men; which was something less than the number the enemy had before Engen. Victory inclined to the Austrians, when Kray was informed of the defeat of the Prince de Vaudemont, the great success of Lecourbe, and the arrival of SaintCyr at Hohenhoven: he beat a retreat.
SaintCyr had left Stuhlingen in the morning; he had re-ascended the right bank of the Wutach, and had been stopped at the defile of Zolhaus; at night his vanguard brigade, commanded by General Roussel, occupied the level of Hohenhoven. The loss was from 6,000 to 7,000 men on each side; the Austrians lost, also, 4,000 men who were made prisoners, and some pieces of cannon, most of them taken by Lecourbe at Stockach.
During 4 of May, Field-marshal Kray joined the Prince de Vaudemont at Moeskirch, and was joined by the division under Prince Ferdinand. He ordered his magazines to be evacuated, and prepared to move towards the Danube, which he wished to pass at the bridge of Sigmaringen. During this day, the French army made no movement; but General Lecourbe marched from Stockach upon Mceskirch; Saint-Cyr, who had not engaged at Engen, marched upon Liptingen; the three divisions of the reserve marched in a second line to support Lecourbe, who marched upon Mceskirch in three columns: Vandamme to the right upon Klosterwald; Montrichard in the centre, supported by the reserve of heavy cavalry; Lorge to the left, by Neuhausen: he thus covered a front more than two leagues in extent.
General Lecourbe discovered the vicinity of the enemy by meeting their light troops; the three divisions were soon engaged with the whole Austrian army, and exposed to great danger, when three divisions of the reserve came up in the afternoon to their support. The action became very warm, each army maintained its ground. Saint-Cyr might have decided the victory, but he did not arrive till night at Liptingen, where he was still 10 to 20 kilometres (6.2 to 12.4 mi) distant from the field of battle.
Aftermath
[edit]During the night Kray beat a retreat: half his troops had passed the Danube at Sigmaringen—the other half was on the right bank, when Saint Cyr, who had followed the right bank of the Danube, arrived on the 6 May, at the heights which command the river. If Moreau, on his side, had marched in pursuit of the enemy, a part of the Austrian army would have been destroyed; but Moreau did not know the value of time, he always passed the day after a battle in fatal indecision.
Some days after the battle of Moeskirch on 9 June the Austrian army suffered another defeat (at the smaller battles of Birberach and Memmingen) and retreated into their fortified camp at Ulm.
There was to be two more months of fighting and it appears that Moreau had lost many fine opportunities of completely ruining the Austrians, and so divided and detailed were his operations that, after some unskilful manoeuvres and disastrous fighting before Ulm, he found himself with five of his divisions on the right and six on the left of the Danube, and his troops scattered over a line of 80 kilometres (50 mi) in length. Moreau with his vastly superior force, in spite of his irresolution, his tardiness, and his insulated movements, gained possession of Ulm and Munich, and compelled the Austrians to sign an armistice at Pahrsdorf on 15 of July.[4] Under the terms of the armistice the three fortresses of Ingolstadt, Ulm, and Philipsburg were to remain blockaded, but to be daily supplied with provisions during the time fixed for the suspension of arms. The whole of the Tyrol remained in the power of Austria, and the line of demarcation passed by the Iser, to the foot of the Tyrolese mountains. From 24 of June Field-marshal Kray had proposed to observe the armistice concluded at Marengo, of which he had just received intelligence. The remainder of the month of July, and during the months of August, September, October,and part of November, the armies remained in presence of each other; but hostilities were not resumed until November.
Details
[edit]BATTLE OF BIBERACH.
Some days after the battle of Moeskirch, Lecourbe moved upon Wurzach, and sent his flankers to the foot of the mountains of the Tyrol. Saint-Cyr moved upon Buchau; Moreau, with the reserve, marched in a second line; Sainte-Suzanne continued his movement along the left bank of the Danube, and proceeded to Geissengen, separated from the army by the river. Kray had effected his retreat Avithout molestation. On the 7th, he was at Riedlingen, and having intelligence of the irregular movement of the right of the army upon the Tyrol, and of that of Sainte-Suzanne upon the left bank of the Danube, he passed the river at the bridge of Riedlingen, and directed his march behind Biberach, placing an advanced-guard of 10,000 men on the road to Buchau, and all his army behind the Riess— the left at Ochsenhausen, the right on the level of Mettenberg. On the 9th of May, Saint-Cyr set out from Buchau, attacked this
advanced-guard, which was separated from the main body by the Riess, drove it into the river, made 1500 prisoners, and took some cannon; he followed it on the right bank: two divisions of the reserve having come up during the action. Kray directed his march along the Iller; Lecourbe attacked him at Memmingen, took 1200 prisoners and some pieces of cannon, and forced him to take refuge in his camp at Ulm.
MANOEUVRES AND SKIRMISHES ROUND ULM.
From the 10th to the 12th of May, the French armies occupied the following positions: the right, under Lecourbe, had its head-quarters at Memmingen; the reserve and the centre along the Iller to the Danube; and General Sainte-Suzanne, on the left of the Danube, at a day's march from Ulm. The Austrian army was completely united in the intrenched camp of Ulm, excepting the corps of the Prince de Reuss, consisting of 20,000 men, which was in the Tyrol. Ulm had an enceinte with bastions; mount St. Michael, which commanded it, was defended by field fortifications, constructed with care and lined with a numerous artillery; on the right bank strong intrenchments protected two bridges; great magazines of forage, provisions, and military stores were collected there. The Austrian general might manoeuvre on both banks of the Danube, protecting at the same time Suabia and Bavaria, and covering Bohemia as well as Austria; he received recruits and provisions every day, and seemed determined to maintain himself in this central position, notwithstanding the wellknown inferiority of his forces and the checks he had received.
In order to displace him, Moreau resolved to advance, with his right in front. Lecourbe quitted Memmingen and drew near the Lech. The head-quarters were removed across the Gunt; Saint-Cyr, with the centre, followed in echelon along the Danube; Sainte-Suzanne approached Ulm by the left bank. The division of Legrand took up a position at Erbach on the Danube, two leagues from the place; the division of Souham, at the same distance, on the Blau. The two divisions thus covered a line of two leagues. Sainte-Suzanne had no bridge on the Danube; he faced, with his single corps, the whole army of Kray, who had contented himself with sending General Merfeld behind the Lech, and continued to occupy all the left bank of the Danube, from Ulm to the mouth of that river, with his forces, advancing his vanguard as far as the Augsburg road, where it skirmished with the flankers of the left of the French army.
On the 16th, at break of day, the Archduke Ferdinand debouched against General Legrand, as did another column against General Souham. The advanced posts of the two French divisions were soon forced to fall back, their communications were cut off, and the corps of these divisions were driven back two leagues; as they fell back, the distance which separated them kept increasing.
Sainte-Suzanne's division was penetrated; he ordered General Legrand to abandon the Danube, in order to approach Souham's division: this concentrative movement, which was advantageous in that point of view, was attended with the dreadful inconvenience of removing him farther from the army; but Saint-Cyr, on hearing the cannonade, fell back with his rearguard, and placed batteries on the right bank of the Danube, which played upon the road from Ulm to Erbach, and much perplexed the Archduke; he imagined the whole army was going to pass the river and cut him off*; he fell back upon Ulm. The loss of Sainte-Suzanne's corps, in killed and wounded, was considerable: it was, however, less than might have
Memoirs.—Vot.. I. 12
been expected from the false position in which he had been abandoned; the intrepidity of the troops, and the skill of the General, saved this corps from total destruction.
Moreau, astonished at this event, countermanded the march upon the Lech, ordered Saint-Cyr and Hautpoult to pass the Danube at Erbach to support Sainte-Suzanne, directed his own march upon the Iller, and recalled Lecourbe. Sainte-Suzanne passed the Blau, so that of the eleven divisions which composed his army, five were on the left, and six on the right bank of the Danube; in this position, encamped on both sides of the river, and occupying a line of fourteen leagues, he passed several days.
Was he to attack Kray on the left bank? or to repass the river to the right? He determined on the latter. Lecourbe returned to Landsberg, where he arrived on the 27th of May, and on the 28th to Augsburg, where he passed the Lech; Saint-Cyr moved on the Gunzt; Sainte-Suzanne passed to the right bank of the Danube, and took up a position on both sides of the Iller. The French army was posted in line with its left to the Danube, and its right to the Lech, occupying a line of twenty leagues. On the 24th of May, Field-marshal
Kray caused an advanced-guard to pass over to the right bank, which attacked both SainteSuzanne's divisions at the same time; the engagement was severe, it lasted the whole day; the loss on both sides was considerable; but in the evening the Austrians repassed the Danube.
When General Moreau received intelligence of what had taken place, he again changed his resolution; he stopped his movements, and drew near the Danube. Lecourbe for the second time abandoned the Lech. But on the 4th of June, Field-marshal Kray, having rallied part of his forces, passed the bridge of Ulm, and attacked the corps of Sainte-Suzanne which was led by Richepanse. SainteSuzanne was gone to take the command of the Mentz troops, which were posted on the Iller. Richepanse, surrounded by a superior force, fell back during the whole day; his situation became very critical, when General Grenier, who had succeeded Saint-Cyr when that general was sent from the army by Moreau, debouched with Ney's division by the bridge of Kellmuntz upon the Iller. The engagement recommenced; Moreau concentrated the whole of his force on the Iller; this was just what Kray wanted, who, being too weak to make head against the French army, wished to prevent its making progress, and to destroy it in partial engagements.
After having remained several days in this position, emboldened by the defensive posture of Kray, who remained in his intrenched camp without making any movement, Moreau for the third time resumed his project of attacking Bavaria; and appeared to prepare to pass the Lech.
Lecourbe again passed the Lech, and on the 10th, 11th, and 12 June, all the army drew towards that river. Thus a month after the battle of Biberach, the army was still in the same position; the time had been consumed in marches and countermarches, which had brought it into danger, and given rise to actions in which the French troops, who were inferior in number, had met with severe losses. The rear-guard of Lecourbe had lost 2000 men in evacuating Augsburg, at the battle of Schahmunchen. This hesitation had given much dissatisfaction to some of the generals of the army. Moreau had dismissed Saint-Cyr, whom he replaced by Grenier; he blamed the former general for the delays in his march to Engen, and particularly at Mceskirch, and for misconduct, in suffering the other divisions to be overpowered, when it was in his power to assist them; Saint-Cyr on his side, severely criticised the conduct of his General-inChief, and loudly declared his disapprobation of the manoeuvres which had taken place from the opening of the campaign. The despatches of Lecourbe contain many letters full of energy, and complaints of his delays, his indecisions, his hesitations, his orders and coeinter-orders, which at length determined the General-in-Chief to move to the left bank of the Danube, and to pass the river on the 19th and 20 June, after arriving upon it at the point of Ulm.
Lecourbe, with the right, advanced opposite Hochstett; Moreau, with the reserve, opposite Dilingen; Grenier, with the centre, opposite Guntzburg; and Richepanse, with the left, remained in observation upon the lller, opposite Ulm. On the li)th, at daybreak, Lecourbe repaired the bridge across the Danube at Blindheim, passed with his main body, and advanced with one division upon Schwoningen, descending two leagues towards Donawerth, and detached two other divisions towards Lauingen, reascending the Danube. Scarcely had he arrived at Schwoningen when the division was attacked by a brigade of 4000 men, commanded by General Devaux, who had his head-quarters at Donawerth. The action was sharp, but the brigade was defeated, leaving one-half of its number upon the field, and in the hands of the French. Shortly after this, the enemy attacked the division posted at Lauingen: after a very brisk engagement he was repulsed there also. Moreau, with the reserve, crossed at the bridge of Dilingen. Grenier was desirous of repairing the bridge at Guntzburg, but he was prevented from doing so by General Giulay; which compelled him to resort for a passage to the bridge of Dilingen. As soon as Kray learned that the passage was effected, he resolved to retire; which he did under the protection of a body of cavalry that he posted upon the Brenzt; but, during the days of the 20th, 21st, 22d, and 23d, the French army remained inactive. This was losing time of great value, and which if well employed might have been fatal to the enemy. The Austrian General availed himself of this error; he passed through Neresheim and Nordlingen, and arrived upon the Wernitz on the evening of the 23d. General Richepanse surrounded Ulm with his troops. The army commenced its pursuit of the Austrians too late, it succeeded only in
overtaking their rear-guard. The division of Decaen was directed on Munich; after a slight encounter with General Merfeld, it entered that capital.
Lecourbe passed again to the right bank of the Danube, and advanced upon Rain and Neuburg. Kray was in position, with 2,500 men, before the latter town, upon the right bank of the Danube. Montrichard, who ventured to attack him there, was smartly repulsed and compelled to faH back two leagues. Lecourbe renewed the battle with the division of Grandjean: the bravery of the troops and the energy of the General remedied an evil which might have been much greater. The enemy remained in possession of the field; but during the night they felt there was not time for them to gain the Lech, and that the rest of the French army was about to overwhelm them. They repassed the Danube, reached Ingolstadt, passed the river a second time, and removed their head-quarters to Landshut, behind the Iser. General Moreau entered Augsburg, and there established his head-quarters. He detached Leclerc's division upon Freysing, which entered the place after a very brisk action with the Austrian van-guard.
At this time Sainte-Suzanne left Mentz with two divisions united on that side, and entered Franconia, approaching the Danube.
Meanwhile, the Prince de Reuss still occupying Feldkirch, Fuessen, and all the debouches of the Tyrol, Lecourbe re-crossed the Lech with 20,000 men, and advanced in three columns, the left upon Scharnitz, the centre upon Fuessen, and the right upon Feldkirch. On the 14th of July Molitor entered the latter place; the enemy abandoned the intrenched camp to him. The Prince de Reuss withdrew himself behind the defiles and intrenchments which covered the Tyrol.
The Armistice of Pahrsdorf was concluded on the 15 July. The three fortresses of Ingolstadt, Ulm, and Philipsburg were to remain blockaded, but to be daily supplied with provisions during the time fixed for the suspension of arms. The whole of the Tyrol remained in the power of Austria, and the line of demarcation passed by the Iser, to the foot of the Tyrolese mountains. From the 24th of June Field-marshal Kray had proposed to observe the armistice concluded at Marengo, of which he had just received intelligence. The remainder of the month of July, and during the months of August, September, October, and part of November, the armies remained in presence of each other; and hostilities were not resumed until November. The Armistice of Pahrsdorf 15 July 1800 ran thus:
Notes
[edit]References
[edit]- Bonaparte, Napoleon (October 1823), "Extract from: Memoirs of the History of France, during the reign of Napoleon, dictated by the Emperor, at St. Helena, to General Gourgaud, his Aid-de-Camp. Octavo, pp. 404. London, 1823.", The European Magazine, and London Review, s 83-84, Philological Society of London: 356
- Gourgaud, Baron Gaspard, ed. (1823), Memoirs of the history of France during the reign of Napoleon, vol. 4 (Second ed.), H. Colburn and Company, pp. 167–184
More
[edit]Alison, Sir Archibald (1857), Epitome of Alison's History of Europe from the Commecement of the French Revolution in 1789 to ..., W. Blackwood & sons
http://archive.org/stream/epitomealisonsh00alisgoog/epitomealisonsh00alisgoog_djvu.txt
168 CAMPAIGN IN GERMAN Y. a. d. 1800
[edit]- II. Campaign in Germany and Italy — Armistices of Parsdorf and Alessandria,
279. In forming their plans for the campaign of 1800, the Aus- trians erroneously supposed that Italy was the decisive quarter ; and in calculating the forces likely to be brought against them, tfaey were ignorant or incredulous of the rapid change produced by the seizure of supreme power by the First Consul. Their plan was to assume the offensive in Italy, capture Genoa, and invade Provence ; while Buonaparte, on his side, aimed at liberating Italy by striking a blow at the Hereditary States in the heart of Germany. The command of the German army, however, was intrusted to Moreau, while Buonaparte in person was to direct the army of reserve on Italy — an arrangement rendered necessary by the unbounded confidence of the soldiers of the Rhine in their old commander, and hj the positive refusal of Moreau to accept a divided command.
280. The Archduke Charles, who had earnestly recommended the Aulic Council to take advantage of their triumphant position to make peace, had been superseded in the command in Germany by General Kray. Headquarters were at Donauschingen, and he had 110,000 men in all under his orders ; but the right and left wings, under Starray and the Prince of Reuss, were too widely separated from the main body — the former reaching to the Maine, the latter in the Tyrol. Moreau's whole force was nearly as numerous, but 28,000 were kept in reserve at BUle ; and the possession of the bridges of Kehl, New Brisach, and B&le, gave him the means of crossing the Rhine at pleasure. In pursuance of a plan concerted with Buonaparte, he commenced operations (April 25) by directing several divisions across the Rhine at various points, apparently against the Austrian right^ while the remainder of his columns were converging towards their magazines at Engen and Moeskirch. The manoeuvre com- pletely succeeded : the Imperial forces were concentrated for the defence of the right, while the corps of the Prince of Lorraine, forming the communication between their centre and left, was
A. D. 1800. COMBATS AROUND VUL 169
[edit]overwhelmed by Lecourbe, who seized Stockach with all its stores on the same day (May 2) on which the main body under Moreau gained a Tietory over Kray before Engen, after an obstinate battle lasting till late at night. A second engagement at Moes- kirch (May 4) terminated in a drawn battle, the corps of St Oyr not having reached the ground to turn the scale in favour of the French; but the Imperial general continued his retreat over the Danube, so vigorously pursued by the French, that Biberach was carried (May 9) before the magazines could be withdrawn : and two days later, the whole Austrian army, 80,000 foot and 12,000 horse was concentrated within the intrenched camp of Ulm.
281. The strength and extent of these celebrated lines (which covered both banks of the Danube), with the ample munitions stored in them, rendered a blockade impossible ; the attempt to pass them, either to the north or south, would have exposed Moreau to a flank attack; while his force was at the same time weakened by the necessity of detaching Moncey with 16,000 men to join Napoleon (the First Consul) in Italy. The situation of the French general was therefore extremely perplexing; and six weeks were spent in dislodging the enemy from this stronghold — a striking proof of the prophetic wisdom of the Archduke Charles in its formation. The first attempt (May 16) was defeated with great loss at Erbach, where the Austrian cavalry, under the Archduke Ferdinand, overwhelmed the isolated corps of Ste. Suzanne as it advanced on the left bank of the Danube; and a movement of the French on Augsburg, though they temporarily occupied that city and levied a contribution of £60,000, failed to shake the firmness of Eray, who gained an advantage (June 4) over the French left under Richepanse. Moreau's next plan was to pass the Danube below Ulm; and having, by the middle of June, concentrated great part of his army between the Austrians and Bavaria, and entered Augsburg a second time, he succeeded in crossing the river at Blindheim (19th), thus cutting off Kray's communications, and infiicted a severe defeat on Star- ray at Hochstedt. Kray, now leaving 10,000 men to garrison Ulm, successfully executed a circuitous forced march, with all his
170 ARMISTICE OF PARSDORF. a. d. 1800.
[edit]artillery, round the Republican position, and reached Nordlingen in safety (2dd); while the French, suddenly changing their route, entered Munich on the 28th, and almost surprised the Elector in his capital. This movement, which Kray arrived too late to impede, cut off the communications between the Austrian, main army and the Prince of Reuss in the Tyrol ; and Coire, Luciensteg, and Feldkirch were taken by the French corps of Lecourbe : but the truce concluded at Alessandria a month pre- vious was now (July 15) extended to the armies in Germany under the title of the Armistice of Parsdorf, and both parties, remained in occupation of their present positions.
282. But even these important events were eclipsed by those passing at the same time in Italy. The army occupying the Mari- time Alps had been reduced to the extremity of privation ; but it was speedily reinforced and re-equipped, and confidence was restored to the soldiers by the appointment of Massena to the command. The whole force, however, was on ? 28,000 men, against which 60,000 Austrians were put in motion early in April, directing all their efforts for the reduction of Genoa. This impor- tant city had been blockaded since the beginning of March by Lord Keith's fleet ; and its position, on the steep declivity where the Apennines descend into the sea, increased the labour of the defence, by making it necessary to include within the fortifica- tions the mountains to some distance in the rear, by which the city and inner works would otherwise be commanded. On the 6 April, General Melas made an attack in three columns on the French defensive positions, and was completely successful. On the right, Soult was driven from Montenotte, the scene of Buonaparte's first triumph ; while on the left, Suchet was entirely cut off from the main body, and thrown back towards France. The Austrian watch-fires crowned the heights in all directions round the city; and though they were driven from this vantage- ground (April 7) by a vigorous sortie of Massena, the French general could not succeed, by the most determined efforts, in reopening his communications with Suchet, and was at length (April 21) compelled to seek shelter within the walls of the city.
Reply 1399
[edit]- 1981 http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=iVVK-yrcTdUC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=Henry+IV+parliament+1399&source=bl&ots=YzEYmAM_1z&sig=I7tsR5PkMhfLso-wE9e8FXB9tcE&hl=en&ei=zrSfTObaOo2yvgOswcX8DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCTgy#v=onepage&q=Henry%20IV%20parliament%201399&f=false
- http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=QnDtohOe8-QC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&dq=Henry+IV+parliament+1399&source=bl&ots=NSHnWBAbHJ&sig=HbpORZgSYCNavWjMdct3EhT8dhc&hl=en&ei=YbGfTIG1IoGGvgONzrmgDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDoQ6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=Henry%20IV%20parliament%201399&f=false
- http://www.britannica.com/shakespeare/article-44818
- http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=HeBIThbFjtUC&pg=PA1164&lpg=PA1164&dq=Henry+IV+parliament+1399&source=bl&ots=9FW4vWq3aH&sig=Uvu4FSfOf-CBZ7qKbPD6fVY8Xoc&hl=en&ei=yrWfTKG8JIaMvQPw7ciDDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAjg8#v=onepage&q=Henry%20IV%20parliament%201399&f=false
Banneret
[edit]page 5 definition of an agitator.
Sir Edmund Verney was killed in the meele having defended the standard valiently and it is said killing sixteen of the enemy. Some sources say that the standard was ceased by either Lionel Copley (a gentlemen of Essex's body-guard), or and others that it was Colonel John Middleton. Copley passed the standard on to
- page 288 Hyde's account.
- After a desperate fight either Lionel Copley or Ensign Arthur Young of Constable's Regiment cut him down, but perhaps - as legend has it - not before his hand, which held the banner's pole, was hacked off when he refused to release the prize. His body was never found, but his hand was identified by his ring which had a miniature portrait of his king. This was returned to his family (http://www.battleofedgehill.org/edgehill-battle-stories/index.html)
- "Lose his life he did at Edgehill, where he fell by the hand of a gentleman of Essex's body-guard, Lionel Copley, as it is said" (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VJHRAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Lose+his+life+he+did+at+Edgehill,+where+he+fell+by+the+hand+of+a+gentleman+of+Essex%27s+body-guard,+Lionel+Copley,%22&dq=%22Lose+his+life+he+did+at+Edgehill,+where+he+fell+by+the+hand+of+a+gentleman+of+Essex%27s+body-guard,+Lionel+Copley,%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HvH-UM_NFOGr0AX914HIDA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA)
- Arthur Young states The trials of Charles the First: and of some of the regicides, J. Murray, 1832, p. 61
(it is said that Sir Edmund hand was severed from his arm and that his hand still gripped the staff when it was take)
severed an
and the standard was captured by
by Colonel John Middleton
- Roberts, Keith (2003), First Newbury 1643: The Turning Point, Campaign Series, vol. 116 (illustrated ed.), Osprey Publishing, p. 22, ISBN 9781841763330
- Verney, Frances Parthenope; Verney, Margaret Maria (Williams-Hay) (1892), Memoirs of the Verney family : Compiled from the letters and illustrated by the portraits at Claydon House, vol. 2, London: Longmans, Green, p. 115
- The Gentleman's magazine - Volume 156 - Page 33 "it was entrusted, by Copley, to one Chambers, secretary to the parliamentary general"
- Ludlow, Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, vol. 1, p. 49
- list of Numismatic Chronicles Numismatic Chronicle.
- Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain), The numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, vol. 15, p. 126
- Farquhar, Helen (1925), The Shrewsbury Medal :A Note upon Military Medals of the Mid-Seventeenth Century (PDF), BNJ, pp. 126–128
The Shrezezsbury Medal. 126
and the story is well known of the orange scarf worn by the men under the Parliamentary General, the Earl of Essex. It is worth repeating here and now, because it bears upon the medal granted on June 1, 1643, to Sir Robert Welch, or Walsh as he commonly spelt his own name, an Irish Officer, for rescuing the Royal
The Shrezezsbury Medal. 127
Standard at the Battle of Edgehill on October 23, I642.‘The story runs that the King’s Standard-bearer, Sir Edmund Verney, being borne down and killed by the enemy, the Standard was seized by Colonel Middleton, of Essex’s men, and given into the charge of Mr. Chambers, the General’s secretary. Two officers and a trooper of the Royalist Cavalry under Rupert’s command, discarding their own regimental symbols, tore the “ orange-tawny scarfs ” from some of the fallen enemy and, thus disguised, made their way through the ranks of their foes. Telling the secretary that “it was unfit a penman should have the honour to carry the Standard," Smith’ of Grandison’s Horse, or Welch of Wilmot’s contingent, seized it, and they galloped back to their own regiments carrying their trophy with them. Whether all three escaped history does not relate; the third horseman, whose name is reported as Chichleyf did not, we fear, live to reap the reward of the victory, for we do not hear of him again.
Smith later died of wounds received at Cheriton in I644, but Welch, who in I679 wrote a lamentably boastful memoir of himself, although he gives credit to Smith’s part in the affair, claimed to have been theactual rescuer of the King's Regimental Standard and also of two cannon and of Essex’s waggon. He presented his capture next day to Rupert, who in turn brought both officers to the King when(1) On the medal and warrant for making it, preserved at the College of Arms, the name is spelt " Welch,” and to avoid confusion I have adopted this spelling in agreement with llfedallic Illustrations of British History, vol. i, p. 302, No. I24. In the Grant-of-Arms, however, ratifying the above warrant under James II, in August, 1685, and also to be seen at the Herald's College, we find the change of the “ e ” to “ a "— “Wa1ch.” In Sir Robert's autobiography, "printed for the author in 1679," and entitled The Narrativc and True lllfl1L1fZSl set fort/1 by Sir Robert Walsh, Knight and Batt. [Bannerel], we notice the further substitution of "s " for “ c,“ and as " Walsh" he is mentioned by Clarendon. Yet another form is adopted in a pamphlet of I680, where it is stated that ” he calls himself Sir Robert Welsh." The spelling of those days was little regarded, but Sir Robert claimed to belong to a very ancient family of Walsh in Ireland. 2 ]ohn Smith, sometimes spelt “ Smythe," was the son of Sir Francis Smith and brother of the first Lord Carington. Most historians impute to Smith the actual recapture of the Standard. “ Britamticw Virlutis Imago, by E.W. [Edward Walsingham], PP- I3 and I4. Thomason Tracts, E, 53, ro.
1 On the medal and warrant for making it, preserved at the College of Arms, the name is spelt " Welch,” and to avoid confusion I have adopted this spelling in agree- ment with llfedallic Illustrations of British History, vol. i, p. 302, No. I24. In the Grant-of-Arms, however, ratifying the above warrant under james II, in August, 1685, and also to be seen at the Herald's College, we find the change of the “ e ” to “ a "— “Walch.” In Sir Robert's autobiography, "printed for the author in 1679," and entitled The N arrativc and True lllfl1L1fZSl set fort/1 by Sir Robert Walsh, Knight and Batt. [Bannerel], we notice the further substitution of "s " for “ c,“ and as " Walsh" he is mentioned by Clarendon. Yet another form is adopted in a pamphlet of I680, where it is stated that ” he calls himself Sir Robert Welsh." The spelling of those days was little regarded, but Sir Robert claimed to belong to a very ancient family of Walsh in Ireland. 2 ]ohn Smith, sometimes spelt “ Smythe," was the son of Sir Francis Smith and brother of the first Lord Carington. Most historians impute to Smith the actual recapture of the Standard. “ Britamticw Virlutis Imago, by E.W. [Edward Walsingham], PP- I3 and I4. Thomason Tracts, E, 53, ro.
128 The S/ircwsbury Medal.
Welch and Smith were both made knights bannerets as Sir Robert and Sir john, respectively. The gold medal ordered from Rawlins and afterwards presented to Welch and Smith was worn by both knights on a green ribbon.
It appears from the Memoir of Welch that it might be worn on green, blue or black; but of Smith, it is expressly stated by Bulstrode, that his medal was suspended from " a large green watered Ribband cross his shoulders?“ The medal has been identified by a careful in
MEDAL PRESENTED TO snz ROBERT WELCH.
(BY mun PERMISSION o1= THE xzovm. NUMISMATIC socnzrv.) (Numismatic Chronicle, vol. xv (I853), p. 80.) drawing of both sides on the Grant-of-Arms to Sir Robert Welch in the Herald's C01lege—M.S.I. 26, folio 90. It was figured in the Numismatic Chronicle, vol. xv, Ist series, in I853,’ and one or 1 Narrative and Mam:/est, final page; also Sir Richard Bulstrode’s Memoirs and Reflections, p. 83. 2 I have compared the plate in the N mnismalic Chronicle, here reproduced, by the courtesy of the Royal Numismatic Society, with the pen-and-ink sketch at the College of Arms. The copy is excellent, but the cross-hatching in the original is rather finer. .
The Shrewsbury Medal. I29 more specimens of the medal,‘ as it must have appeared, were then made, and gilt electrotypes exist, but no contemporary specimen has been so far discovered in its entirety.
OBVERSE or rm: MILITARY REWARD.
(IN THE BRITISH museum.)
(M edallic I lluslmtiom, vol. i, p. 302, No. I23. Probably ordered for the County of Salop.)
The Medal Room at the British Museum contains, it is true, a
shell, contemporaneously struck in thin silver of the obverse which
was specified in the College of Arms warrant as “ our own figure and
that of our dearest sonne." And there also, cast and chased in
silver-gilt, is an example wherein two pieces of the jugate busts’
design intended for the obverse have been soldered together back
to back. It seems likely that hastily struck clichés were either
intended to be combined with some specially designed reverse, like
that of the Royal Standard granted to Welch, or the die was meant to
produce solid umflzce medals on which some dedicatory words could
be engraved, as is implied by the document I am about to bring
before you.
It is said that Sir john Smith is represented in a. picture wearing his decoration, but although I have been privileged to examine the Welch Grant-of-Arms and the warrant for the medal at the College of Arms, I have not succeeded in discovering the whereabouts of the Smith portrait. This is the more regrettable, in ‘ Medallic lllnstmlians, vol. i, pp. 302-3, No. 124. K
I30 The Shrewsbury Medal.
that it is likely that he would be depicted wearing his medal with the side bearing the Standard towards the spectator, just as the picture of Sir Thomas Tyldesley is represented at the National Portrait Gallery wearing his medal on a chain, and showing the equestrian figure usually regarded as the reverse of the Edgehill medal, rather than the obverse portraying the King, in order to differentiate from other commoner medals with which Charles’s crowned head is more usually combined. Sir Thomas, who was killed in battle fighting for Prince Charles in I65I, had fought with distinction at Edgehill commanding a troop he had himself raised for the King.
THE BATTLE or EDGEHILL MEDAL.
(Medallic Illustrations, vol. i, p. 299, N o. rrg.) However, so rare is the Jugate portrait of Charles I and his son, which forms the obverse of the Welch and Smith medals, that it has always been a subject of doubt whether it was made solely for these two loyal followers of the King or was merely adapted to their use on the lines which I have suggested. It is a rough hurried piece of work far inferior to the Forlorn-Hope Medal ordered on May~ 18th, I643, which shows the King’s bust in high- relief three-quarter to right on the one side, combined with a charming profile to left, a portrait of the little Prince, adapted by Rawlins on a slightly smaller scale from a medallion which he had executed and signed at Oxford. Was the “ Military Reward,” as
The Shrewsbury Medal. I31
the Jugate portrait is called in M adallic Illustrations 0fB1msh History, p. 302, No. I23, given for other services than N o. I24, the rescue of the Standard P This is the question I hope to answer.
- Captain Smith of the Lord John Stewart's troop, seeing the standard captured, threw round him the orange scarf of a fallen Parliamentarian, and, riding in among the lines of his enemies, told the secretary that "it were shame that so honourble a trophy of war should be "borne by a penman". To which suggestion the credulous guardian of this honourable trophy consenting surrendered it to the disguised cavalier, who galloped back with it amain, and, before evening, received knighthood under its shadow.(Nugent-Grenville, George (1832), London: J. Murray, p. 298
{{citation}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Text "Some memorials of John Hampden, his party, and his times" ignored (help); Text "title" ignored (help))
- Then followed a brilliant personal fight for the royal standard, but the Puritan horseman Copley cut down Sir Edmund Verney, knight marshal of the King’s horse, and standard bearer, and secured the prize. The success of this attack was largely brought about by the ruse alluded to, where, “pretending to be friends,” they broke[Pg 27] in upon the King’s regiments. ... “The Royal standard was taken by Mr. Young, one of Sir William Constable’s ensigns, and delivered by Lord Essex to his own Secretary, Chambers, who rode by his side. Elated by the prize, the Secretary rode about, more proudly than wisely, waving it round his head. Whereupon in the confusion, one of the King’s officers, Captain Smith, of the Lord John Stewart’s troop, seeing the standard captured, threw round him the orange scarf of a fallen Parliamentarian, and riding in among the lines of his enemies, told the Secretary that ‘it were a shame that so honourable a trophy of war should be borne by a penman.’ To which suggestions the credulous guardian of this honourable trophy consenting, surrendered it to the disguised cavalier, who galloped back with it amain, and before evening received knighthood[4] under its shadow.” (Walford, Edwin (1904), Edge Hill: The Battle and Battlefield (2nd ed.), London: Castle, Lamb & Storr, p. 27)
The royal standard was captured at the battle of Edgehill, and the standard-bearer, Sir Edward Verney, killed. It was gallantly re-taken by Captain John Smith, who, putting an orange scarf over his shoulder, rode in amidst the enemy, and snatched it from the hand of him who was bearing it, and galloped off with it, and laid it at the feet of his sovereign, who made a banneret of him that same evening. The King afterwards presented him with a gold medal with his profile on the obverse and the royal standard on the reverse, worn with a green ribbon.(Bulstrode, 83)
Robert Welch, an Irishman, assisted in this exploit, and the following order is registered in the Heralds’ College:—
| “ |
|
” |
Scott, James Sibbald David (1868), The British army: its origin, progress, and equipment, vol. 2, London: Cassell, Petter, and Galpin, pp. 448, 712
Sir John Smith, brother to Lord Carrington, and Commissary-General oT the Horse, was also mortally wounded. He belonged to an ancient Roman Catholic family, had seen much service in Flanders, and hath long been celebrated as an experienced cavalry officer. He had done many deeds of valour during the war, made a daring escape from his prison in Windsor Castle, and recovered the Royal Standard at the Battle of Edge-hill. This exploit is thus described by Mr. Warburton:
- "Then Captain Smith, an officer in Lord Bernard Stuart's ' Show troop,' resolved to rescue it or die ; there were none to second him but Robert Walsh, an Irishman, and one or two more, and the stoutest brigade of cavalry could scarcely penetrate that serried line of pikes, through which the musketeers still kept up a continuous fire. Smith and his comrades snatched some orange scarves, the hated badge of Essex, from the dead, and easily mingled in the confusion among the enemy ; so they approached the Lord General, whose secretary, Mr. Chambers, was waving the standard in triumph above his head. Smith rode up. and unceremoniously told him that a penman had no business to carry such a standard in a field like that. So saying, he snatched it from him and moved quietly away until he had a clear course before him to the hill; then galloping off with his precious prize, he restored it in triumph to the King. That evening he was knighted under its shadow, the first knight banneret made in England for one hundred years. He afterwards received a gold medal, with the King's portrait on one side and the banner on the reverse. ' He wore it by a green watered ribbon across his shoulders until his dying day.' "
- Godwin, George Nelson (1882), The civil war in Hampshire (1642-45) and the story of Basing House .., London: E. Stock, pp. 132, 133
--- Balfour's horse had met with some rude encounters, and returned to rally and form under shelter of their infantry; but the Royal foot-guards were scattered, and the Royal Standard flaunted over the heads of the exulting Roundheads. Then Captain Smith, an officer in Lord Bernard Stuart's "Show Troop," resolved to rescue it or die; there were none to second him but Robert Walsh, an Irishman, 1 and one or two more ; and the stoutest brigade of cavalry could scarcely penetrate that serried line of pikes, through which the musketeers still kept up a continuous fire. Smith and his comrades snatched some orange scarves, the hated badge of Essex, from the dead, and easily mingled in the confusion, among the enemy: so they approached the Lord-General, whose "secretary, Mr. Chambers," 2 was waving the standard in triumph above his head: Smith rode up, and unceremoniously told him that a penman had no business to carry such a standard in a field like that; so saying, he snatched it from him, and moved quietly away until he had a clear course before him to the hill : then galloping off with his precious prize, he restored it in triumph to the King, 3 and was knighted on the spot.
- 1 Bulstrode, 83.
- 2 Ludlow, i. 49.
- 3 That evening he was knighted under its shadow, the first knight banneret made in England for one hundred years. He afterwards received a golden medal with the King's portrait on one side, and the banner on the reverse, " he wore it by a green watered
ribbon across his shoulders until his dying day." That was not far off, poor fellow, he fell at " Cheriton fight" in 1646. Robert Walsh was also knighted, and wore a medal, but Sir Richard Bulstrode expresses a doubt whether it was given by the King. Bulstrode's Memoirs, 83.
- Warburton, Eliot, Memoirs of Prince Rupert, and the cavaliers : Including their private correspondence, now first published from the original MSS, vol. 2, London: R. Bentley, p. 27
Cromwell's raid
[edit]Russell, Michael (1838), Life of Oliver Cromwell, vol. 1, Harper & brothers, pp. 156–158
It was as late as the 27th of February, as has been remarked by an ingenious writer, that he was ordered by the parliament, which he had till then attended, to join Sir William Waller, that he might assist him in carrying relief to Melcombe, as well as prevent levies from being made in that neighbourhood for the service of the king: hence, had the Self-denying Ordinance and that for the new model been passed as soon as was expected, both these officers, before the date just mentioned, must have been deprived of their commands, and even rendered incapable of any similar appointment.<mall>* Brodie's History of the British Empire, vol. iii. p. 181.
But is it not very obvious that Cromwell could have easily removed the supposed disqualification by resigning his seat in parliament; an alternative of which the noble generals were deprived by their hereditary right to a place in the Upper House? Besides, pretexts could never have been wanting to secure the services of an officer so able and successful. In truth, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that an expedient was actually employed for this very purpose; or, at least, that an event
occurred which was used as an argument for continuing the conqueror of Marston-moor at the head of his faithful squadrons. "The next work," says Lord Hollis, " was how again to get in my friend Cromwell; for he was to have the power, Sir Thomas Fairfax only the name, of general: he to be the figure, the other the cipher. This was so gross and diametrically against the letter of the Selfdenying Ordinance, that it put them to some trouble how to bring it about. For this, Cromwell's soldiers, forsooth, must mutiny, and say they will have their Cromwell or they will not stir. Yet for these very men had Cromwell undertaken before, when, upon debate, the inconveniency was objected which might follow by discontenting the common soldiers, who would hardly be drawn to leave their old officers and go under new, he could say that his soldiers had learned to obey the parliament, to go or stay, fight or lay by the sword, on their command; which I know prevailed with a great many to give their vote with that ordinance. By this trick a little beginning was made towards the breach of it, which was soon made greater. For they caused a report to be spread that the king was bending with his forces towards the Isle of Ely, which none could save but Cromwell, who must be sent in all haste for that service; and an order of dispensation is made for a very few months, but with such protestations of that party that this was only for that exigency, and that for the world they would not have the ordinance impeached, as Mr. Solicitor said, and that if nobody would move for the calling him home at the expiration of that time, he would. But all this was to gull the House. Mr. Solicitor forgot his protestation, and before that was out there is another order for more months, and so renewed from time to time, that at last their great commander is riveted in the army, and so fast riveted, as, after all his orders of continuance were at an end, he would keep his Vol. I.—O
- 158 LIFE OF
command still, which he has done for seyeralmouths, and does yet, notwithstanding that ordinance, without any order at all of the House for it."*
That there was a mutiny in Cromwell's regiment on the occasion alluded to by Hollis is placed beyond all doubt, by an entry made in the Journal of the Commons on the 20th of March, 1645, where we find, "the humble petition of the soldiers of Lieutenant-general Cromwell, acknowledging the heinousness of their offence in refusing to march with Sir William Waller into the west." Then follows a resolution "that this House doth accept of the acknowledgment and submission of the said soldiers, and do admit them into their former good opinion and favour."
It must have been early in March that the lieutenant-general assumed the personal command of his horsemen in the west, as we find him immediately afterwards leading them against the enemy at different towns in Somerset, while Waller occupied the maritime parts of Dorset. In the course of April he returned towards the north; at which time Essex, Manchester, and the other generals having, in compliance with the Self-denying Ordinance, resigned their commissions, he is said to have repaired to Windsor, where Fairfax was quartered, to kiss the general's hand, and take leave of the army. At this critical moment, says the author of Anglia Rediviva, "in the morning, ere he was come forth of his chamber, those commands, than which he thought of nothing less, came to him from the committee of both kingdoms," in virtue of which he marched towards Worcester to intercept a convoy proceeding to Oxford, and to shut up the royalists within the walls of that city.
- See First English Civil War#Cromwell's raid (April 1645)
Having without difficulty, rid himself of the Clubmen, Rupert was eager to resume his march into the north. It is unlikely that he wished to join Montrose in Scotland, though Charles himself favoured that plan. However, he certainly intended to fight the Scottish army, more especially as after the Covenanter's defeat at the Scottish Battle of Inverlochy, the Scottish army in England had been called upon to detach a large force to deal with Montrose. But this time there was no Royalist army in the north to provide infantry and guns for a pitched battle. Rupert had perforce to wait near Hereford till the main body, and in particular the artillery train, could come from Oxford and join him.[1]
It was on the march of the artillery train to Hereford that the first operations of the New Model centred. The infantry was not yet ready to move, in spite of all Fairfax's and Skippon's efforts. It became necessary to send the cavalry, by itself, to prevent Rupert from gaining a start. Cromwell, then under Waller's command, had come to Windsor to resign his commission, as required by the Self-denying Ordinance. Instead, he was placed at the head of a brigade of his own old soldiers, with orders to stop the march of the artillery train.[1]
On 23 April 1645, Cromwell started from Watlington, north-westward. At dawn on the 24th, he routed a detachment of Royalist horse at Islip. On the same day, though he had no guns and only a few firearms in the whole force, he terrified the governor of Bletchingdon House into surrender. Riding thence to Witney, Cromwell won another cavalry fight at Bampton-in-the-Bush on the 27th, and attacked Faringdon House, though without success, on 29 April. From there, he marched at leisure to Newbury. He had done his work thoroughly. He had demoralised the Royalist cavalry, and, above all, had carried off every horse on the countryside. To all Rupert's entreaties, Charles could only reply that the guns could not be moved till the 7 May, and he even summoned Goring's cavalry from the west to make good his losses.[1]
- Cromwell, Oliver (1845). "LETTER X". In Carlyle, Thomas (ed.). Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches: including the supplement to the ...Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches: with elucidations Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches: with Elucidations by Thomas Carlyle.
Prince Rupert had withdrawn without fighting; was now at Worcester with a considerable force, and had sent 2,000 men across to Oxford, to convoy his Majesty with the artillery thither to him. The Committee of Both Kingdoms order the said convoy to be attacked.
The charge of this service they recommended particularly to General Cromwell, who looking on himself now as discharged of military employment by the New Ordinance, which was to take effect within few days, and to have no longer opportunity to serve his country in that way,—was, the night before, come to Windsor, from his service in the West, to kiss the General's hand and take leave of him: when, in the morning ere he was come forth of his chamber, those commands, than which he thought of nothing less in all the world, came to him from the Committee of Both Kingdoms
— Sprigge[a 1]
"The night before" must mean, to all appearance, the 22d of April. How Cromwell instantly took horse; plunged into Oxfordshire, and on the 24th, at Islip Bridge, attacked and routed this said Convoy; and the same day, "merely by dragoons" and fierce countenance, took Bletchington House, for which poor Colonel Francis Windebank was shot, so angry were they: how Cromwell, sending off the guns and stores to Abingdon, shot across westward to "Radcot Bridge" or "Bampton-in-the-Bush"; and on the 26th gained a new victory there; and on the whole made a rather brilliant sally of it:—all this is known from Clarendon, or more authentically from Rushworth (vi. 23, 4.); but only the concluding unsuccessful part of it has left any trace in autograph.
To the Governor of the Garrison in Farringdon.
Sir, 29th April, 1645.
I summon you to deliver into my hands the House wherein you are, and your Ammunition, with all things else there; together with your persons, to be disposed of as the Parliament shall appoint. Which if you refuse to do, you are to expect the utmost extremity of war. I rest,
Your servant,
Oliver Cromwell.[a 2]
This Governor, Roger Burgess, is not to be terrified with fierce countenance and mere dragoons; he refuses. Cromwell withdrew into Farringdon Town, and again summons.
To the same; same date:
To the Governor of the Garrison in Farringdon.
Sir, 29th April, 1645.
I understand by forty or fifty poor men whom you forced into your House, that you have many there whom you cannot arm, and who are not serviceable to you. If these men should perish by your means, it were great inhumanity surely. Honour and honesty require this, That though you be prodigal of your own lives, yet not to be so of theirs. If God give you into my hands, I will not spare a man of you, if you put me to a storm.
Oliver Cromwell.[a 2]
Roger Burgess, still unawed, refuses; Cromwell waits for infantry from Abingdon 'till 3 next morning,' then storms; lose fourteen men, with a captain taken prisoner;—and draws away, leaving Burgess to crow over him. The Army, which rose from Windsor yesterday, gets to Reading this day, and he must hasten thither.
- Gardener, S.R. (1889), History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649, vol. 2, Longmans, Green, pp. 155–158
Since his return from Bristol Rupert had been hanging about Gloucester and Hereford, pressing soldiers and preparing for vigorous action. It was known that Charles was making ready at Oxford to join his nephew, and there was no slight alarm at Westminster lest the enemy might be ready to take the field before the New Model was in a position to stir.(Gardener 1889, p. 155)
Naturally the thoughts of all who dreaded this result turned to the only soldier who had beaten Rupert in the field. It can hardly be doubted that some at least had already formed the intention of retaining Cromwell's services in that lieutenant-generalship [ map ] of the New Model for which he was so eminently qualified. For the present it was possible for Parliament to avail itself of his skill as a cavalry officer without in any way infringing upon the Self Denying Ordinance, as the forty days over which his command was extended after the passing of that measure had not yet expired.(Gardener 1889, pp. 156–157)
On April 20, therefore, Cromwell received orders to throw himself to the west of Oxford, stationing himself so as to interrupt the passage of the King's train of artillery which Maurice was about to convoy from Oxford to his brother at Hereford.[a 3]
In carrying out these instructions Cromwell was certain to do all possible damage to the enemy on the way. On the 23rd he was at Watlington at the head of 1,500 horse, whence pushing forwards in a north-westerly direction, he eagerly interrogated every passenger whom he met. He soon learnt that Maurice had not yet arrived at Oxford to take charge of the artillery, but that Earl of Northampton was quartered at Islip with a strong body of horse. He at once made for Islip, only to find that Northampton had been warned in time and had ridden off to a place of safety. The next morning, however, Northampton returned with reinforcements, but only to be routed with heavy loss (4 regiments of horse [1]).(Gardener 1889, p. 157)
A party of the defeated Royalists took refuge in Blechington House. The place was strongly fortified, and Cromwell, though he sent in a peremptory summons, was fully aware that, being without either foot or artillery, he was powerless to enforce the acceptance of his demand for surrender. The governor, young Windebank, a son of Charles's former Secretary of State, shaken, it is said, by the terrors of his young wife, and of a party of ladies from Oxford whom he was entertaining, lost heart and surrendered the fortress entrusted to his care. On his arrival at Oxford 25 April he was hurried before a council of war and condemned to death. This time Charles, often so merciful, was obdurate, and on May 3 the young officer was shot in the Castle garden. [a 4](Gardener 1889, pp. 157–158)
After this exploit Cromwell swept round Oxford, defeating Sir Henry Vaughan at Bampton, and attempting by sheer force of audacity to drive Farring Castle to surrender. The commander of the castle, unlike young Windebank, kept his head cool, and Cromwell not having the means at hand to suit the action to the word, was compelled to leave the achievement unaccomplished. Yet, in spite of this rebuff, his raid had been completely successful. By sweeping off all the draught horses in the country through which he passed he had rendered it impossible for Prince Maurice to remove the heavy guns from Oxford for some days to come. Charles's plan for an early opening of the campaign was entirely disarranged, and Cromwell, knowing that it was no longer necessary for him to expose himself to Rupert's attack by remaining between Oxford and Hereford, rode off towards Fairfax's army, prepared to hand over the command of the cavalry to his successor as soon as his own term of office was at an end.[2](Gardener 1889, p. 158)
Ever since March, Cromwell had been employed in his expedition to the west. On the 19th of April, he returned to the headquarters at Windsor in order to take leave of Fairfax, and to lay down his commission as the Self-Denying Ordinance required. Next morning, a letter came from the Committee of Both Kingdoms giving him fresh duty to do. The King was about to take the field and the "New Model" was not ready to fight him. Ever since the beginning of April, Fairfax had been labouring hard at the reorganisation of the army, but recruits were slow in coming in, and the obstructiveness of the Lords had thrown all preparations back. The most efficient part of the army and the readiest for immediate action was the brigade of cavalry Cromwell had brought back from the west, and with it he was now despatched to Oxfordshire to prevent the King from joining Prince Rupert. Charles lay at Oxford with part of the royal army, including the artillery train; Rupert with the rest, and with the bulk of the cavalry, was quartered about Hereford and Worcester.(Firth 1900, p. 123)
Cromwell set out at once, and at daybreak on April 24 he routed three regiments of the King's horse at Islip, killing two hundred and taking two hundred prisoners. Part of the fugitives took refuge in Blechington House, which Cromwell at once attacked and forced under threat of an assault, to surrender. By the terms granted, the garrison were allowed to retire to Oxford, but had to give up their horses and arms. "I did much doubt the storming of the house," wrote Cromwell in explanation, "it being strong and well manned, and I having few dragoons, and this not being my business." Two days later, at Bampton in the Bush, he intercepted a regiment of foot marching from Faringdon to Oxford, took a couple of hundred, and killed or scattered the rest. On the 29th, he appeared before Faringdon House, and made an attempt to storm it, but was repulsed with loss. In spite of this check, Cromwell had effected the work he was sent to do. The King's march was stopped. His cavalry was shattered by defeats, and his artillery could not be moved because Cromwell had swept up all the draught-horses in the country round. Charles was obliged to summon Goring's cavalry from the west to cover his junction with Rupert, and could not start till the 7th of May.(Firth 1900, pp. 123–124)
- Craik, George L. (1840), The Pictorial History of England: Being a History of the People as Well a History of the Kingdom, Knight and Company, p. 331
On the other side, Prince Rupert, advancing from Worcester to join the king at Oxford, defeated Colonel Massey, who tried to bar his passage with a part of the garrison of Gloucester, drawn out at Ledbury. Upon this reverse the committee of both kingdoms recommended that Oliver Cromwell should be employed pro tempore, in spite of the self-denying ordinance, and dispatched with part of the cavalry to guard the roads between Ledbury and Oxford.(Craik 1840, p. 331)
Cromwell, who was at head-quarters, as if to take leave of his friend Fairfax and the army, but who probably was not altogether unprepared, marched speedily from Windsor, and with great facility vanquished a part of the king's force at Islip-bridge in Oxfordshire, where he completely routed the queen's regiment, as it was called, and took their standard, which her majesty herself had presented. Three other regiments at the same time fled before Cromwell and his Ironsides, leaving many of their officers behind them. A portion of the fugitives took shelter in Bletchington House. Cromwell besieged them, and forced them to surrender.(Craik 1840, p. 331)
Another portion fled to Bampton Bush: Cromwell presently encompassed them also, defeated them, and took their leaders Vaughan and Littleton prisoners. Charles was so enraged against Colonel Windebank, who surrendered Bletchington House, that, in spite of prayers and remonstrances, he had him shot for cowardice.(Craik 1840, p. 331)
- Picton, James Allanson (1883). Oliver Cromwell: The Man and His Mission.
The order was received early on Wednesday. Oliver instantly fixed the rendezvous for his troops at Watlington, twenty miles away, in Oxfordsliire. All being arrived there, he sent on Major-General Browne to obtain information about the starting of the convoy, and himself, with the main force, followed more slowly to Wheatley Bridge, a distance of sixteen miles. Some " Oxford scholars,^' ])rol)ably taking their " constitutional/' were disagreeably surprised at falling in with a troop of grave, stern soldiers, who in a tone that forbade all trifling demanded information about the intended convoy. From what they said Cromwell gathered that the departure was imminent. From other sources he learned also that the Earl of Northampton's regiment was at Islip Bridge, a few miles to the north of Oxford. The day was already declining when he hurried off a forlorn hope to surprise this regiment. But when the main body came up, after a march in all of more than twenty-five miles in that day, it was found that through some mistake the Royalists had received warning, and were gone, no doubt to effect a concentration with others.
That night Cromwell and his troops remained at Islip, and the next morning, Thursday, April 24, the Royalists, now increased to three regiments, suddenly fell upon him. But the discipline of his men was superior to any surprise. Sir Thomas Fairfax's regiment, formerly Cromwell's own, was instantly in fighting order, and the rest drew out steadily. A single troop charged and broke a whole squadron of the enemy. The whole Royalist force was soon in full flight, vigorously pursued by Cromwell's men. Then the enemy separated, some flying to Oxford, others to Woodstock, and a considerable part to Bletchington, to the north of Islip. These last found refuge in a fortified house belonging to Sir Thomas Cogan, and kept by a garrison of two hundred men under Colonel Windebank, son of the unfortunate secretary. The son, destined to a worse fate than his father, was summoned by Cromwell to surrender, bargained and haggled till midnight, and then accepted permission to depart, leaving his arms, ammunition, and horses. Better for him if he had fought to the death ; for in a few days he was condemned as a coward and shot dead as a warning to others.
On the 25th of April, Cromwell sent a dispatch to the Derby House Committee, reporting how, in obedience to their command, he had in three days marched some fifty miles, fought a battle, scattered the enemy, captured a stronghold, and taken two hundred prisoners, besides nearly five hundred horses, arms, and ammunition. "This was the mercy of God", he wrote. And surely it is not a real insight into human nature which finds hypocrisy in his words. They are the words of a man astonished and grateful, but of one who never dreamed of boasting of his own energy and swiftness. "His mercy appears in this also", he adds, "that I did much doubt the storming of the house, it being strong and well manned, and I having few dragoons, and this being not my business — and yet we got it". On the day this dispatch was written, the spoils of victory were sent off to Aylesbury,* and Cromwell hastened off towards Radcott Bridge. At Bampton, near Witney, on the 26th, he fell in with Sir William Vaughan, commanding 350 men, every one of whom he captured or killed.
The unexpected success at Bletchington encouraged an attempt to frighten the Governor of Faringdon into surrender. But this Governor, Roger Burgess by name, was made of sterner stuff than poor Windebank, and Oliver was provoked to attempt a storm. He was, however, no better provided with the means for such an attack than he had been at Bletchington, and he had to give it up— one of the very few instances in which Cromwell attempted any military operation that he could not accomplish.
- Forster, John (1840), The Statesmen of the Commonwealth of England: With a Treatise on the Popular Progress in English History, Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, pp. 205–206
On the failure of the treaty of Uxbridge the campaign of 1645 had commenced in earnest, and Cromwell had already, in virtue of his first dispensation from the house of commons, and before he received his commission under Fairfax, performed some important services in it.
The first was his interception of a body of troops at Islip bridge proceeding from the west towards Oxford, with the intention, it was thought, of reinforcing the king, and of enabling him to march with his artillery against some of the garrisons held by the parliamentary forces on-the banks of the Severn. Having received secret intelligence of this, Cromwell at once put himself at the head of a few chosen squadrons, attacked and defeated the royalists with great slaughter, took several prisoners, and made himself master of a standard which the queen had recently presented to her own regiment.
Happening, too, at this time, to be in the neighbourhood of Blessingdon House, then a fortified place commanded by colonel Windebank, Cromwell suddenly made an assault upon it while a number of ladies were within its walls on a visit to the governor's young wife. The terror of the women cempelled the colonel to listen to terms, and finally to surrender the garrison; for which imbecility he was soon afterwards tried by a court martial at Oxford, and condemned to be shot.
Nor was the energetic soldier less successful in a skirmish with sir William Vaughan in the same vicinity, whom, with the greater part of his infantry, he is reported to have taken prisoner. In truth, wherever he led the way, victory followed. A reverse his regiment suffered about this time, was suffered in his absence. He had temporarily left his command on a mission of some importance, when Goring, ordered to that service by the king, executed a sudden and masterly movement against a portion of his troops, fell upon them while crossing the Isis, near Woodstock, and routed them with some loss and much confusion. This enabled the king and Rupert to join their forces — and having done so, they marched in a northerly direction.
Cromwell suspected his design, and communicated with the house of commons. Orders were at once transmitted to the Scottish army, then before Carlisle. They , raised the siege, advanced to the south, intercepted Charles, and foiled his plan.
http://www.archive.org/stream/olivercromwellsl01cromuoft#page/200/mode/2up
- Notes
- ^ Sprigge's Anglia Redlviva (London, 1647), p. 10. Sprigge was one of Fairfax's Chaplains; his Book, a rather ornate work, gives florid but authentic and sufficient account of this New Model Army in all its features and operations, by which "England" had "come alive again". A little sparing in dates; but correct where they are given. None of the old Books is better worth reprinting.—For some glimmer of notice concerning Joshua Sprigge himself, see Wood Nat Fiennes,—and disbelieve altogether that Nat. Fiennes had anything to do with this Book.
- ^ a b Thomas Carlyle cites Rushworth vi 26
- ^ Gardener 1889, p. 157 citing The Com. of B. K. to Cromwell, April 20. Com, Letter Book.
- ^ Gardener 1889, p. 158 cites Cromwell to the Oom. of B. K. April 25 ; Cromwell to Fairfax, April 24 ; CarlyU, Letter XX V. and App. No. 5 ; Dugdale's Diary
- Pollard, Albert Frederick (1900). . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 62. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 162–166.
The second son, Francis, was admitted a student of Lincoln's Inn on 19 March 1632–3 (Reg. 1896, i. 220), entered the service of Thomas Wentworth, first earl of Strafford (Strafford Letters, i. 256, 361–2, 369, 416), was made usher of the chamber to Prince Charles (ib. ii. 167), became a colonel in the royalist army, and was appointed governor of Bletchingdon House, near Oxford. This he surrendered at the first summons to the parliamentary forces in April 1645, and was consequently tried by a royalist court-martial and shot. He was married, and left a daughter Frances (Carte, Original Letters, i. 84; Dodd, iii. 59; Notes and Queries, 8th ser. i. 150; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1661–2, p. 631).(Pollard 1900, p. 165)
Colonel Francis Windebank, admitted a student of Lincolns Inn 19 ...near Oxford, a stronghold which however he surrendered to Cromwell without firing a shot, and he was thereupon ... []
Major Francis Windebank, who, after distinguishing himself at Cirencester and Cheriton, was shot in 1645 for surrendering Bletchingdon (Toynbee, Margaret; Young, Peter (1 January 1973), Strangers in Oxford: a side light on the first Civil War, 1642-1646, Phillimore, p. 25, ISBN 978-0-85033-035-9}} and *Manganiello, Stephen C. (2004), [https://books.google.com/books?id=an-eXXA3DBMC&pg=PA64 The Concise Encyclopedia of the Revolutions and Wars of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 1639-1660, Scarecrow Press, p. 64, ISBN 978-0-8108-5100-9
- Manganiello, Stephen C. (2004), The Concise Encyclopedia of the Revolutions and Wars of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 1639-1660, Scarecrow Press, p. 64, ISBN 978-0-8108-5100-9
- Notes and Queries, Oxford University Press, 1851, p. 373
Battle of Islip Bridge
[edit]- Battle of Islip, 2001 - 2018 The Battlefields Trust.
- Nash, Brian; Sargent, Patritia (1995), Battle of Islip Bridge (23rd April 1645) a small but significant event in the English Civil War" — no google book link
- Goddard, Edward Hungerford (1855), "Lord Pembroke's regiment", The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 2, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society: 153
- Islip Bridge, Oxfordshire. — Islip is a village lying between four and five miles to the northward of Oxford. The river Ray flows past the village, and joins the Cherwell a short distance below. Islip Bridge, which crosses the Ray, forms part of the main line of road communicating between the part of Oxfordshire lying within the Cherwell valley, from a few miles N. of the city of Oxford upwards, and the hilly country about Watlington, in the S.E. division of the county. A skirmish occurred at Islip Bridge on April 24, 1642, when a body of Royalists were attacked and routed by Cromwell, who had marched thither from 'Watlington, a small town lying at the foot of the Chiltern hills, crossing the river Thame at Wheatly Bridge, on his way. (Hughes, William (1863), The geography of British history, Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, & Green, p. 253)
- Headley, Joel Tyler (1848), "The affair at Islip Bridge", The Life of Oliver Cromwell, Baker & Scribner, p. 117, ISBN 9780795012396
- Cromwell, Oliver, "Letters XXV–XXVII", in Carlyle, Thomas (ed.), Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches with elucidations, pp. 201–203
- Letter XXV. Bletchington (pp. 203–205)
- XXVI To the Governor of the Garrison in Farringdon (summons 1; p. 205)
- XXVII Second summons (pp. 205–206)
Oxford Mutiny
[edit]H. Colburn, 1894 The United service magazine, Volume 1870, Issue 1 p. 470
At Oxford a Captain Thompson and 200 troopers of Reynold's regiment broke into open mutiny but were quickly suppressed by Reynolds himself. A far more formidable gathering of about 1,000 mutineers from the regiments of Scroop and Ireton appeared at Salisbury. Fairfax and Cromwell marched promptly to encounter them by Alton. The mutineers, seeking to join the disaffected regiments in Oxfordshire and Warwickshire, marched north. Prevented by Reynolds from crossing the Isis at Newbridge, they swam the river at Farringdon, and on the night of the 15th quartered at Burford. That day Fairfax and Cromwell marched nearly fifty miles. Passing through Andover they turned north in pursuit of the mutineers, and arrived near Burford in the evening, where they effected a junction with Reynolds. Giving man and horse a few hours for rest and food, at midnight the troops were re-assembled and the exits of the town blocked, they then entered the town and attacked the mutineers in their quarters. Utterly surprised, the latter made no resistance. Only a few shots were fired, and then the mutineers surrendered to the number of about 340 men. The others escaped in the darkness without their horses. Cornet Thompson, a brother of the Captain, and two corporals were shot, the remainder after a short detention at Devizes were pardoned and returned to their regiments. Captain Thompson, who had escaped when Reynolds dispersed his men, was shortly afterwards discovered by some soldiers in a wood, and, as he resisted capture, was shot. Thus was the mutiny quelled with a total loss of but five lives. Once again for the last time, in July, Lilburn succeeded in stirring up dissatisfaction in the Army, and on the 18th of that month a slight mutiny of Levellers occurred in Ingoldsby's regiment in Oxford, but it was easily suppressed by the officers of the regiment.
- History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1656, Volume 1 By Samuel Rawson Gardiner 49
- Samuel Rawson Gardiner History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1656 volume 1 p. 51
- April 17. — Regiments for Ireland chosen by lot
- Mutinous spirit in the army ....
- April 27. — Execution of Lockyer
- April 29. — Lockyer's funeral
- May 1. — Lilburne's new Agreement of the People
- Declaration of Scrope's regiment
- May 6. — England's Standard Advanced
- April 30. — Deans and Chapters abolished
- Danger of mutiny at Salisbury
- May 4. — Order for a debate on future elections
- May 9. — Cromwell addresses the soldiers in Hyd
- March of Fairfax and Cromwell
- May 14. — Mutiny suppressed at Burford
- End of the Levellers' rising ....
- May 19. — The Fairfaxian Creation at Oxford
Far more pressing was the danger from the Levellers. On 2 April a petition for the release of Lilburne and his associates was presented to Parliament, bearing, it is said, no less than 80,000 signatures. The petitioners urged that no one should be condemned except for some definite breach of the law.[3] Apparently in consequence of this petition Parliament, on April 11, ordered that the four prisoners should be prosecuted before the Upper Bench with as little delay as possible.[4] It was, however, easier to prosecute Lilburne than to silence him. On 16 April appeared a new manifesto, in which he and his comrades protested against the application of the term Levellers to themselves, especially if it was understood to include a desire for the "equalling of men's estates, and taking away of the proper right and title that every man has to what is his own".[5]
Even in his most impractical moments Lilburne had confined his demands to political reform, and his latest protest was doubtless called out by his knowledge that some men,[6] styling themselves the True Levellers, were now striking at the rights of property.[7] On April 16, the Council of State, hearing that about fifty of these new social reformers having assembled on St. George's Hill, near Oatlands, had proceeded to dig up and sow the waste land, ordered Fairfax to disperse them,[8] a task which was easily accomplished on the 19 April by two troops of horse.
On the 20th Everard and Winstanley, two of the principal diggers, were brought before Fairfax at Whitehall. They refused to remove their hats in the General's the presence,[9] saying that "he was but their fellow-creature." Everard explained that he had been [10] directed in a vision to dig and plough the earth. For the present, however, he and his followers intended to confine their operations to waste lands. Before long all men would voluntarily surrender their estates and agree to live in community, contenting themselves with food and clothing, money being wholly unnecessary.[11] In a manifesto which he and his comrades published on April 26, Everard was less reticent. All landlords, he declared, were thieves and murderers. It was now time for the English, the true Israel, to free themselves from the landlords, the descendants and representatives of the Norman conquerors. Labourers were exhorted to work for hire no longer, but to dig the waste places for their own benefit. To the rulers, the Pharaohs of the day, was added a word of warning. "Therefore, if thou wilt find mercy, let Israel go free. Break in pieces quickly the band of particular property, disown this oppressing murder, oppression and thievery of buying and selling of land, owning of landlords and paying of rents, and give thy free consent to make the earth a common treasury, without grumbling ; that the younger brethren may live comfortably upon earth, as well as the elder, that all men may enjoy the benefit of their creation".[12]
Too many Englishmen were interested in the social institutions of the country to allow this. visionary hope to attain the smallest chance of realisation.[13] An angry crowd, perhaps partly composed of freeholders who had right of common on St. George's Hill, dug up the seeds which had been sown.[14] The diggers were ill-treated by passing soldiers, as well as by the neighbours, and though the enterprise struggled on for some time, it ultimately came to nothing.[15]
Communism had no root in the England of the seventeenth[16] century. The political Levellers had followers enough. On April 18 another body of petitioners, asking for Lilburne's release, appeared at the bar of the House, but were dismissed with the sharp answer that the prisoners would have a legal trial, and that no one would be suffered to interfere with the course of justice.[17] On the 23rd a crowd of women attempted to do what the men had failed to accomplish, but they were forbidden even to enter the House, and were told to go home and wash their dishes.[18]
As long as the army maintained its discipline, such manifestations were of little moment. Hitherto Cromwell's assertion at Guildhall [19] that there was no disunion amongst the soldiers had been justified by the course of events. It was now, however, to be seen that it had been premature. On April 17, according to arrangement, lots were cast for the selection of regiments to go to Ireland. The lots fell on four regiments of horse, those of Ireton, Scrope, Horton, and Lambert; on four of foot, those of Eure, Cook, Deane, and Hewson, and upon five troops of dragoons. The soldiers were, however, informed that none who wished to remain behind would be compelled to go to Ireland, though, if they elected to stay in England, they would not be permitted to remain in the army. On this, some who had resolved not to leave England till the demands of the [20] Levellers had been granted — 300 in Hewson's regiment alone — threw down their arms. They were promptly cashiered and received each of them a small sum to carry them to their homes. That the disaffection was not general shown by the alacrity with which volunteers from regiments not selected for Irish service came forward to fill their places.[21]
Though the number of those who shared the political opinions of the Levellers was comparatively small, the discontent caused by the dismissal of those who refused to go to Ireland spread rapidly.[22] To them, as to every other soldier in the army, large arrears were still due, and as nothing had been said to the cashiered men about the payment of these arrears, it was taken for granted that they would be forfeited. A feeling grew up akin to that which had bound together all classes of soldiers in opposition to Parliament in 1647. If the Independents followed the example of the Presbyterians in dealing with the rising danger, it would go hard with the new Commonwealth.
The prevailing discontent first came to a head in Whalley's regiment, which received orders on April 24 to march from its quarters in Bishopsgate Street to a rendezvous at Mile End Green. In one of the troops a dispute about pay ended in some thirty of the soldiers seizing their colours and refusing to leave their quarters. On the following morning the mutineers resisted all the arguments of their officers, and it was not till Fairfax and Cromwell appeared on the scene that they submitted. Fifteen of their number were carried to Whitehall, where a court-martial, sitting on the 26th, condemned six of them to death and five to be cashiered after riding a wooden horse. Cromwell, however, pleaded for mercy, and in the end all were pardoned with the exception of Robert Lockyer, who was believed to have been the ringleader.<rem>End of 45 start of 46</ref>
Lockyer, though young in years, had fought gallantly through the whole of the war. He was a thoughtful, religious man, beloved by his comrades, who craved for the immediate establishment of liberty and democratic order. As such, he had stood up for the Agreement of the People on Corkbush Field, and he now entertained against his commanding officers a prejudice arising from other sources than the mere dispute about pay, which influenced natures less noble than his own. Unfortunately his friends, in petitioning for his release, rested their case on the ground that all sentences given by a court-martial were made illegal by the Petition of Right and the law of the land. Such a doctrine would have dissolved the army into chaos, and when Lilburne and Overton wrote to Fairfax, threatening him with the fate of Joab and Strafford, all chance of pardon was at an end. On the 27th, Lockyer, firmly believing himself to be a martyr to the cause of right and justice, was led up Ludgate Hill to the open space in front of St. Paul's, and there, after expostulating with the firing party for their obedience to their officers in a deed of murder, he was shot to death.[23]
Thousands of Londoners were found to sympathise with anyone who placed himself in opposition to the military authorities. On the 29th, Lockyer's funeral was made the occasion of a remarkable demonstration of civilian sentiment. Some thousands of men walked in procession, wearing, mixed with the customary black of mourning, the sea-green ribbons which had been first seen in London at Rainsborough's funeral,[24] and had since been adopted as the distinguishing mark of the Levellers, whose principles in the main coincided with those of the murdered Rainsborough. Lockyer's horse was led before his coffin, an honour usually reserved for officers of high rank. On the coffin itself were sprigs of rosemary dipped in blood, in the midst of which lay the dead man's sword. In the whole long [25] procession there was nothing to provoke opposition. Orderly and silently, save for the sound of trumpets announcing a soldier's funeral, the long column tramped through the streets, a body of women closing up the rear. At last the Army's Martyr, as his admirers styled him, was laid in a grave at Westminster.[26]
The thousands of law-abiding citizens who took part in the procession were assuredly not moved by any sympathy with mutineers. Their protest was against military interference with political affairs. "England," Lilbume had said when he was brought before the Council of State, "is a nation governed, bounded, and limited by laws and liberties". Lockyer was held to be a martyr, because it was suspected that those who had condemned him to death were of a contrary opinion. The tragedy of the situation lay in this, that those who attempted the suppression of the Levellers were as desirous as Lilburne could possibly be that England should be "governed, bounded, and limited by laws and liberties". It was not, however, in human nature that the men who had the sword in their hands should throw away the results of their toil, in the hope that at some future day laws and liberties might again revive under softer influences than could proceed from the armed ranks of soldiers.
As long as possibility of speech or writing remained Lilburne would be a thorn in the sides of the men whom he regarded as the worst of usurpers. On May 1 he issued yet another version of the Agreement of the People, in which he showed himself as distrustful of the existing Parliament as he had hitherto been of the executive government. The new representative body, he held, was to be annually elected by manhood suffrage; servants, persons in receipt of alms, and those who had fought on the King's side being alone excluded from voting. No one in receipt of public money nor any treasurer, receiver, or practising [27] lawyer might be elected. Members of any one Parliament were to be incapable of sitting in the next, which was to take the place of its predecessor with but one night's intermission. Each Parliament was to name a Committee of its members to carry on business in times of adjournment, and to bind it by suitable instructions. Not only was there to be complete religious liberty, but each parish was to choose its minister, on the understanding that he was to be maintained by voluntary offerings alone.[28]
On May 2 fresh bodies of petitioners urged Parliament to liberate the four prisoners and to provide for the speedy election of its successor.[29] Far more serious was the news that Scrope's regiment, which had advanced as far as Salisbury on its way to Ireland, had refused to leave England till the liberties of the country were secured. With the exception of two troops, Ireton's regiment concurred with that of Scrope, and the greater part of Reynolds's regiment quartered round Bristol was of the same opinion. A similar declaration was apprehended from those of Harrison and Skippon.[30]
Another centre of resistance was formed at Banbury, where, on May 6, a body of local forces rallied to a manifesto issued under the title of England's Standard Advanced. Its author was a certain William Thompson, who had formerly been a corporal, but who had been cashiered for taking part in a tavern broil. Having insisted on following the regiment from which he had been dismissed, he was condemned to death by a court-martial for provoking to [31] mutiny, though he had finally been pardoned by Fairfax.[32] A kind of military Lilburne, he inveighed loudly against the tyranny of courts-martial, and called for the execution of the new Lilburnian Agreement of the People.
The Banbury rising was not of long duration. Before the day was over Colonel Reynolds, at the head of three troops which had remained faithful out of his mutinous regiment, fell upon the mutineers. Thompson resisted to the uttermost, killing with his own hand a lieutenant who pressed him hard. The bulk of his followers, however, had little mind to fight against their old comrades, and finding himself about to be deserted, he took to flight, whilst about twenty of his men rode off to join Scrope's regiment at Salisbury.[33]
For some days Parliament had been striving to find means to satisfy the material demands of the soldiers. On April 30 an Act was passed for the abolition of Deans and Chapters, as the first step towards the appropriation of their estates.[34] Landed property, however, could not speedily be converted into money, and as the London citizens persisted in refusing a loan they were ordered, on May 8, to pay immediately £27,400 due for the arrears of former assessments.[35] By this time the case was urgent, as news had arrived that the discontent of the regiment at Salisbury was about to pass into actual mutiny.[36] Prompt measures were taken to avert the danger. Four hundred soldiers who could be trusted were sent to occupy the Tower,[37] and on the 9th Parliament ordered that no one should have access to Lilburne and his three companions except their wives, children, and servants. Three days later even this relaxation of their close imprisonment [38] was forbidden,[39] doubtless in order to make it impossible for them to send fresh manifestoes to the press. On the 9th, too, an Act was brought in for charging the soldiers' arrears on the estates of the late King and his family.[40] For the present at least nothing could be done to satisfy the more ideal aims of the soldiers. On May 4, indeed, the House had ordered that a debate on due elections and equal representation should be opened on the morrow; but when the morrow came the debate was postponed to the 9th, on which day the House might fairly plead that it was justified in deferring the consideration of such far-reaching changes to a season of greater tranquillity.[41]
It was for Fairfax and Cromwell to hasten the arrival of such a season. On the 9th they reviewed their own two regiments of horse in Hyde Park. Cromwell addressed the men, telling them that any who wished to leave the army were at liberty to do so with the assurance of ultimate payment of all that was due to them. He address. begged them not to be unmindful of the labours of the House or of its care for the provision of an adequate navy for the defence of the country. He further announced that it was resolved to find a way of paying the soldiers' arrears, and that Parliament intended to bring its sittings to a close, and to provide as soon as possible for the election of a more representative successor. Cromwell, in short asked the soldiers to trust Parliament to do all that could reasonably be required of it, and not to give the victory to the common enemy because a new constitution could not be brought into existence at a moment of imminent peril.[42] Language so eminently sensible could not fail of its effect with the men whom he had so often [43] led to victory. By his orders the sea-green ribbons which a few of them had placed in their hats were plucked out by force, and the two regiments professed themselves ready to obey all orders given by their officers.
With these two regiments of horse and three others of foot, making together upwards of 4,000 men, Fairfax and Cromwell March of set out ^ or Salisbury, quartering at Alton on the night Fairfax and f the nth. On the following morning Colonel Scrope, followed by about eighty other officers, made his appearance, bringing news that his own regiment Th!fy hear had absolutely refused obedience, and had been mutuiy°of n J ome d by four of Ire ton's troops, the whole of the sscropes mutineers being about 600 men. By the advice of a
regiment. ° J
Council of War, Fairfax ordered the issue of an appeal to the mutineers, which embodied the arguments used by Cromwell in Hyde Park, and which, to judge by its style, was composed by Cromwell himself. 1
On the 1 2 th Fairfax reached Andover. On the morning of the 13th he learned that the mutineers had removed to Marl- The reach Dorou gh> an d inferred that their object was to make A "dover. their way in the direction of Buckinghamshire, where Themuu- Harrison's regiment was quartered. Policy as well MaH- a as good feeling led him to desire to win back the boroug . soldiers without bloodshed, and he took the op- portunity of a letter addressed to him by their Agitators to send Fairfax Major White and three other officers to open com- munfcadons munications with them. " Let them know," cried with them. Cromwell to White as he rode off, " that though we have sent messengers to them we will not follow with force at their heels." 2
Before White could come up with the mutineers they had They pushed on to Wantage, whence wheeling to the right
Sunnhig- tne y ma de their way to Sunningwell, between Oxford wel1 - and Abingdon. 3 Here, as Fairfax had supposed,
1 A Declaration from his Excellency, E, 555, 6.
2 White's True Relation, E, 574, 26.
3 Bridger's narrative in A Perfect Summary, E, 530, 12. Fairfax, in
i6 4 9 A MUTINY SUPPRESSED 53
they hoped to have been met by Harrison's whole regiment. Only two troops, however, reached the rendezvous, the rest Fairfax at having perhaps been deterred by Fairfax's rapid Theaie. ma rch to Theale, from which place an easy road led to the valley of the Thames. Before the morning of the Ma ^ 14th was far spent Fairfax knew that any further Move- danger of the mutineers, who now numbered about
merits of , . . . . XT ,
the mmi- 1,200 men, combining with Harrison s regiment was at an end, as they had drawn back through Berkshire with the intention of rallying to their cause other regiments further west. To effect this object they marched to Newbridge, in the hope of crossing the Thames, but, finding Reynolds posted too strongly on it to be attacked with any chance of success, they made their way westwards on the southern side of the river till, in despair of finding another bridge, they swam across not far from Faringdon. They then made their way to Burford, where they imagined themselves safe for the night. '
Fairfax had started early in pursuit, and, after a splendid march, in which some of his cavalry covered forty-five miles, he ^ . r drew near to Burford at midnight. By his orders
Fairfax tn .
pursuit. Cromwell at once attacked the mutineers. Roused The attack from their sleep, and unprepared for a surprise, they on urfor . mac | e ^ ut snorr resistance. After a few shots nearly four hundred of them surrendered at discretion. The re- mainder were either quartered in the surrounding villages or escaped under cover of the night.' 2
On the following morning a court-martial was held, and two cornets, Denn and Thompson, a brother of the more notorious William Thompson, were, together with two corporals, con- his letter to the Speaker, in A Full Narrative, says they slept at Blagrove. There is a Blagrove Farm about a mile west of Sunningwell, which must be the place intended.
1 [The map probably represents the crossing as taking place too far to the West. According to Fairfax's letter in A Full Narrative the mutineers crossed by a ford about a mile beyond Newbridge. See also a review in The Guardian for Jan. 2, 1895.]
'-' A Full Narrative, E, 555, 27 ; A Declaration of the Proceedings of the Lord Gen. Fairfax, E, 556, 1 ; White's True Relation, E, 574, 6.
54 CROMWELL AND THE LEVELLERS chap. II.
demned to die, the remaining prisoners being posted on the leads of the church to witness the execution. Denn's May 15. penitence obtained his pardon at the last moment. martial 1 The other three were shot in the churchyard; rmnfneers the Thompson with some appearance of regret, the two executed. corporals, Church and Perkins, defiant to the last. Then Cromwell went into the church and, summoning the pri- soners before him, told them that though they had deserved deci- mation; the general had mercifully pardoned them all. For the Th time they were exiled to Devizes, but were ultimately
mainder sent re-embodied in the ranks. Colonel Eyre, who had given trouble at Corkbush Field, 1 being no longer a member of the army, was sent to Oxford to receive a civil trial.
William Thompson, who was still at large, having gathered round him two troops of horse, had broken into Northampton May 17. an d carried off money and arms. Reynolds, sent in wiih'am pursuit, came up with him in a wood near Welling- Thompson. borough. Thompson would take no quarter, and after killing two of his adversaries was shot dead by a corporal. 2
With Thompson's death, on the 17th, the rising of the Levellers was brought to an end. On the same day Fairfax, attended by his principal officers, visited the new Crom^eHat Oxford which was growing up upon the ruins of that Oxford. ]£ one wr jj cri h a( j received its mould from Laud. Th! Fair 9 -' ^n tne *9 tn tne now Puritan University gave to the faxian successful soldiers the highest honours it could
Creation.
bestow. Fairfax and Cromwell donned the scarlet gowns of Doctors of Civil Law, whilst Harrison, Hewson, Okey, and other martial figures were decked in the soberer costume which designates a Master of Arts. 3 The new authorities were in the right in what they did. The mainten- ance of that religion which they loved depended on the strong arms and buoyant hearts of those who had shown themselves capable of enforcing discipline.
1 See Great Civil War, iv. 22. J
- Perf. Diurnal, E, 530, 14 ; The IrfoiJhfrate, E, 556, 3.
3 Wood's Annals of the University, 619.
Oxford Mutiny
[edit]- "A history of England, from the first invasion by the Romans, Volumes 11-12" by John Lingard p. 60 link to Liburn
8 September.
Letters of some disorder in the garrison of Oxford, fomented by the Levellers and cavaliers. The soldiers proposed to have a new representative, and this to be dissolved; to have agitators, to maintain the engagement at Triplo-heath, &c.[44]
Intercepted letters to the lord Cottington, advising the king to a seeming compliance with the Levellers, as the likeliest way to do his work; that they have caused the speaker to be accused by some discontented prisoners, and that the best service the king's friends do him is to set on the Levellers.[44]
Colonel Thomlinson and Colonel Ingolesby sent to Oxford to quiet the distractions there.[45]
10 September The council ordered both the general's regiments and Okey's dragoons, and some other regiments commanded by major-general Lambert, to march to Oxford, to quiet the distempers there.[45]
11 September Captain Wagstaffe gave an account to the house of the Levellers particular passages in the mutiny at Oxford, how they imprisoned their officers, set guards, fortified New-college, and other acts of hostility. That colonel Ingoldsby their colonel, sent to them from the parliament, was put under a guard by them, and how they chose agitators.[45]
That the secured officers walking near to the guards, after two days, discoursing with the private soldiers on the guard, and some of them not well satisfied with these proceedings of their fellow soldiers, which these officers fomented, and demanded liberty to go away: some of the guards were for it, and others against it; whereupon the officers forced their way through the guards, and so passed them, and went up to their colonel, Richard Ingoldsby, and told him how the matter stood.[46]
He with his two men came to the guards that were put upon him, and without saying much to them came through them, and commanded the soldiers to march with him, which they did, and came to the officers in the street.[46]
One of the agitators on horseback killed a soldier who offered to stop him, and the guard which the colonel brought with him took the rest of the agitators prisoners: many soldiers came in to the colonel as he went along in the streets, and marched with him.
Then he went up to New-college, and commanded the colours, which were brought to him: he sent for a party of horse to Whately, and placed his own guards.[46]
The soldiers generally obeyed him, and manifested great joy that they were thus disengaged.[46]
Here we may note the inconstancy of the multitude and of the private soldiers, how soon and upon how small an occasion their minds alter, how little they are to be trusted, and how much of danger comes by actions of this nature.[46]
Referred to the council of state to give directions to the attorney-general to proceed against the mutineers at Oxford, by a commission of oyer and terminer, for treason, and to appoint other counsel to assist him, and a solicitor, and to prepare a declaration touching this business.[46]
Order for an addition to colonel Okey's regiment of dragoons, to make them up one thousand.[46]
13 September.
The troop of horse in Oxford, under captain Smith, continued for six months.[47]
Major-general Lambert, colonel Baxter, and other officers went to Oxford, to try the mutinous soldiers there by a court martial; those of the country who joined with them are to be tried by a commission of oyer and terminer.[48]
19 September.
By sentence of major-general Lambert, colonel Okey, and Levellers, the rest of the officers at the court martial at Oxford, two of the late mutinous soldiers, Biggs and Piggen were shot to death, a third was reprieved, and seven ran the gantelope.[49]
The university entertained the officers with great respect, and presented them with gloves. That the scholars offered to assist the officers against the mutineers, and not above three of the townsmen joined in the mutiny.
- another source Cobbett's Parliamentary History col 1318
Notes
[edit]- ^ a b c Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition article GREAT REBELLION: 30. Cromwell's Raid
- ^ Gardener 1889, p. 158 cites Perfect Occurrences, E. 260, 27; Cromwell to Burgess, April 29 ; Carlyle, Letters XXVI. and XXVII.; Digby to Rupert, April 29, Add. MSS. 18,982, fol. 46.
- ^ Gardidiner page 42 cites: C.J. vi. 178 ;The Moderate, E, 549, 12.
- ^ Gardiner 42 Cites: C.J. vi. 183. s A Manifestation, E, 550, 25
- ^ 3
- ^ Lilburn no socialist
- ^ The diggers on St George's
- ^ Gardiner 42: 4 C. of St. to Fairfax, April 16 ; Interr. I, 94, p. 93a.
- ^ Their leaders before the Council
- ^ start of page 43
- ^ Gardiner 43 cites: The Declaration and Standard of the Levellers, E. 551, II.
- ^ Gardiner 43 cites:The True Levellers' Standard Advanced, E, 552, 5.
- ^ Their work destroyed.
- ^ Gardiner 43 cites:A Modest Narrative, E, 552, 7 ; A Moderate Intelligence, E, 557, 6.
- ^ Gardiner 43 cites:A Declaration, E, 557, 9 ;A Letter to Lord Fairfax, E, 560, 1 ; A Declaration, E, 561, 6 ; An Appeal, E, 564, 5 ; A Watchword to the City of London, E, 573, 1 ; A New Year s Gift, E, 587, 6. Compare Clarke Papers, ii. 215-221, where there is a curious song beginning —
You noble diggers all, stand up now, stand up now, You noble diggers all, stand up now, The waste land to maintain, seeing Cavaliers by name, Your digging does disdaine, and persons all defame, Stand up now, stand up now. - ^ end of 43 start of 44
- ^ Gardiner 44 cites: C.J. vi. 189, 190.
- ^ Gardiner 44 cites: A Petition of Well-affected Women, E, 551, 14 ; Merc. Militaris, E, 551, 13. In the latter is given a conversation in which Cromwell takes part, but it would be rash to guarantee its authenticity.
- ^ Gardiner 44 See p. 40.
- ^ end of 44 start of 45
- ^ Gardiner 45 cites A Modest Narrative, E, 547, 9; The Perf. Weekly Account, K, 552, 2; A Paper Scattered about the Streets, E, 551, 21.
- ^ Question of arrears.
- ^ Gardiner p. 46 cites: Opposite views of this affair are to be found in The Army's Martyr, 2nd edit., E, 554, 6, and A True Narrative, E, 552, 18.
- ^ Gardiner p. 46 cites: Perhaps the colour was considered appropriate to a sailor.
- ^ end of page 46 to 47
- ^ Gardiner 47 cites Merc. Pragm. E, 552, 15 ; The Moderate, E, 552, 20; The Kingdom's Weekly Intelligencer, E, 552, 21. The Moderate was the Levellers' organ.
- ^ end of 47 start of 48
- ^ Gardiner p.48 cites: The Agreement of the Free People of England, E, 552, 23.
- ^ Gardiner p.48 cites: C.J. vi. 199.
- ^ Gardiner p.48 cites: The Moderate Intelligencer, E, 555, 3; England's Standard Advanced, E, 553, 2. There is a second and enlarged edition, published on May 12, E, 555, 7. The title-page is missing in the Museum copy, but Mr. Firth tells me that his copy has, in bold black type, "For a New Parliament by the Agreement of the People", and that if the tract were doubled up and stuck in the hat, as the Agreement was at the rendezvous on Corkbush Field (Great Civil War, iv. 25), these words would show out well.
- ^ end of page 47 start of page 48
- ^ Gardiner p. 49 cites: England's Freedom, Soldiers' Rights, E, 419, 23; A Vindication of L. G. Cromwell, E, 431, 7 ; A True and Impartial Relation, E, 432, 23 ; The Prisoners' Mournful Cry, E, 441, 17.
- ^ Gardiner p. 49 cites: The Impartial Intelligencer, E, 530, 8.
- ^ Gardiner p. 49 cites: C.J. vi. 198.
- ^ Gardiner p. 49 cites: C.J. vi. 204.
- ^ Gardiner p. 49 cites: The Moderate Intelligencer, E, 555, 3.
- ^ Gardiner p. 49 cites: Merc. Elencticus, E, 556, 9.
- ^ end of 49 start of 50
- ^ Gardiner p.50 cites: C.J. vi. 205, 208. A Discourse between Lilburne and Hugh Peters (E, 556, 26), in which Peters is made to give his opinion that there is no law in England but the sword, is manifestly, in the face of this order, a pure invention, and is declared to be such in Merc. Pacificus, E, 557, 7.
- ^ Gardiner p.50 cites:C.J. vi. 205.
- ^ Gardiner p.50 cites: C.J. vi. 201, 202.
- ^ Gardiner p.50 cites: Heads of Cromwell's speech are given in A Perfect Summary, E, 530, 3.
- ^ End of page 50 start of page 51 is a map. Page 52
- ^ a b Whitelocke pp. 100,101
- ^ a b c Whitelocke, 101
- ^ a b c d e f g Whitelocke, 102
- ^ Whitelocke, p. 103
- ^ Whitelocke, pp. 103,104
- ^ Whitelocke, p. 107
References
[edit]A soldier in Cromwell's army who led a 1649 revolt against its officers is mentioned in a history of the Levellers. A plaque erected to him in Oxford further states that he was executed at Burford on 1649/09/18. His first name is not given.
... Captain Jones... took copies [of a tract] to Colonel Ingoldsby's regiment of foot at Oxford, where it was distributed by Sergeant John Radman, a Leveller... The men of the regiment, joined by some from Colonel Tomlinson's horse to the number of perhaps 800 to 900, demonstrated against deductions from their arrears for quarter and against the payment of arrears by debentures. They then mutinied, capturing some of their officers and fortifying themselves in New College. They demanded the reconstitution of the General Council of the Army and the implementation of the Agreement of the People published by 'our four friends in the Tower'. They hoped for, but did not obtain, help from the Bristol garrison, and they were overpowered by others of their officers before the reinforcements arrived from London. The leaders were court-martialled, and two of them (Biggs and Piggen) were shot. The Leveller leadership renounced these acts of mutiny and violence...
Source: note on page 200 of Sharp, Andrew, Raymond Geuss, Quentin Skinner; The English Levellers, Cambridge University Press, 1998, ISBN 0521625114
London Rising
[edit]- Whitlocke, Bulstrode, Memorials of the English affairs from the beginning of the reign of Charles the First to the happy restoration of King Charles the Second (1853), Volume 2. p. 293 (April 1648)
- Going to the wars: the experience of the British civil wars, 1638-1651 by Charles Carlton p. 318
- Bulleted list item
Robert Lilburne (1613-1665), regicide, eldest son of Richard Lilburne of Thickley Puncherdon, Durham, and brother of John Lilburne, was two years old at the visitation of Durham in 1615.[1]
At the beginning of the war he entered the parliamentary army, in 1644 was a captain in Manchester's army, and in 1647 colonel of a foot-regiment in the new model.[2] Lilburne was one of the leaders in the opposition of the army to the parliament, promoted the petition of the officers, end did his best to prevent his regiment from volunteering for Ireland.[3] He was sent for by the House of Commons to answer for his conduct (29 March), but discharged on 25 May,[4] Fairfax shortly afterwards appointed him governor of Newcastle.[5] In November his regiment, which is described as 'the most mutinous regiment in the whole army,' expelled its officers, and took a leading part in the Ware rendezvous. Cromwell and Fairfax reduced it to obedience, and a few days later Lilburne and his officers presented an address to Fairfax as 'a manifestation of their integrity to his excellency and the weal public'.[6] Lilburne played a prominent part in the second civil war, defeating Colonel Grey and Sir Richard Tempest with the Northumbrian cavaliers on 1 July 1648.[7] He was nominated one of the king's judges in December 1648, attended several meetings, and signed his name to the death-warrant as the twenty-eighth in the list of signatures.[8]
Lilburne took part in Cromwell's Scottish Campaigns, and was left behind to guard Lancashire when Cromwell marched to Worcester. On 25 Aug. 1651 he utterly routed the Earl of Derby near Wigan, thus removing all danger of a royalist rising in the north.[9] Cromwell had before praised Lulborne's serviced to parliament and they now voted him a grant of lands in Scotland, to the value of £300 a year.[10]
On 12 Dec. 1652, when General Richard Deane was recalled from Scotland to serve against the Dutch, he appointed Lilburne to command in chief till the lord-general took further order.[11] Lilburne was hardly strong enough for the post, and was therefore superseded by Monck on 23 April 1654. He had not succeeded in suppressing the insurrection headed by the Earl of Glencairn which broke out in August 1653, and caused anxiety by showing too great favour to the anabaptists and extreme sectaries in his army.[12] In spite of this tendency he welcomed the establishment of Cromwell as Protector.[13]
Lilburne was in command at York during the attempted royalist insurrection of 1656, and manifested great zeal in arresting royalists "and such kind of cattle". His chief fear was lest the Protector should be too lenient.[14] When Lambert was appointed major-general of the five northern counties, Lilburne received a commission to act as his deputy, but confined his operations mainly to Yorkshire and Durham, leaving the other three counties to his colleague Charles Howard [15] Apart from the enforcement of repressive measures and the collection of the decimation tax, he was anxious for the improvement of the magistracy, the ejection of unfit clergymen, and the foundation of a university at Durham.[16]
Lilburne was returned to the parliament of 1656 for the East Riding of Yorkshire. But though he received from the Protector salaries amounting to £1,141, i3s. 4d. per annum, he opposed the scheme for making Cromwell king.[17] In the spring of 1658 he is described as a malcontent still, but refusing to lay down his commission.[18] Lilburne was returned to Richard Cromwell's parliament for the borough of Malton, bnt was unseated on a petition.[19]
During the revolutions of 1659 Lilburne adhered to the army party, and followed the lead of Lambert. When Lamb«rt turned out the parliament, Lilburne said "that he hoped never a true Englishman would name the parliament again, and that he would have the house pulled down where they sat, for fear it should be infectious".[20] In his capacity as governor of York, Lilburne was Lambert's chief support in his brief campaign against Monck; but when Fairfax and the Yorkshire gentlemen were in arms, Lilburne's own regiment deserted him, and he was forced to surrender York.[21] Monck gave the command of the regiment to Major Smithson, to whom its defection was mainly due.[22]
At the Restoration Liburne surrendered himself in obedience to the king's proclamation of 6 June 1660 against the regicides, and was one of the nineteen persons excluded from the act of indemnity, but not to be punished capitally except by a special act of parliament. He was tried before the high count of justice on 16 Oct.l660, and admitted the fact, pleading that he had acted ignorantly, and would have saved the king's life if he could.[23] He petitioned for pardon both before and after his trial.[24] Lilburne was formally sentenced to death, but the sentence was practically commuted to imprisonment for life. On 31 Oct. 1061 he was ordered to be sent prisoner either to Plymouth Castle or to St. Nicholas Island. In 1665 the government suspected him of taking part in a plot.[25] He died at St. Nicholas Island about August 1665.
Lilburne married Margaret, daughter of Richard Beke of Hadenham, Buckinghamshire, by whom he left three sons.[26]
Notes
[edit]- ^ Firth 1893, p. 250 cites: Foster, Durham Pedigrees p. 215.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 250 cites: Peacock, Army Lists, 2nd edit, p. 106; John Lilburne Innocencey and Truth Justified, 1646, p. 42.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 250 cites: Lords' Journals, ix. 115, 153; Rushworth, vii. 471 555 ; Clarke Papers, i. 13.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 250 cites: Commons' Journals, v. 130, 184
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 250 cites: Rushworth, vii, 797.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 250 cites: Rushworth, vii. 875, 913, 922; Old Parliamentary History, xvi. 434; The Discoverer, 4to, 1649, pt. ii. p. 52.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 250 cites: Rushworth, vii. 1177.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 250 cites: Nalson, Trial of Charles I, edit, 1684, p. 110.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 250 cites: Cary, Memorials of the Civil War, ii 338; Civil War Tracts of Lancashire. Chatham Society. pp. 296-307
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Commons' Jounrnals, vii. 8, 247; Carlyle Cromwell, Letter clxviii.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites:Clarke MSS. Worcester College, Oxford, vol. iiiv. f.71.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Gumble, Life of Monck, 1671, pp. 79-81; Military Memoirs of John Gwynne, and An Account of the Earl of Glencairn's Expedition, 1822; Thurloe Papers, ii. 221, 414)
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Thurloe Papers, ii. 18
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Thurloe, iii. 227, 359, 587.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Thurloe. iv. 294, 321,468,614.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Thurloe. iv. 397, 442, 643.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: A Narrative of the late Parliament, 1657, Harleian Miscellany, iii. 455; Thurloe, vi. 292.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Thurloe, vii. 85.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Burton, Cromwellian Diary, iii. 455; Commons' Journals, vii. 611.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Cal. State Papers,Dom. 1659-60, p. 295.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Cal. State Papers,Dom. 1659-60, 293-6; Baker, Chronicle, edit. Phillips, 1670, p. 688; Kennett, Register, p, 7.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Baker, p. 700.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Trial of the Regicides, 4to, 1660, p. 253.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1660-1, pp. 8,318.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1664-5, p. 271.
- ^ Firth 1893, p. 251 cites: Biographia Britannica.
References
[edit]- Attribution
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Firth, Charles Harding (1893). [Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/249 "Lilburne, Robert"]. In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 33. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 250, 251. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check|url=value (help) Cites:- A life of Lilburne is given in Noble's Lives of the Regicides, 1798, vol. i.,
- A biography appended to the Life of John Lilburne in Biographia Britannica, v. 2961.
I am writing a stub biography of Antoine Rigaud later a general in Napoleons army and at this time a captain in the revolutionary army. He was severely wounded at the Battle of Rousselaer, that as far as I can see must refer to the engagement on 13 June:
- Long, George (1850). France and its revolutions: a pictorial history, 1789-1848. C. Knigh. p. 342.
The united forces of the Imperialists, English, and Dutch, were concentrated, in the early part of April, between the Sambre and the Schelde. The rainy weather had delayed military operations. Several bloody encounters ensued without any decisive result. On the 22nd of May the enemy and the French lost, in several engagements, each about 3,000 men near Tournay. Pichegru saw that he had not means sufficient for directing his attacks towards Tournay and the centre of the allies; and after securing Courtrai against surprise, which the French had already taken, he commenced the siege of Ypres. Clairfayt, who was stationed at Thielt, was drawn from his position by the danger to which Ypres was exposed, and a bloody battle was fought on the 13th of June, at Rousselaer, in which he was defeated. The consequence was, that Ypres surrendered on the 17th of June, and the French were in possession of West Flanders. From this time the success of the French on the north frontier was uninterrupted.
- de Beauchamp, Alph., ed. (1811), Lives of remarkable characters, who have distinguished themselves from the commencement of the French revolution to the present time, vol. 3, Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, p. 106
the army of Clairfait, though with inferior forces j attacked the allied princes on the 18th, between Menin and Courtray, and, after a long and bloody battle (which the presence of the emperor particularly rendered one of the most obstinate of the war,) gained a most complete and decisive victory, took many prisoners, seized 65 pieces of artillery, a quantity of baggage, a great number of horses, covered waggons, banners, standards, &c.; another of his divisions at the same time beat the enemy at Moncron; Moreau alone was less successful; but on the news of the duke of York's defeat, Clairfait retired to Thielt, and Pichegru wishing to draw him out of that advantageous position, laid siege to Ypres in the beginning of June. The Austrians advanced, indeed, to succour this town, which enabled him to attack and defeat them on the 10th and 13th of June at Rousselaer and Hooglede. This last battle gained Ypres, and decided the fate of West Flanders; for the enemy, from that time, did not venture to resist on any point.
The 18th, between Menin and Courtray must refer to the battle Wikiepdia's account calls Battle of Tourcoing (18 May 1794) in which case the action described above must be contained in the sentence:
Pichegru then benefited from the weakening of the Allied northern sector to return to the offensive and besiege Ypres. A series of supinely ineffective counter-attacks by Clerfayt through June were all beaten off by Souham.
Other sources call it the Battle of Hooglede which seems to have been two battles to try to relieve Ypres: 11 June, Clerfait beaten by Souham after a short engagement at Hooglede, 14 June Clerfait beaten after a longer and more obstinate battle at Hooglede. (Sybel, Heinrich von. History of the French revolution. Vol. 3. pp. 451-453.).
Pichegru, therefore, was also obliged to obey. He divided his forces, placed two divisions to observe Coburg, and one to keep off Clcrfait, and with the two others opened the siege of Ypres. This place was more considerable and in better condition than Menin, but in consequence of the sluggishness of the government at that period, it was inefficiently prepared: e. g. the plain in front of the fortress had not been inundated by opening the sluices, because, as the report said, much property would be thereby destroyed, and the measure would meet with great opposition. The garrison consisted of more than (!,000 men, one-third Austrians, and two-thirds Hessians; the commandant was the Imperial, general Salis—formerly a brave officer but now enfeebled by old age—who on the second day of the bombardment withdrew into a bombproof casemate, and remained in this retreat till the end of the siege. In this case, too, the resistance offered was entirely owing to the excellence of the troops, which in spiteof all their former disasters, disputed every inch of ground with invincible self-devotion. General Salis, on his part, placed all his hopes on the relief which he expected from without; but Clerfait, although his force had been raised to 20,000 men, did not venture to make any attack for a considerable time; and the French bombardment, which gradually destroyed one quarter of the town after another, threw the garrison into a state of deep exhaustion from the incessant exertions it was called upon to make.
At last, on the 11th of June, Clerfait began to move, but was repulsed after a short engagement by Souham at Hooglede, while the garrison of Lille held the Prince of Coburg in check by a vigorous sally.
Coburg was completely broken and hopeless, but Clerfait ventured on a second attack upon Hooglede on the 14th. The battle on this occasion was somewhat longer and more obstinate, but the issue was not more favourable, nor could it be so, considering the overpowering numbers of the enemy-, and the complete inactivity of Coburg. The garrison at Ypres listened in anxious suspense to the distant thunder of the cannon, which alas! grew more and more distant as the battle continued.
After this second failure the courage of General Salis was exhausted, and on the 15th he put the question to his officers, whether he should capitulate. They unanimously answered in the negative. On the 16th the enemy began to draw his third parallal, and in the course of the night completed a breaching battery, which, on the morning of the 17th, opened a destructive fire against the nearest bastions. Hereupon Salis again summoned a council of war; the supply of ammunition was exhausted, and the officers acknowledged the impossibility of holding out any longer. They therefore demanded an order to cut their way through the enemy, after Hammerstein's splendid example at Menin; but Salis would listen to nothing of the kind, and angrily reproved them for their unfeasible proposals. It was resolved, therefore, to offer to give up the place to the enemy on condition that the garrison should retire unmolested; and the negociation was commenced in the course of the forenoon. But immediately afterwards the intelligence spread through the town, that the general had, without any resistance, signed the demand of Moreau that the troops should be made prisoners of war. Then, for the last time in the campaign, the pride of the brave soldiers' hearts broke forth in wild exasperation. The Hessian battalions assembled in crowds with furious cries, threatened to massacre their officers, and demanded that some one should lead them out to cut their way through the enemy, as Hammerstein had done. But they found no Hammerstein there, and dispersed at last to their quarters, as night came on, in impotent rage and humiliation. On the 19th they marched out with all the military honours.
The French saluted to the sound of martial music, and the garrison was ordered to return the greeting by presenting arms for the last time, and then to give up their weapons. But upon this a new tumult arose; the soldiers left their ranks dashed their muskets on the ground, tore their colours, and threw the fragments with curses and tears at the feet of the French. "Now our honour is gone," they said, "now wc will be quiet." A murmur of approbation and respect ran through the ranks of the victors; "Those are fine fellows" cried the soldiers; General Moreau rode with uncovered head along the column, and said: "These are brave men, who deserve a better fate."
Coburg was interrupted by the news of this catastrophe in his preparations for a third attempt to relieve the place; and as, at the same time, evil tidings arrived from the Sambre, he declared that he could do nothing more for Flanders, and that he should lead the Imperial troops stationed at Tournai to strengthen the army of the Sambre. The duke of York had now to undertake the protection of the Scheldt and the Dutch frontier alone, with his English, Hannoverian and Hessian troops, without any other support than Clerfait's Austrians. After Coburg had withdrawn on the 21st, York, too, retreated, on the following day, to the right bank of the river, and stationed his troops in a wide arch, which ran first towards the north behind the Scheldt through Oudenarde to Ghent, and thence to the west, behind the Ghent canal, to Bruges and Helvetsluys.
Without naming the battle there is a more detailed description in: Thiers, Adolphe; Shoberl, Frederic (translator) (1840). The history of the French revolution. Vol. 2. Carey & Hart. p. 287. {{cite book}}: |first2= has generic name (help) Dutch Wikipedia has an article on this: nl:Veldslag te Hooglede (Google translation)
The movements begun by the two wings had continued. Pichegru had prosecuted his operations on the Lys and the Scheldt; Jnurdan had begun his on the Sainbre. Profiting by the defensive attitude which Coburg had assumed at Tournay since the battles of Turcoing and Pont-a-Chin, Pichegru had in view to beat Clairfayt separately. He durst not, however, advance as far as Thielt, and resolved to commence the siege of Ypres, with the twofold object of drawing Clairfayt towards him and taking that place, which would consolidate the establishment of the French in West Flanders.
Clairfayt expected reinforcements, and made no movement. Pichegru then pushed the siege of Ypres, and he pushed it so vigorously that Coburg and Clairfayt deemed it incumbent on them to quit their respective positions, and to proceed to the relief of the threatened fortress. Pichegru, in order to prevent Coburg from prosecuting this movement, caused troops to march from Lille, and to make so serious a demonstration on Orchies that Coburg was detained at Tournay.
At the same time he moved forward and hastened to meet Clairfayt, who was advancing towards Rousselaer and Hooglede. His prompt and well-conceived movements afforded him an occasion of still fighting Clairfayt separately. One division having unfortunately mistaken its way, Clairfayt had time to return to his camp at Thielt, after sustaining a slight loss.
But, three days afterwards, Clairfayt, reinforced by the detachment for which he was waiting, deployed unawares in face of our columns with thirty thousand men. Our soldiers quickly ran to arms, but the right division, being attacked with great impetuosity, was thrown into confusion, and the left remained uncovered on the plateau of Hooglede. Macdonald commanded this left division, and found means to maintain it against the repeated attacks in front and flank to which it was long exposed. By this courageous resistance he gave Devinthier's brigade time to rejoin him, and then obliged Clairfayt to retire with considerable loss.
This was the fifth time that Clairfayt, ill seconded, was beaten by our army of the North. This action, so honourable for Macdonald's division, decided the surrender of the besieged fortress. Four days afterwards, on the 29th of Prairial (June 17), Ypres opened its gates, and a garrison of seven thousand men laid down its arms.
Coburg was going to the succour of Ypres and Clairfayt, when he learned that it was too late. The events which were occurring on the Sambre then obliged him to move towards the opposite side of the theatre of war. He left the Duke of York on the Scheldt, and Clairfayt at Thielt, and marched with all the Austrian troops towards Charleroi. It was an absolute separation of the principal powers, England and Austria, which were on very bad terms, and the very different interests of which were on this occasion most distinctly manifested. The English remained in Flanders near the maritime provinces, and the Austrians hastened towards their threatened communications. This separation increased not a little their misunderstanding. The Emperor of Austria had retired to Vienna, disgusted with this unsuccessful warfare; and Mack, seeing his plans frustrated, had once more quitted the Austrian staff.
- Recollections of Marshal Macdonald Chapter 3
- Sir John Sinclair (1831). The Correspondence of the Right Honourable Sir John Sinclair, Bart: With Reminiscences of the Most Distinguished Characters who Have Appeared in Great Britain, and in Foreign Countries, During the Last Fifty Years. H. Colburn & R. Bentley. p. 216.
Clairfait being considerably reinforced by the troops that Coburg bad sent to him from Torn-nay, attacked us on the 35th, (13th June O. S.) upoD all points, from Rousselacr to Hooglede. With superior forces, and the advantage of beginning the attack, he was justified in promising himself the greatest success ; he had even a momentary prospect of victory, for his first onset overthrew and put to the rout our right wing, which left him in possession of Rousselaer. But the division of General Soubam, and especially the brigade of Macdonald, which occupied the plain of Hooglede, soon made him lose this first advantage. This brigade, being no longer supported on the right, was attacked front aud rear, and it was in such a bad position, that any otfaer than Macdonald would have sounded a retreat; but this brave Scotsman supported the first shock with extraordinary obstinacy ; he was soon reinforced by the brigade of Dcvinther, and these two columns fought with so much fury, that the enemy was obliged to yield. They made no prisoners that day, but they killed a great number of the enemy, and they forced Clairfait to abandon Rousselaer, and to retire to his ordinary position at Illicit.
This battle was one of the most bloody of the campaign, but it was also the most decisive, since it rendered us masters of Ypres, of all West Flanders, and is from that moment the enemy was not able to resist us, either in the centre, or to the right or left
Macdonald had been deprived of the command by St Just, under the preteiti iii.it, as he was not a declaimer, he could not be a patriot. In vain did the generals affirm, that he was an excellent officer, a good republican, and that, instead of betraying the republic, they would be responsible for his serving it like a brave and good soldier. This was of no consequence. St Just wanted to disorganise the army, and deprived him of the command. It is said that Richard hid the courage to burn the decree of St Just, and to permit this brave soldier t. continue in the service. If so, gratitude is due to this excellent representotire. Macdonald has served perfectly well on all occasions; but at Wooglede he saved us. Had be not been there, we might have been forced to raise the siege of Ypres. Let military men judge of the extent of the misfortunes which would have resulted.
The garrison of Ypres having heard of the defeat of Clairfait, capitulated on tht 29th, (17th June O. S.). Although they amounted to 6or 7000 men, they could no longer resist us, and therefore agreed to all the conditions proposed by us. They left behind every thing that was in the place, laid down their arms on th* glacis, and became prisoners of war.
It would seem to me that as both books quoted seem to credit Pichegru with a better strategic outlook than the Wikipedia article credits him with. Also it seems that they both state that the battle of Rousselaer is what won western Flanders for the French, so I think it needs a mention.
I think that the Wikipedia sentence under discussion indicates a real and general problem with the tone of this article. It is written with a view of the war from the Coalition perspective, which gives it a one sided POV. Contrast:
- Pichegru then benefited from the weakening of the Allied northern sector to return to the offensive and besiege Ypres. A series of supinely ineffective counter-attacks by Clerfayt through June were all beaten off by Souham.
with
- the news of the duke of York's defeat, Clairfait retired to Thielt, and Pichegru wishing to draw him out of that advantageous position, laid siege to Ypres in the beginning of June. The Austrians advanced, indeed, to succour this town, which enabled him to attack and defeat them on the 10th and 13 June at Rousselaer and Hooglede.
The former implies that although beaten it was Clairfait that had the initiative, the latter that it was Pichegru who did and Clairfait was reacting to his initiatives. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, but that is not where this article lies at the moment. -- BTW concentrating on this sentence because it is of interest to me, but I think it is symptomatic of the tone of much of the rest of the article. -- PBS (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- "hooglede". Antique prints. Retrieved 29 May 2015. – Austrian Army vs French Army - Belgium - Battle of Hooglede - French Revolutionary Wars - 1794] Original typogravure by Boussod & Valadon after Jollivet. 1890.
- "Geschiedenis van Hooglede". Telenet Service (in Dutch). Retrieved 29 May 2015.
- "Joconde - dictionnaires". catalogue (in French). Retrieved 29 May 2015. Jules van Jollivet, "Combat d'Hooglede. 13 Juin 1794" " exposée au Salon en 1836.
- Britain), George III, King of Great (1962), "Prince Adolphus to the King (From the Camp near Thielte, 14 June 1794)", The Later Correspondence of George III.: December 1783 to January 1793, CUP Archive, p. 216, ISBN 978-1-00-151866-4
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Cust, Edward (1859), Annals of the Wars of the Eighteenth Century, Compiled from the Most Authentic Histories of the Period: 1783-1795, Mitchell's Military Library, pp. 208-209
To return for a moment to North Flanders; Pichegru, after the battle of Pont-a-Chin, seeing the bold front that the allies bad shown there, turned himself from the British and advanced towards the Austrian army of Clairfait, who had isolated himself in his camp at Thielt, and appeared to the republican General an easier enterprise for his forces. The attention of the Austrians was, however, so fixed upon their successes on the Sambre, that Clairfait showed no disposition to retire from his camp, and accordingly, on the 4th of June, the investment of Ypres was without any interruption completed under Moreau, by the arrival of the brigades of Vandamme and Michaud, and the engineer DejeaD was at once commanded to begin the siege. Pichegru placed his army of observation, under Souham, at Passchendaele and Langhemarcq to watch Clairfait's movements, and General Bonneau remained at Moescroen to have an eye upon the Duke of York. The Prince of Coburg unadvisedly selected this moment to withdraw. some Austrian troops from Clairfait, in order to strengthen the army of the Prince of Orange, and moving some Hanoverian battalions from Tournay to replace them, he made, on the 9th, a strong reconnaissance towards Courtray, intending, on the 10th, to make a forward movement for the relief of Ypres, the siege of which place continued.
On the 5th the besieged made a vigorous sortie, but although it had some partial success, it could not break the investment. On the 7th an attack was made by an Austrian division against General Michaud, accompanied by a sortie from the place, but it was not successful, and on the 10th the first parallel was completed and garnished with ten batteries; but the siege was not pushed with the vigour requisite, for want of siege material, which, however, began at this time to arrive from Lille. The intention of the Prince of Coburg to make some endeavours to save the place, transpired and became known to the French generals, who, accordingly, ar208 AUSTRIANS SUCCESSFUL ON THE SAMBRE. [A.D.
ranged that a sortie should be made from Lille across the Marque near Cysoing and towards Orchies, in order to induce the allied troops, which were to have combined an attack with Clairfait's corps, to hesitate. This was Pichegru's scheme, and he now advanced with his corps of observation to Dadizele to attack Clairfait, who had, in pursuance of the plans of the Generalissimo, advanced to Hooghlede. On Pichegru's advance the Austrian immediately withdrew back again into his camp at Thielt. General Salis, the Governor of Ypres, was now again summoned, and the second parallel commenced against the place in the night of the J 1th—12th of June. The rat inertke of the Austrians was at length roused, and on the 13th, at seven in the morning, Pichegru was surprised by a general attack on his position; his right at Rousselaer was so vehemently engaged, that the brigades of Malbrancq and Salm were driven back, and the whole force of the Austrian attack fell upon Macdonald at Hooghlede. This General made such excellent arrangements for the defence of his position, that all the attempts of the Austrians in six hours could not break his infantry, and this gave time for General Winter to come up with his brigade, who, rallying the fugitives who had been driven out of Rousselaer, regained that place, and the Austrians were forced to retire again into their camp at Thielt, with the loss of 900 men killed and wounded. All the while that Ypres was thus in jeopardy, and that Clairfait was called on, for the fifth time, to meet French isolated attacks, the Archduke Charles, with an army of 30,000 men, remained inactive on the south of Tournay, and an army of 8000 British recently arrived from England, under Lord Moira, were waiting orders at Ostend. It is scarcely surprising, therefore, that, four days after this, on the 17th of June, the place should have been forced to surrender with a garrison of 6000 men. Nevertheless, on the 18th, just a day too late, the Prince of Coburg moved up with twenty-two battalions and forty-six squadrons to reinforce Clairfait; but on his march, at Coeghem, he learned the surrender of Ypres, and at the same time that Jourdain had again crossed the Sambre. Pichegru, as soon as he had placed Ypres in a state of defence, advanced against Clairfait, who retired from Thielt on Deynse, where Souham came up with him, took from him ten guns and 300 prisoners, and drove him to take refuge in Ghent.
- (abbé.), Pierre David (1796), A history of the campaigns of General Pichegru: containing the operations of the armies of the north, and of the Sambre and the Meuse, from March 1794 to March 1795, Printed for G.G.J. and J. Robinson, pp. 34–36
The regular attack of Ypres attracted the attention of Clairfait, who soon left his position at Thielt, and advanced as far as Rousselaer and Hoogleden. We learned, from the reports of deserters and persons sent to discover his situation, that he Waited only for reinforcements to attack us; but Pichegru, knowing the French character, gave orders to anticipate the enemy. The army of observation was therefore put in motion on the 2'2d of Prairial {June 10). The columns which marched from Courtray lost their way, and did not'exactly follow their instructions. Notwithstanding the delay which this mistake occasioned, the enemy, though not completely defeated, were vigorously pressed, and obliged to retreat to Thielt. We made a great number of prisoners, remained masters of the field of battle, and took possession of the positions which the enemy occupied at Rousselaer and Hoogleden.
Clairfait, having received considerable reinforcements from the Prince of Cobourg's army at Courtray, attacked us on the 25th {June 13) on all the points of our line from Rousselaer to Hoogleden. With superior forces, and the advantage of making the attack, he must have expected the greatest success. He even had for a moment a
glimpse glimpse of victory. At the first onset, he drove back our right wing, threw it into disorder, and took possession of Rousselaer. But General Souham's division, and particularly Macdonald's brigade, which occupied the plain of Hoogleden, soon enabled us to recover all that we had lost. This brigade being left without any support on the right, was attacked both in front and flank, and was placed in such a dangerous situation that any other officer beside Macdonald would have thought only of retreating. This brave Scotchman received the first shock with most astonishing steadiness. Being quickly reinforced by the brigade of Devinther, both columns fought with such uncommon obstinacy, that the enemy were obliged to fall back. We made no prisoners in this engagement; but we killed a great number of the enemy. Clairfait abandoned Rousselaer, and retired to his former position at Thielt.
This was among the severest actions of the campaign. It was also one of the most decisive. Not only Ypres, but all West-Flanders fell into our hands; and after this period the enemy were not able to make any formidable resistance, neither in the centre nor on either of their wings.
The brave Macdonald, who preserved our troops on this occasion from a total defeat, had been dismissed by Saint Just, under the pretext of his not being a sound patriot. It was in vain that the generals represented that Macdonald was an excellent officer and a good republican, and even pledged themselves for his fidelity: Saint Just was resolved on the rain of the army, and among others dismissed this officer. It is believed that Richard had the courage to burn the order of Saint Just, and gave permission to Macdonald to continue in the service. With the exact state of the case I am not acquainted; but if the fact be as it is said,. France has great obligation to that Representative of the People. Macdonald served with capacity and courage on every occasion, but in the affair of Hoogleden his conduct was brilliant. Without his unexpected and extraordinary resistance, it is probable the French must have raised the siege of Ypres; and military men will understand the evils that would have resulted. „
The garrison of Ypres, having learnt the defeat of Clairfait, capitulated on the 29th of Prairial (Junel7). Athough there were between 6 and 7,00O men in the place, they were compelled to accept of our terms. They surrendered all the cannon, ammunition, and baggage, laid down their arms on the glacis, and were made prisoners of war.