Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

LIFE OF MARQUIS OF HERTFORD

(CONTINUED).

CHAPTER XII.

Lord Hertford remains in Wales. — He is desirous of being employed

about the King's person. — He is appointed one of the Commissioners for the Treaty of Oxford. — He is about to resume his command in the West. — Prince Rupert prevails on the King to supersede him, and to appoint Prince Maurice in his place. — The King afterwards consents to appoint Prince Maurice Lieutenant-General under him. - Lord Hertford leads his Army into Somersetshire. — He takes Taunton and Bridgewater. — He encounters Sir William Waller's Army near Wells. - Battle of Lansdown. - Lord Hertford occupies Devizes. - He and Prince Maurice leave the Army, and go to Oxford. — Prince Maurice returns with a body of Horse. - Battle of Roundway Down.

LORD HERTFORD remained for more than two months in Wales. It was about Christmas time when he again took the field, and marched with 2000 men to join the King at Oxford. North Wales, being of great importance in furnishing supplies of men and provisions to Chester and Shrewsbury, was placed by the King under the same government as those parts. South Wales was committed to the care of Lord Herbert (eldest son to the Marquis of Worcester), whom the King made his Lieutenant-General, adding Monmouthshire to his commission. Many objected to this appointment, not because Lord Herbert was personally unpopular, but because his being a Catholic raised at once a prejudice against his holding command ; it roused the

VOL. III.

animosity of other powerful families, between whom and his own there had been perpetual feuds, and thus cooled their zeal in the King's service. The offence created by his appointment was also aggravated by the conduct he displayed towards Lord Hertford during his residence in Wales, “where,” says Lord Clarendon, “out of vanity to magnify his own power, he had not 66 showed that due regard to that of the other which he “ should have had.”

It was about the time of Lord Hertford's return to England that the King's forces at Chichester had been obliged, after a blockade of ten days, to lay down their arms and surrender to Sir William Waller. This loss was somewhat balanced by the gain of Cirencester, then strongly garrisoned and in the possession of the Parliamentary troops.

1 “ Lord Herbert raised, partly at his father's expense, a considerable “ army, consisting of 1500 foot and 500 horse. About the middle of Fe“ bruary he marched towards Gloucester and blocked up that town on one “ side, but Sir William Waller, after taking Chichester and Malmesbury, “ advanced towards Gloucester, surprised Lord Herbert's army, and, with“out giving or receiving a blow, they delivered up themselves and their “arms upon the promise of quarter.”—Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iii. p. 467.

Lord Herbert (afterwards Marquis of Worcester), in a statement, drawn up in 1662, of the services rendered by him and by his father to Charles I., alludes to the assistance afforded to Lord Hertford :-“ How came the " then Marquis of Hertford, after his defeat in the west, with recruits to “his Majesty at Oxford but through my father's means and mine? The “ forces that I sent with him had cost me 80001., and 20001. my father “had lent him.”—Document in possession of the Duke of Beaufort, quoted by Mr. Eliot Warburton in his Memoirs of Prince Rupert, vol. ii. p. 105.

? During the absence of Lord Hertford, Lady Hertford appears to have been subjected to depredations from the Parliamentary troops, and on the 7th of December is entered in the Commons Journal “ the humble petition “ of Frances Lady Marchioness of Hertford, concerning some goods of “hers seized by Captain Swanley at her jointure house at Netley. The

It had been intended that Lord Hertford should join his forces to Prince Rupert's in order to recover Cirencester, but heavy rains had fallen, which rendered the roads difficult to pass, and some mistake arose in the " orders between the two generals, so that design was “ disappointed," and the honour of taking Cirencester in the beginning of February, 1642-3, remained for Prince Rupert alone.

“goods were ordered to be delivered into the custody of the Earl of Essex, “ to be disposed of as his Excellency shall think fitting.”—Commons' Journals, vol. ii. p. 880.

· Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iii. p. 416.

2 “ That night Prince Rupert came again to the Court, from whence he “ went towards Cirencester on Friday morning, as before was said ; he " came in sight of Cirencester on Saturday about nine of the clock, expect“ing to have met there with the forces of the Lord Marquis of Hertford, “ who, by reason of their long and troublesome march (in which they “ found more difficulties than was first expected), could not reach the “ place till towards evening; before which time—the Prince's horse and foot “ being much wearied, as well with their long march from Oxford thither “as their long standing on the place, having in all that time neither sleep “ nor victuals ; and the approaches to the town being found so dangerous by “ the overflowing of the waters, that the foot companies which came with " the Lord Marquis could not come near the works without manifest hazard "(though they desired very eagerly to give the onset)——it was thought “ fitting to return, and not expose their wearied forces to the present danger, “ which a dark night, accompanied with so many disadvantages, might “ bring upon them. So that this action ended without loss upon either “ side, save that some five or six musketeers, coming severally out of the " town to dare the Prince, and draw him within reach of gun-shot, were “ killed upon the place for their foolish bravery, and that Captain John “ Villiers (a brother of the Lord Viscount Grandison's) having lost his “ way, and falling into the hands of some of the Parliament scouts, was “ taken prisoner.”—Mercurius Aulicus, 1642, p. 12.

Prince Rupert appears to have tarnished the honour of his victory on this as in other instances by the little restraint that was placed on his troops in gathering the fruits of their victory. “ The town yielded much “ plunder, from which the undistinguishing soldier could not be kept, but “ was equally injurious to friend and foe, so that many honest men, who “ were imprisoned by the rebels for not concurring with them, found

animosity of other powerful families, between whom and his own there had been perpetual feuds, and thus cooled their zeal in the King's service. The offence created by his appointment was also aggravated by the conduct he displayed towards Lord Hertford during his residence in Wales, “where,” says Lord Clarendon, “ out of vanity to magnify his own power, he had not " showed that due regard to that of the other which he “ should have had.”!

It was about the time of Lord Hertford's return to England that the King's forces at Chichester had been obliged, after a blockade of ten days, to lay down their arms and surrender to Sir William Waller. This loss was somewhat balanced by the gain of Cirencester, then strongly garrisoned and in the possession of the Parliamentary troops.

1 “Lord Herbert raised, partly at his father's expense, a considerable “ army, consisting of 1500 foot and 500 horse. About the middle of Fe“ bruary he marched towards Gloucester and blocked up that town on one " side, but Sir William Waller, after taking Chichester and Malmesbury, “ advanced towards Gloucester, surprised Lord Herbert's army, and, with"out giving or receiving a blow, they delivered up themselves and their “arms upon the promise of quarter.”—Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iii. p. 467.

Lord Herbert (afterwards Marquis of Worcester), in a statement, drawn up in 1662, of the services rendered by him and by his father to Charles I., alludes to the assistance afforded to Lord Hertford :-“ How came the " then Marquis of Hertford, after his defeat in the west, with recruits to “ his Majesty at Oxford but through my father's means and mine? The “ forces that I sent with him had cost me 80001., and 20001. my father “ had lent him."-Document in possession of the Duke of Beaufort, quoted by Mr. Eliot Warburton in his Memoirs of Prince Rupert, vol. ii. p. 105.

? During the absence of Lord Hertford, Lady Hertford appears to have been subjected to depredations from the Parliamentary troops, and on the 7th of December is entered in the Commons Journal “ the humble petition " of Frances Lady Marchioness of Hertford, concerning some goods of “ hers seized by Captain Swanley at her jointure house at Netley. The

It had been intended that Lord Hertford should join his forces to Prince Rupert's in order to recover Cirencester, but heavy rains had fallen, which rendered the roads difficult to pass, and “ some mistake arose in the “ orders between the two generals, so that design was “ disappointed," and the honour of taking Cirencester in the beginning of February, 1642-3, remained for Prince Rupert alone.?

“goods were ordered to be delivered into the custody of the Earl of Essex, “ to be disposed of as his Excellency shall think fitting.”—Commons' Journals, vol. ii. p. 880.

· Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iii. p. 416.

2 “ That night Prince Rupert came again to the Court, from whence he " went towards Cirencester on Friday morning, as before was said ; he “ came in sight of Cirencester on Saturday about nine of the clock, expect“ing to have met there with the forces of the Lord Marquis of Hertford, “ who, by reason of their long and troublesome march (in which they “ found more difficulties than was first expected), could not reach the " place till towards evening; before which time—the Prince's horse and foot “ being much wearied, as well with their long march from Oxford thither “ as their long standing on the place, having in all that time neither sleep “nor victuals; and the approaches to the town being found so dangerous by “ the overflowing of the waters, that the foot companies which came with “ the Lord Marquis could not come near the works without manifest hazard “ (though they desired very eagerly to give the onset)—it was thought “ fitting to return, and not expose their wearied forces to the present danger, “ which a dark night, accompanied with so many disadvantages, might “ bring upon them. So that this action ended without loss upon either “ side, save that some five or six musketeers, coming severally out of the " town to dare the Prince, and draw him within reach of gun-shot, were “ killed upon the place for their foolish bravery, and that Captain John “ Villiers (a brother of the Lord Viscount Grandison's) having lost his “ way, and falling into the hands of some of the Parliament scouts, was “ taken prisoner.”—Mercurius Aulicus, 1642, p. 12.

Prince Rupert appears to have tarnished the honour of his victory on this as in other instances by the little restraint that was placed on his troops in gathering the fruits of their victory. " The town yielded much “ plunder, from which the undistinguishing soldier could not be kept, but " was equally injurious to friend and foe, so that many honest men, who “ were imprisoned by the rebels for not concurring with them, found

« AnteriorContinuar »