committing offences against the country. Prince Maurice, who in part commanded the horse, sympathised only with the feelings of the soldiers, and, careless of the miseries entailed upon the country by plunder and licence, sought to win for himself by personal popularity that power over the army which had not been accorded him by commission. This circumstance naturally tended to increase the feelings of dislike or mistrust with which they might have started from Oxford, even though it produced no open breach between them.

The garrisons once settled, the western army hastily advanced to the eastward in search of the enemy now gathered together within twenty miles of them and headed by Sir William Waller.' Sir William Waller's chances of supplies from Bristol and the adjacent parts were better than Lord Hertford's prospects from the more open country; Lord Hertford was therefore anxious to come to an engagement without loss of time. His first step towards this object was moving to Somerton. A regiment of his dragoons, placed a mile from that town, were attacked before break of day by some of Sir William Waller's forces. The King's army was instantly drawn out, and brisk skirmishing ensued, continuing till they reached the town of Wells. Here Lord Hertford, with all the foot and train, remained; but Prince Maurice, the Earl of Carnarvon, Sir Ralph Hopton, and Sir John Berkeley continued the pursuit

"Sir William Waller was a member of the House of Commons "and a gentleman of a family in Kent. He had been well bred, and, having spent some years abroad, and some time in the armies there, "returned with a good reputation home."-Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iv. p. 113.

to the top of Mendip Hill (overlooking Wells), where the enemy halted till the pursuers were on a level with them, then faced about and continued to retreat. The King's cavalry still pursued them over the hills, and on entering a narrow lane the Earl of Carnarvon charged them with such spirit that he routed the whole body of their horse, and harassed them in their flight for above two miles. But this success was near being purchased at too dear a rate. A strong party of dragoons and horse had been sent by Sir William Waller to the assistance of his troops, and now surprised the Earl of Carnarvon, who, routed and pursued in his turn, was obliged to retrace his steps as best he could, and in haste to warn the Prince of their danger. The Prince, however, determined to charge the enemy on their advance, and the Earl of Carnarvon succeeded in again rallying his broken regiment to join with him in the charge: desperate fighting ensued, the Prince was cut down from his horse and severely wounded in the head; but fresh troops came speedily to their relief; the enemy was totally routed, and again pursued till dusk by the Earl of Carnarvon. Sixty or eighty men were lost on the King's side, three times as many on that of the Parliament. The Earl of Carnarvon returned to headquarters at Wells, where Lord Hertford had remained. There they rested for many days, allowing time for Prince Maurice's sword-cuts to be healed, and to consult as to the next move to be made.1

The troops were impatient to come to some decisive action with Sir William Waller, and it was resolved

Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iv. p. 115-118.

that Lord Hertford and the Prince should advance to Frome, and from thence to Bradford, within four miles of Bath. Daily skirmishes now took place. On the first advance from Wells Sir William Waller dispersed Sir James Hamilton's regiment of dragoons, and on the approach to Bath the King's forces had the advantage in a sharp encounter which cost the enemy the loss of a hundred men and two field-pieces. Sir William Waller's head-quarters being at Bath, he had greatly the advantage of position and supplies. Lord Hertford's troops were obliged either to keep together by lodging in the field and to endure the privation of food, or else to weaken their strength by dispersing themselves to obtain provisions by force. Under these circumstances it was as obviously the policy of Lord Hertford to engage Sir William Waller to a battle as it was that of Sir William Waller to profit by his advantages and decline that risk.

With a view to carry out their plan of operations Lord Hertford and the Prince drew out their forces to Marsfield, five miles beyond Bath, towards Oxford. Sir William Waller's intention was to prevent the western army from joining the King, and Lord Hertford trusted he would be provoked by this move to quit his advantageous position and engage at once, for the purpose of intercepting the passage of their forces. No sooner, however, were Sir William Waller's troops displayed on Lansdown, which looked towards Marsfield, than, abandoning the prudent policy that had dictated their first plan of drawing him away from his quarters, and over-confident in their own strength, they allowed them

selves to be drawn into an engagement at great disadvantage. On the 5th of July, 1643, the great battle of Lansdown was fought. Early in the morning Sir Arthur Haslerig's regiments of cuirassiers completely routed Lord Hertford's horse,' but later Prince Maurice and the Earl of Carnarvon rallied them again, and in turn routed the victors: various was the fortune of that hard-fought battle during the day, but at length a third repeated charge, headed by Sir Bevil Greenvil, gave them the hill, the breast-works on the top were taken, and the whole body of horse, foot, and cannon ascended and planted themselves on the ground they had won. The gallant Sir Bevil Greenvil and many of the officers round him perished in the moment of triumph; nor was this the only misfortune that clouded the dearly-bought victory. Sir Ralph Hopton, notwithstanding he had been shot through the arm during the battle, was riding up and down the following morning to visit the wounded and direct the troops, when a waggon of ammunition,

66

2

"Sir William Waller having received from London a fresh regiment " of five hundred horse, under the command of Sir Arthur Haslerig, which "were so completely armed that they were called by the other side the regiment of lobsters, because of their bright iron shells with which they were covered, being perfect cuirassiers, and were the first seen so armed on either side, and the first that made any impression upon the "King's horse, who, being unarmed, were not able to bear a shock with "them; besides that they were secure from hurts of the sword, which were almost the only weapons the other were furnished with."-Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iv. p. 120.

66

"Waller, with his whole army, was fought with by Greenvile and Slanning at Lands Down, in the west. Greenvile did gallant service and was slain there; so was Leake, the Lord Deincourt's son, with the ene'my's colours about his arm, and many others of quality. On Waller's "part the foot were dispersed and cut off, many officers and arms lost."Whitelock's Memorials,' p. 67.

VOL. III.

c

near which he was standing, was from some accident blown up. Many were killed, many more maimed, and Sir Ralph Hopton was so severely injured that he was carried off the field for dead.' The army, more cast down at the moment with this misfortune than elated with their victory, returned to their quarters at Marsfield.?

Sir William Waller marched to Bath after his defeat in great confusion, but his loss had not been greater than

In Appendix B, Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iv. p. 606, Lord Clarendon speaks of this accident as having happened in the evening after the battle; but in vol. iv. p. 126, he speaks of it as their "morning's misfortune:" the battle did not in fact end till 12 at night; it probably, therefore, occurred at the early dawn.

2 It is sometimes difficult to recognise the same event in the different newspapers of the times, so much was every victory magnified and every defeat concealed, according to the various parties by which it was described. On the King's side, the Mercurius Aulicus,' edited by Dr. Heylin, first appeared at Oxford on the 1st of January, 1642-3, and was conducted with great ability. The Belgicus,' published at the Hague, was also written on the King's side, and distributed on the English coast. On the Parliament's side appeared the Mercurius Civicus,' the Parliament Scout,' &c., and on each side these papers are filled with reproaches to the other for intentional misstatements or gross exaggerations. In the following account from Mercurius Civicus' it is difficult to recognise the battle of Lansdown:

....

"The most remarkable bloody rencounter that hath been yet fought "between the two parties was on Wednesday last, July 5, near Tongg, "two miles from Marshfield and eight miles from Bristol . . . . The certainty of the numbers is not known,-thought not less than 2000, whereof "the greatest part were Hoptonians, and not above 200 or 300 of Sir "William Waller's. The men of note that were slain this Wednesday

66

are as follows, viz. the Marquis of Hertford's son, &c. &c. . . .”—Vide 'Mercurius Civicus,' London Intelligencer, from Thursday, July 6, to Thursday, July 13, 1643.

The mention of the death of Lord Hertford's son is repeated in the 'Parliament Scout;' but as falsely enumerating amongst the slain those who had escaped unhurt is a subject of frequent complaint in Mercurius Aulicus' against their adversaries, and as the death of Lord Hertford's son is not mentioned by Mercurius Aulicus' or by Lord Clarendon, the information cannot be relied on.