This month we have another indemnity case. The last one was about sequestration, which seems to be the most common type of case. Another very common complaint is that the petitioner is being sued for a horse, which occurs in about 10% of the surviving cases. This is not because there was a shortage of horses in England during the civil wars (Ian Gentles and John Shedd suggested that it was, but Peter Edwards has disproved it: see Gentles, New Model Army, p. 130; Shedd, ‘Legalism‘, p. 1096; Edwards, ‘Supply of Horses‘, pp. 55, 57). Although there were theoretically enough horses in England, soldiers often took them by force, sometimes because Parliament couldn’t provide them any other way, sometimes just because it was more convenient. Horses were valuable, and stealing them was usually taken very seriously. Despite this, the absolute number of horses involved in indemnity cases was quite small. Most horse seizure didn’t result in a court case. When it did, the soldiers who originally took the horses weren’t always directly involved. Horses could change hands many times, and under the Common Law, anyone in possession of a horse that was alleged to be stolen could be sued, even if they were not guilty of stealing it in the first place. This made horse cases very different from sequestration cases. Sequestration was very closely linked to allegiance: petitioners were under pressure to show that they had been loyal to Parliament and that the sequestered defendant hadn’t. Anne Hughes identified this as a general trend in indemnity cases, but horse cases are a significant exception (Hughes, ‘Parliamentary Tyranny‘, pp. 67–9; see my book, pp. 140–45, for a more detailed argument than I’ve given here). The horse might have passed through so many owners that it was a long way removed from the issues that the King and Parliament were fighting over. The crucial point for the Indemnity Committee to consider was whether the horse had been in the service of Parliament, not whether the petitioner had. This month’s petition is an example of this kind of case, where a long chain of ownership led to complicated court actions and then an appeal for indemnity.

As usual, the quoted text is all in Crown Copyright and released under Open Government Licence. Click the thumbnail to see page image on Flickr (non-commercial use only).

TNA: PRO, SP 24/75, part 3, Symonds vs Arram

To the right hon[ora]ble the Com[mit]tee for Indempnity

The humble petic[i]on of George Symonds gent Tho[mas] Baugh gent & John Roberts yeoman

Sheweth

That yo[u]r Pet[itione]r Symonds by way of Exchange bought a Dunne Nagg about June 1647 of one Capt[ain] Bartholomew Helby w[hi]ch was taken from the Enemy & ridden two yeares in the States Service w[hi]ch Nagg yo[u]r said Pet[itione]r in like manner sould to yo[u]r Pet[itione]r Baugh who sould the same to yo[u]r Pet[itione]r Roberts.

But now soe it is may it please yo[u]r honors the said Nagg being in the possession of the said Roberts was lately challenged by one John Arram of Little Deane in the County of Glouc[ester] Tanner who by reason the property of the said Nagg was never altered according to the strict rules of the Law did not only p[ro]secute yo[u]r said Pet[itione]r Rob[er]ts at Law & recover the said Nagg ag[ains]t him but hath alsoe brought Acc[i]ons of Trespasse ag[ains]t him & yo[u]r other Pet[itione]rs & hath caused yo[u]r Pet[itione]rs to sue one another to their great losse & vexac[i]on and giveth out that the said Nagg was stollen from him the said Arram to the great p[re]judice of yo[u]r said Pet[itione]rs reputac[i]on,

yo[u]r Pet[itione]rs therefore humbly pray that the said John Arram may bee summoned to appeare before yo[u]r honors to answere the p[re]misses and that they may bee Imdempnified ag[ains]t the said suits & have such releife & satisfacc[i]on for their unjust molestac[i]on as to yo[u]r honors shall seeme meet

And yo[u]r Pet[itione]rs shall ever pray &c

Geo[rge] Symonds Tho[mas] Baugh John Roberts

30 May 1651

Yes, the petition was submitted 6 years after the horse entered Parliament’s service. It’s not even stated when it was taken from the original owner, but this wasn’t relevant because it had apparently been done by the King’s forces. Once parliamentary soldiers captured it from them, it became prize goods according to the laws of war. In this case, it was used as a remount, and the soldier(s) who took it may have been paid by the state. The ‘strict rules of the Law’ said that horses had to be bought and sold in the open at markets and fairs, and that details of the horse and the transaction had to be recorded in a toll book, although this was increasingly ignored during the civil wars even when the sale was voluntary (Edwards, ‘Supply of Horses’, pp. 61-3). And in practice, civilian courts often didn’t recognise military laws or ordinances of Parliament. This case is mainly a conflict over property and between different types of law but it still indirectly involves allegiance, because the parties had to take a position over which rules had more force.

Over at Love and Liberty, Alex Wilcock has been reminiscing about his friendship with Conrad Russell, and discussing the influence of Russell’s The Liberal Cause. So I thought I’d join in with the name-dropping. I only met Professor Russell (as historians knew him: the title that he’d actually earned seemed more important to him than the earldom he inherited) once, in 1997. I was in the first year of my PhD, and I went to the Tudor and Stuart research seminar that he organized at the IHR, to hear Peter Edwards speaking about arms imports in the civil wars. It was in the old local history room in the IHR library, which was huge before they chopped it up to make the Wolfson and Pollard rooms. When Pete’s paper was finished and the discussion was about to begin, Elizabeth Russell passed around ash trays, and although it seems endearing now, at the time I was shocked to see Conrad, Elizabeth and several students lighting up – the only time I’ve ever seen anyone smoking in a library! I guess that’s what the IHR rules meant by ‘privileged occasion’. I was privileged to be briefly introduced to him afterwards, which was enough to confirm that he was a very nice person as well as a brilliant historian and politician.

But enough of the anecdotes. As Alex’s post makes clear, Conrad Russell helped to ensure that Liberalism is the most intellectually rigorous set of principles on offer in British politics. Nick Clegg’s view of history  in The Liberal Moment has some problems, but it’s quite impressive for the leader of a political party to write something that intelligent (Natalie Bennett could probably do better because she knows an awful lot about feminist history). Although I disapprove of many things that the Lib Dems have done in the coalition, I still want to vote for them because they’re the party whose principles I most agree with (although the Greens are the only other party that really has any principles at all).

But considering that Conrad Russell’s politics were so liberal, why was his historical writing so conservative? I still think he was absolutely right to destroy the Whig and Marxist models of 17th century history, because they offered very simplistic explanations and didn’t fit the facts (and were more similar to each other than they would admit). But revisionism had its limitations too. Russell’s work was mostly about the political elite. That’s fair enough to a certain extent because it’s what interested him and what he was good at. We all have to exclude more from our research than we include, and there’s no point forcing people to write about things they find boring. The problem is that if you take this approach in a book boldly titled The Causes of the English Civil War, with a definite article, it implies that there’s nothing more to the story. John Adamson has improved on Russell’s approach by showing that you can focus on high politics and still have a revolution. Adamson acknowledges that although the Lords started the revolution, they couldn’t achieve much without material help from lower levels of society, and he’s left space for other people (including me) to show how that worked in practice (and he might well add to that himself when he publishes the next volume – not this year but surely next year). Russell and Adamson both failed to analyse the implications of both houses of Parliament being exclusively male. Like many histories written by men, Russell’s analysis of Queen Henrietta Maria’s influence over Charles I was a bit misogynistic. For example, the Queen wrote to her husband in October 1646 “in tones more appropriate to a son than to a husband”, and the impression of Charles that emerges from her letters “could easily have been signed ‘Lady Macbeth’” (Conrad Russell, The Causes of the English Civil War (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 205, 206; Frances Dolan may have made this point before but I can’t find a reference to it).

Previous posts in this series have covered sequestration (Parliament confiscating the estates of its enemies during the civil wars) and compounding (getting sequestered estates back by paying a fine). Sequestration led to lots of court cases, because although it was authorized by ordinances of Parliament, it was still technically illegal according to the Common Law. Parliament suppressed the law courts during the First Civil War, but they began to sit again when the war was over, creating opportunities to contest property rights, allegiance, and the legitimacy of the Long Parliament’s governing without the King. Many soldiers and officials were prosecuted for things they had done with the authority of Parliament. This led to the Indemnity Ordinance, which was implemented by the Indemnity Committee (I’ve written a brief guide to the committee and its records, now held by the UK National Archives). Ordinary civilians could also benefit from this if they were prosecuted for obeying Parliament. The majority of the petitions received by the committee were from tenants and debtors of sequestered delinquents who had paid the money they owed to the state and were sued for it by the original owner. This month’s document is one of these petitions. It adds an extra twist because it also involves the law of coverture. This denied married women the right to own property: with a few exceptions, any property a woman brought into a marriage was owned and controlled by her husband for the duration of the marriage. Mary Robinson from last month’s post owned an estate in her own right because she was a widow.

As usual, the quoted text is all from Public Records in Crown Copyright and released under Open Government Licence. Click the thumbnails to see page images on Flickr (non-commercial use only).

TNA: PRO, SP 24/64, part 1, Middleton vs Evans

Pet[itio]n 11 Sept: 1648

Midleton and Evans

To the R[igh]t Honor[a]ble the Comittee for Indempnity

The humble petic[i]on of Lodwicke Midleton gent

Sheweth

That about Nyne yeres since yo[u]r pet[itione]r became indebted unto one Jane Thomas of Brampton in the County of Salop spinster for two severall somes of Money vizt the one of Twenty pounds & the other of five pounds & did enter into severall bonds w[i]th sureties for paym[en]t thereof And about five yeres since the s[ai]d Jane did Intermarrie w[i]th one John Evans clerke who shortlie after his Marriage Did take up Armes against [th]e Parl[iament] for w[hi]ch he becam sequestered by the Comittee for sequestrac[i]ons for [th]e Countie of Montgomorie who Knowing of [th]e severall somes to be in yo[u]r pet[itione]rs hands somoned yo[u]r pet[itione]r before [the]m. And sequestred [th]e s[ai]d moneys as due unto the state w[hi]ch yo[u]r pet[itone]r hath Long since satisfied And the said Mr Evans hearing thereof did bring a p[ar]tie of horse to seiz upon yo[u]r pet[itone]r & his Estate but Missing of yo[u]r pet[itone]r he plundered & carried away Nyne Kyne one gelding & other goods to yo[u]r pet[itone]rs great damage

That since the s[ai]d order of sequestrac[i]on & yo[u]r pet[itone]rs satisfieing the Monyes to the Comittee the s[ai]d Mr Evans hath comenced suite against yo[u]r pet[itone]rs security Richard Lloyd upon a bond of forty pounds for paym[en]t of [th]e said Twenty & obtayned Judgm[en]t against him upon nihill dicett in the court of Exchequer p[re]tending himself a debtor to [th]e King: And the s[ai]d Evans hath now againe taken up Armes against the Parl[iament]

Wherefore yo[u]r pet[itone]r humbly prayes in regard the s[ai]d Moneys were sequestred & the Comittee satisfied That the s[ai]d Mr Evans May be Compelled to Attend this hon[oura]ble Comittee to Answere the p[re]mises whereby to have the s[ai]d bonds surrendered up to be cancelled & the s[ai]d Judgment Discharged And in the meane tyme all p[ro]ceedings upon [th]e Judgment stayed & yo[u]r pet[itone]r shall pray &c

Lodowicke Myddleton

11 Sept

This shows that sequestration didn’t just affect delinquents and their dependants. Anyone who owed them money had to take sides even if they weren’t interested in why King and Parliament were fighting each other. Outside marriage, women could own property and were a significant source of credit, but if they married, their investments usually passed to their husbands. The petition gives no clues about Jane’s opinions or actions in the civil war. As far as Parliament was concerned, the crucial facts were that her husband owned the debt and that he was classed as a delinquent.

Further Reading

1. Amy Louise Erickson, Women and Property in Early Modern England (London, 1995).
2. Amy Louise Erickson, ‘Possession—and the Other One-Tenth of the Law: Assessing Women’s Ownership and Economic Roles in Early Modern England’, Women’s History Review, 16/3 (2007), pp. 369–85.
3. Judith M Spicksley, ‘“Fly with a duck in thy mouth”: single women as sources of credit in seventeenth-century England’, Social History, 32/2 (2007), pp. 187–207.
4. Judith M. Spicksley, ‘Usury Legislation, Cash, and Credit: The Development of the Female Investor in the Late Tudor and Stuart Periods’, Economic History Review, 61/2 (2008), pp. 277–301.

From ‘An Ordinance for taking away the Book of Common Prayer, and for establishing and putting in execution of the Directory for the publique worship of God’ passed by the Long Parliament in January 1645 (in Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum):

When any person departeth this life, let the dead body, upon the day of Burial, be decently attended from the house to the place appointed for Publique Burial, and there immediately interred without any Ceremony.

And because the customes of kneeling down, and praying by, or towards the dead Corps, and other such usages in the place where it lies, before it be carried to Burial, are Superstitious: and for that praying, reading, and singing both in going to, and at the Grave, have been grosly abused, are no way beneficial to the dead, and have proved many wayes hurtful to the living, therefore let all such things be laid aside.

Howbeit, we judge it very convenient, that the Christian friends which accompany the dead body to the place appointed for publique Burial, do apply themselves to meditations and conferences suitable to the occasion: And, that the Minister, as upon other occasions, so at this time, if he be present, may put them in remembrance of their duty.

That this shall not extend to deny any civil respects or differences at the Burial, suitable to the rank and condition of the party deceased whiles he was living.

These rules were observed at Oliver Cromwell’s funeral on 23 November 1658. Although his effigy was brought from Somerset House with an ostentatious procession accompanied by cannon salutes, there was no ceremony once it reached Westminster Abbey (Ian Gentles, Oliver Cromwell: God’s Warrior and the English Revolution, pp. 196-7; Cromwell’s body had actually been buried in secret shortly after he died in September).

History shows that things were different in the past, so they could be different again in the future.

I’ve made a few changes to this blog, including changing the theme to use HTML5.

“But Stew, it looks just as boring as it did before. Where’s the huge carousel of superfluous images? It can’t be HTML5 without that, can it?”

The most noticeable change (at least for some people) is that the layout is more flexible than it used to be. The sidebar is now only absolutely positioned on the right on computer screens where the window is more than 700 pixels wide. In all other cases, it’s displayed at the bottom of the page where I hope it won’t get in the way. This was actually done with CSS 2.1, and I could have done it a long time ago if I’d bothered to find out how to do @media rules.

The new HTML5 markup probably won’t make much difference to most people, but I like it because it’s more semantic. I’ve used header, footer, nav and article tags instead of divs for everything. Although there are more tags available now, I find that they’re easier to use because they’re more logical and reflect what people really do.

I’ve also turned off ReCaptcha because it’s an obstacle to genuine commenters and doesn’t stop all spammers. Even with my unimpaired vision, I only have about a 50% success rate with captchas on other people’s blogs (this is one of the reasons why I particularly dislike Blogger).

I’d be grateful for any feedback on whether the new stuff does or doesn’t work, especially if you’re visually impaired and/or using a phone. I don’t care about whether anyone dislikes the aesthetics of my design: I just want it to be accessible to as many people as possible.

There’s also some new content today as I’ve started putting guides to historical records on static pages. The first is a guide to compounding cases in SP 23.

Last month’s post was about sequestration (Parliament confiscating the estates of its enemies). Later in the First Civil War, Parliament developed a new system called compounding, which allowed sequestered delinquents to get their estates back if they paid a fine and swore an oath that they wouldn’t help the King. This process was managed by the Committee for Compounding. I’ve written a brief guide to the committee and its records which is available under CC-BY just like the other content on this blog.

This month’s documents are from the compounding case of Mary Robinson, a widow from Branston in Lincolnshire (no relation as far as I know – my Robinson ancestors were coal miners in Yorkshire, and didn’t move to Lincolnshire until the early 20th century). As usual, the quoted text is all in Crown Copyright and released under Open Government Licence. Click the thumbnails to see page images on Flickr (non-commercial use only).

Following the standard procedure, Mary first sent a petition to the committee, asking to compound.

TNA: PRO, SP 23/184, f. 918

To the honorable Comittee at Goldsmithes Hall

The humble petition of Mary Robinson of Braunston in the Countie of the Citty of Lincolne widdowe

Most humblie sheweth.

That yo[u]r pet[itione]r havinge bene longe before and since the beginninge of theis unnaturall Warres possessed of a small estate in lande lyeinge in little Steeping in the Countie of Lincolne and Braunston aforesaid hath given ample testimony of her good affecc[i]on to the Parliam[en]t, and hath bene willinge to serve the same w[i]th her estate from the beginninge, by lendinge of money upon proposic[i]ons and contributinge accordinge to the ordinance of the fift and Twentith p[ar]te and div[er]s other wayes. Yett nevertheles her said land[es] have bene for a yeare last past sequestred and the profitt[es] thereof receaved to the States use accordinge to a Compasic[i]on made w[i]th the Comittee of Sequestrac[i]ons at Lincolne. Yo[u]r pet[itione]r havinge for two years past bene infirme and lyne bed ridd.

Now for that yo[u]r petic[i]on[e]r is alltogether ignorant wherefore her estate should be soe sequestred Shee humblie beseecheth yo[u]r honors in comiseracon of her distresse to afforde her yo[u]r order or other direcc[i]on to the said hono[ra]ble Comittees for Sequestrac[i]ons for the Countie of Lincolne and the County of the Cittie of Lincolne forthwith uppon due examynac[i]on to certifie to yo[u]r good honors the cause of her said Sequestrac[i]ons together w[i]th a p[ar]ticuler of her estate, whereby in case yt shall ap[per]e shee ought to be sequestred shee may be admitted to a favourable composic[i]on for her saide estate, w[hi]ch is her humble suite to yo[u]r honors And as in duety bounde shall ever praye &c.

Marie Robinson hir Marke M

24: Martii 1645[/6] a l[ette]re certifie &c.

Lincoln

Mary Robinson

This is quite evasive, admitting the possibility that she needs to compound without admitting exactly why. It could be seen as a more formal way of saying, ‘I’m a guuurl! I don’t understaaand!’. In this situation, playing up to gender stereotypes of a helpless and ignorant woman could have some advantage, or at least slightly less disadvantage. Emphasising her disability also makes her look less threatening and implies that she couldn’t have done anything wrong. But in her next petition, she told a slightly different story…

TNA: PRO, SP 23/184, f. 916

To the hon[oura]ble Com[i]ttee att Goldsmiths Hall for Composic[i]ons with Delinquents.

The humble petic[i]on of Mary Robinson of Bramston in the County of the Citty of Lincolne. widdowe

Sheweinge,

That yo[u]r Pet[itione]r is a very aged woman, and hath for this two yeeres or thereabouts bin bed ridd, but haveinge sent her sonne with a horse and armes into the kings Armye, and maintayneinge him in that service, her estate is therefore sequestred; and beinge hartily sorry for this her offence;

Shee humbly prayes this hon[oura]ble Com[i]tee to take her distressed condic[i]on into Considerac[i]on, and that Thomas Rushworth her sonne in lawe, (beinge by her thereunto authorized) may in her behalfe be admitted to compound and that he payinge such Fine as shall be imposed, yo[u]r Pet[itione]rs estate may be freed and dischardged,

And shee thereby bound to pray &c.

Thomas Rishworth in the Pet[itione]rs behalfe

This shows that a disabled old woman could still play an active role in the civil war. Both sides relied on voluntary contributions of money and horses in the early years of the war, so Mary’s action was quite significant and certainly grounds for sequestration according to the relevant ordinances of Parliament. Many compounders claimed that they only helped the King under duress, but Mary didn’t use this strategy.

Finally, this is the committee’s decision in the case. The fine suggests that her estate wasn’t all that small. There could be more documents relating to the case, including details of the estate, but I haven’t looked for them and don’t have easy access to the calendar at the moment.

TNA: PRO, SP 23/184, f. 913

Mary Robinson of Bramston in the County of the Citty of Lincolne widdowe.

Her Delinquency, that shee furnished a man and horse for the Kings service, against the Forces raised for the Parliam[en]te and maintayned him in that service for two yeeres togither, but the woman is an aged and infirme woman and Bedridd, and stirrs not abroad her selfe./

Thomas Rushworth her sonne in Lawe prosecutes her Composic[i]on in her behalfe./

Shee compounds upon a perticuler returned out of the County, by which it doth appeare,

That shee is seized of a Franckten[emen]te for life, the remainder to the heirs of Ephraim Robinson deceased of and in certaine Lands and Ten[emen]ts lyinge and beinge in Bramston in the County and Citty of Lincolne and in little Steepeinge in the County of Lincolne of the yeerely value before theis troubles over and above 6li.11s.11d. issueinge – 105li.19s.6d./

Shee is willinge that Rushworth her sonne in lawe shall pay her Fine and enjoye the land for that and other debts of 300li. and upwards that shee owes him, and hath declared this under her hand./

30 July 1646

[...]

fine 100li

[D?] Watkins

So don’t let anyone mansplain to you that early-modern women aren’t interesting or important because they had no power…

During the English Civil War, Parliament started confiscating the estates of people whom it classified as enemies. This process was called sequestration, and its victims were labelled delinquents. They didn’t necessarily have any affection for the King, and hadn’t necessarily done anything to help him or his armies, but the criteria for sequestration kept getting broader. The sequestration system had a long and messy development that I tried to sketch out in my book. The first national sequestration ordinance was passed on 27 March 1643, and you can read it free at British History Online. The ordinance authorized the seizure of all of a delinquent’s real and personal estate. Rents and debts, which were to be paid to the state, were probably the main sources of money, but goods were also inventoried and sold. The inventory below is for the goods of Lady Wotton and Sir Philip Musgrave. Musgrave was a commander for the King in north-west England (you can read a biography of him at the Internet Archive), but I’m not sure where this inventory was taken. ‘Kent’ has been written on the manuscript in pencil but there’s no explanation of why. Maybe someone who knows the background can confirm or deny it. By the time I was half way through transcribing this document I’d decided that it wasn’t as exciting as I thought it would be, but here it is anyway. For me, the most interesting part is towards the end, where it lists the animals in the park.

TNA: PRO, SP 28/217A, part 1, ff. 104-7 (the quoted text is all in Crown Copyright and released under Open Government Licence. Click the thumbnails to see page images on Flickr, for non-commercial use only). As the folio numbers don’t add up, there may be some pages missing.

[f. 104r]

An Inventory of all the good of the ho[nourab]le the Lady wotton or of S[i]r Philip Musgrave in the Pallace, prised by John Pawlin Alderman Peter Parlin & George Harriso[n] taken the 27th daye of Maye 1643

In my Lords Chamber

one bedsted w[i]th a testerne, one Round Table, one paire of Creep[er]s xi pictures iii blanketts, one Chaire ii stooles 1 warming pan 05 – 00 – 00

In the studye

one great Iron Chest, one small one, iii great Chests, two double shelves for bookes, one Case for glasses, one blankett seven boxes w[i]th writinge, & other writings & bookes 06 – 00 – 00

One half headed bedstid gilded & one picture 00 – 10 – 00

Mr Clabornes Chamber

one halfe bedstid gilded, w[i]th a Canipie, one Marble table one fether bed boulster blanket Ruggs, one Couch bed fowre Cuishions, three Chaires 9. peeces of Irish hangings & one paire of Cobiornes 16 – 00 – 00

In the Gallerie

Twelve Pictures, ii Trunks, one table, one Close stole i screene 03 – 00 – 00

Keminge Chamber.

Two great Trunks ii Irish harpes, 5. other Instruments iii greate Chests ii Chayers, ii Close stooles, 5. boxes one paire of Cobirons & tong[es] one half headed beadstid blanket mat & Corde, one scouse, one dish & sawcer. 1. table 03 – 00 -00

[th]e Maides Chamber

one bedstid, one Round table, one Court Cupboard. 6. Chares one forme, one paire of Cobirons, ii pare of Tonges, & divers hangings 01 – 10 – 00

In the next Chamber.

one slight bedsted, one Trundle bed ii blanketts, one Rugg, Curtaynes, one flock boulster, one Table, & other Lomber 01 – 00 – 00

In the next Roomes

one Trunke iii lether shapers, one forme, one [greene?] Rug 00 – 15 – 00

one litle Table one paire of Tables 00 – 06 – 00

one bedsted Curtaynes & Rug one Court Cupbard 01 – 00 – 00

two safes one Round Table, one great looking glass w[i]th lumber 02 – 00 – 00

In the Chamber over the Kitchen

one Joyned Table 12. greene Chayes one paire of Cob Irons one Couch bed with the furniture 07 – 00 – 00

In the Buttery

one Bynne one Table & forme, one brass sconce & one pressor 01 – 00 – 00

In the sellors

11 Butts, 3. stilling[es] one shelfe 02 – 00 – 00

4. stilling[es] & one Hogshed 01 – 00 – 00

5 stilling[es] 01 – 00 – 00

In the Hall.

4. Tables. 6. formes, ii Perches for Hawkes. 4. Piks 1. Range of Iron 05 – 00 – 00

In the Greate Rome

one Joyned table one Table of Marble, one side table one Court Cupbard one paire of Organs, one marble [sestorne?] 12. Chaires one footestoole, one pare of virginalls one paire of Creep[er]s 16 – 00 – 00

[f. 104v]

In the with drawing Roome

one paire of Organs and virginalls, one drawing table one side table, one Court Cupbard 12 Chaires w[i]th Covers two lowe stooles ii pictures, ii paire of Andiornes one paire of tonges one fire shovell 12 – 00 -

In the litle Parlor.

one Ovell Table one Court Cupbard one screene. 12 Chaires of Turkey worke, one paire of Aundiorns one paire of Creep[er]s one fire pan 06 – 00 -

In the Chamber next [th]e Garden

one Marble Table 19. Chares & stooles w[i]th Covers, ii pictures iii Curtaynes one Court Cupbard one paire of Aundiorns one paire of Irons for Aundiorns one fire pan 20 – 00 -

In the guilted Chamber.

one table one greene Carpett 7. Chaires & stooles one picture one paire of Aundirons, the Lether Hangings 05 – 00 -

In the Mourning Chamber.

one Table one bedsted ii beds iii boulsters one quilt with the mouring Courtaynes & vallance one paire of Creepers the Mourning hangins one Close stoole 08 – 00 -

In the Blew Chamber.

one bedsted guilded one litle Table iii stooles iii Chares sutable w[i]th Covers one paire of Tong[es] warminge panne one Close stoole & one paire of Creep[er]s 04 – 00 -

In the Lower Chamber

one bedsted two fether beds iii boulsters one blanket iii Ruggs iii Trunks one Table one Carpet ii stooles one forme 05 – 00 -

In the Chamber next the Chapell

one Round Table iii Chaires one stoole ii Trunks one picture one paire of Creep[er]s fire pan & tong[es] one Close stoole 01 – 10 -

In S[i]r Edmund Crispe hs Chamber

one bedsted Courtaynes & vallance w[i]th the hanging[es] one Rugge one litle Table one Chaire one Joyned stoole 00 – 10 – 0

In the Chamber neere the Tower.

one Canipie bedstid one flock bed one Carpet one Cushion two Joyned stooles, one Chair one Round table one square table one paire of Creep[er]s fire pan, bellowes & other lumber 01 – 10 – 0

In the Wardrup

iii presses ii Carpets ii Chayers one stoole. 5 formes two pictures 6. Cushions one hower glas one plush box Case one long box & other lumber w[i]th a head of a Canipie lether hanging[es] one Trunke 05 – 00 -

In Mr Dawneys Chamber.

one bedsted iii blanketts one Rugg one boulster one pillow one fether bed rope & matt one Table one Carpett one Chushio one Chare w[i]th other Lumber 03 – 00 -

In the next Chamber

one Table 7. pictures one bedsted Curtaynes & vallance ii stooles 3. Chaires one paire of Creep[er]s one Court Cupbard old hanging[es] & other Lumber 03 – 00 – 0

In the now lodging Chamber of S[i]r Ed: Crispe

one halfe headed bed, fether bed, boulster Rugge blanket & pillow one table one pair of Creep[er]s fire pan & peece of hanging[es] & other Lumber 02 – 00 – 0

one halfe heded bedstid rope matt & one old table 00 – 03 – 0

In the Baylies Chamber

one bed one boulster one pillow, Rugg w[i]th the bedstede Courtaynes & vallance & ii formes 02 – 10 – 0

In the Clock howse

one Clock 02 – 00 -

[f. 107r]

In the Wine seller Chamber

one halfe headed bedstede w[i]th a Canapie, one quilt one Rugg one old table one Chaire 00 – 12 – 0

In the footemens Chamber.

one halfe headed bedstid one bed two boulsters one greene Rugg one litle table one forme & a litle other lomber 02 – 00 – 0

In the servants Chamber

one bedstedle Curtyans & vallance, rope & mat one paire of tonges one pair of Creep[er]s fire pan & bellowes one Round table three Chaires & Joyned stooles 01 – 00 – 00

In the wash howse

one table ii formes 1 bucking tub iii washing [keelers?] other lumber 01 – 00 – 0

In the Kitchin

ii Coopes one Table one forme one leather Chaire vi litle peeces of pewter 1 tacke of Iron to hang potts on & Roast meate one paire of bellowes fire pan & tong[es], a brass pott ii spitts 02 – 00 – 0

In the porters Lodge

one bedsted one bed and one boulster 01 – 00 – 0

In the Brewhowse

one brass Copper two brewing Tunns ii Coole backs 20 – 00 – 0

sea Coles 05 – 00 – 0

one querne 23. Casks & other lumber in the brewhouse 02 – 10 – 0

one Rake one Iron slice & one Iron [beame?] 00 – 10 – 0

In the Brewers Chamber

one halfe heade bedstid one feather bed ii boulsters one Rugg and blankett 01 – 06 – 8

In the bake howse

one kneding troffe one brake iii pailes one litle ketle one brass pan iii [tubes?] one table one paile one shovell 00 – 10 – 0

In the boulting Roome

The boulter to boult flower & a wooden beame 01 – 00 – 0

In the further Chamber over [th]e stable

one bedstid one table one paire of scales 00 – 12 – 0

In the midle Chamber over the

two flock beds one fether & one flock boulster & one quilt 01 – 00 – 0

In the next Chamber

one halfe headed bed one feather bed boulster ii blanketts one old Rugg one table, a forme, one sidesadle 02 – 00 – 0

In the Corne Loft

one bushell one halfe bushell 7. leden weights a shovell 00 – 10 – 0

In the greene Court

Three wood stacks of faggotts 15 – 00 – 0

In the Barne

The Haye 15 – 00 – 0

In the Granery

ii [scryes?] one bushell 5. tubb[es] ii funnels & one shovell 01 – 00 – 0

In the Rome under the Granery.

All the wood there in the valte 20 – 00 – 0

In the Parke.

Three Cowes 08 – 00 – 0

Wethers Lambes & yewes 127 37 – 00 – 0

Two Maires and fower Coults 11 – 00 – 0

one waggon ii Courts 2. lodes of Wood 03 – 00 – 0

7 stockes of Bees 01 – 00 – 0

A bout two hundred Deers remayninge in [th]e Parke [54?] – 00 – 00

Theise good[es] were valued and apprised by us whose names are hereunder written.

John Pollen

George Harrison

Peter Pollen

In discussions about early-modern cavalry tactics, some people have asked me how many horses were killed in battles. This is the answer. Actually only a partial answer, but it’s the best one I’ve got. Narratives of English Civil War battles are usually very vague about casualties, if they mention them at all. Financial records are usually a better source for numbers. For a few parliamentary cavalry units, I’ve found detailed lists of horses lost in service. In 1644, Parliament set up  the Committee for Taking Accounts of the Whole Kingdom to audit the war effort (you can read the ordinance for appointing the committee at British History Online). One of the committee’s jobs was to certify arrears of pay due to soldiers and officers (Ian Gentles estimated that these ran into millions of pounds). If the commanding officer of a unit couldn’t satisfactorily account for money, horses and equipment he had received, the value would be knocked off his arrears. Losses by enemy action during a battle were usually allowed, giving officers a strong incentive to exaggerate battle casualties in their accounts. This is obviously a problem because the figures they give could be too high, but it also pretty much guarantees that they won’t be too low. The committee concluded that Lionel Copley, a captain of horse in the Earl of Essex’s army, had defrauded the state of lots of money and horses, and overstated his losses at First Newbury to cover it up, but some members of his troop testified against him. I haven’t included his accounts here because they’re incredibly complicated as well as unreliable. Below I’ve put extracts from three other officers’ accounts that give details of horse losses. Doing this made me realise how bad the transcripts I made for my PhD were, but it also shows that I’ve got much better at palaeography. The quoted text is all in Crown Copyright and released under Open Government Licence. Click the links in the document references to see page images on Flickr (non-commercial use only).

Sir Samuel Luke

TNA: PRO, SP 28/127, part 2, f. 26.

This account is for Luke’s horse troop in the Earl of Essex’s army. He was also scoutmaster general of the army and governor of Newport Pagnell, where he had another cavalry troop in his name.

A Discharge for [th]e horse p[er] Contra

• At the Ram in Smithfeild died before the Marching forth    4
• Lost at Edghill fight 30
• Lost in the March to Winchester 12
• Lost at the Seidge of Reading 12
• Lost at Padbury Bridge and dureing the stay at Tame 12
• Lost at Nubury the first 18
• Run unto the King from St Albons 2 troopers with 2
• Lost in Anno: 1644: in the March to and from Cornwell, and at [th]e last Newbury fight 26
• Delivered to my Lord Cofeild 40

This shows the problems with high losses. Did he really lose 30 horses at Edgehill, or did he commit fraud that wasn’t discovered? It’s not clear what he means by ‘lost’. We can’t assume that they were killed in action. Maybe they were captured by the enemy, taken by deserters who ran away from the battle, or just wandered off after losing their riders. There’s no record of where on the battlefield Luke’s troop was deployed, or what part it played in the fighting. This detail is crucial because some of Essex’s cavalry ran off almost immediately while other charged the King’s infantry.

The account gives the impression that losses on the march could be quite high, but mostly doesn’t clearly distinguish this from battle casualties. It’s fairly safe to assume that the four horses that died before leaving London were diseased although the account doesn’t say so. The final 40 were delivered to Lord Caulfield when the troop was merged into the New Model Army in 1645.

Richard Griffin

TNA: PRO, SP 28/266, part 1, f. 32.

Griffin commanded a troop in the Earl of Manchester’s regiment in the Eastern Association army. The troop fought at Marston Moor in 1644, as the account shows. The troopers’ names at the end of each line seem to have been added later, but in the same hand.

A true Account of horse w[hi]ch have beene lost out of Capt. Richard Griffins Troope since the sixth of March 1643[/4]

• Impr[im]is 1 A horse & Armes carried away by Quart[e]rm[aste]r Hustler
• It[e]m 2 A white gelding att Cambridge spoyled and lame Robert Balam
• It[e]m 3 A bay gelding 3 miles beyond Lincolne shoulder shott Phillip Sponer
• It[e]m 4 A bay stone horse att Massam More dead Tho[ma]s Waddington
• It[e]m 5 A blacke stone horse att Massam More dead Hatlye
• It[e]m 6: A white gelding att Massam More dead Jackson
• It[e]m 7 A white gelding twoe myles from Rippon left lame Godwyn
• It[e]m 8 A white gelding shott & dead 2 miles from Knasburrough R: Welton
• It[e]m 9 A bay gelding left lame & spoyled att Maxburrough in yorkeshire W[illia]m Smith
• It[e]m 10 A blacke gelding att Foule Sutton in yorkeshire dyed Tho[mas] Meares
• It[e]m 11 A browne bay gelding lame & spoyled att Tadcaster in yorkeshire
• It[e]m 16 [sic] five horses lost 2 myles from Newberrye
• It[e]m 17 A bay horse taken by [th]e Enemy at Dennington John Nicholson
• It[e]m 18 A gray horse died twoe miles from Basing Browne
• It[e]m 19 Another gray horse dyed twoe miles from Basing: Kilby
• It[e]m 20 A bay horse dyed att Wickham Gardner
• It[e]m 21 A gray gelding left lame hard by Slowe neare Windsor Whitchurch
• It[e]m 22 A bay nagg dyed att Wotton in Bedd Hen[ry] Tadlowe
• It[e]m 23 A white geldding died att Wotton in Bedd Jo[hn] J[...]n
• It[e]m 24 A gray gelding left lame att Wotton in Bedd
• It[e]m 25 A white gelding lost negligently by Phillipp Spooner w[hi]ch he is to make good
• It[e]m 26 A bay gelding carried away by Mr Hearne to [th]e Enemy w[i]th his Armes
• It[e]m 27 A browne bay gelding carried away by Mr Leveridge to [th]e Enemyes
• It[e]m 28 A sorrill nagg carried away by one Standard to [th]e Enemy
• It[e]m 29 A horse & Armes carried away by John Gullson
• It[e]m 30 A gray gelding dyed 2 miles from Sheffeild in yorkshire Tho[mas] [Ul...ton?]
• It[e]m 31 A bay horse died att Sct: Mary Bourne in Wiltsh Johnson
• It[e]m 32 A horse dyed att Burckcleare in Hampshire Hodgson
• It[e]m 33 A gray Stone horse dyed att Barkhamsted in Harfordshire Tho[mas] Meares
• It[e]m 34 A gray Stone horse dyed att Broadwater in Harfordshire Lawe
• It[e]m 35 A bay gelding dyed att London Mr Ward
• It[e]m 36 A bay horse taken by [th]e Enemy att Boston & theire armes Abraham Tilman
• It[e]m 37 A sorrill nagg taken by [th]e Enemy att Boston & there Armes John Day
• It[e]m 38 A gray gelding dyed att Wingrave in Buck

This is where the incentive to exaggerate becomes really important. Griffin claims that only three horses were killed at Marston Moor. It’s very well documented that this was a long, hard fight. Cromwell commanded the Eastern Association cavalry on the left wing and charged Prince Ruperts cavalry early in the battle. Close combat between them lasted for some time, and David Leslie brought in the reserves of Scots horse, which probably tipped the balance. Once Rupert’s men had run away, Cromwell led his wing over to the other side of the battlefield and launched a second charge against Goring. It’s very unlikely that any units were uncommitted, and yet after all this, Griffin lost only three horses. He’s also more explicit than Luke about other losses, so we can see that a lot of the horses died or went lame rather than being killed or captured by the enemy.

Thomas Noakes

TNA: PRO, SP 28/38, part 4, f. 318.

Noakes was a captain under Sir Thomas Middleton in the west midlands.

A p[ar]ticuler of such horses and Armes as were lost and dyed in the states service under the Com[m]and of Captaine Thomas Noakes in the Regiment of S[i]r Thomas Middleton

• 1. Aprill the 29th 1644. John Newmans blacke stoned horse fell sick at Coventry and there dyed.
• 1. May the 2d. Thomas Woodward his horse tyred, & left betweene Litchfeild and Tamworth, & taken up by Litchfeild men.
• 1. May the 7th Hugh Vaughan left his Coulers and with his horse and Armes went to [th]e king.
• 1. May the 15th John Robert[es] left his horse sick at Cosill, and from thence taken away by Dudley men.
• 1. The same day Tho[mas] Turney left his horse lame at Cosill, & there lost as the other.
• 3. The 24th. Will[ia]m Pricklove left his horse sick. Tho[mas] Broome left his black nag lame with another gray nagg lame at Wassall & from thence taken by Dudley men.
• 1. Thomas Barr had his horse & Armes stollen away at Wassall.
• 1. The 11th of June John Trott being kild at Tipton greene, his horse & armes were lost.
• 1. The same day Thomas Tyms lost his horse & Armes at Wedgborough.
• 6. The 17th. Tho[mas] Staploe Cornett, with John Fountaine, Steven Harmer, Rob[er]t Parker, Tho[mas] Childer and Henry Steele did run away from their Coulers with their horses & Armes from Wolverhampton.
• 4. June the 22th. John Clarke, Christofer Greene, John Saunders, Richard Buckley in discontent for want of money, went from Stafford with their horses and Armes, saying there was more due to them, then their horses and Armes were worth.
• 3. June the 23th. Francis Sanders, Tho[mas] Bostocke left their horses lame with another belonging to my troope at grasse in Stafford Castle ground[es], & were taken away from thence by Litchfeild men.
• 1. June the 24th. George Frith left his horse & Armes at the seige of Oswestrey.
• 7. June the last. John Eusam, Tho[mas] Hill, John Haley, Joseph Farr, Will[ia]m Whitehead, Henry Reymond & Geo[rge] Bunckley in discontent left their Colours, and some of their horses & Armes in the feild in Middle Witch, & others in the stables. I deliv[er]ed them in Charge to my troopers, & thorough Carelessenes in their march & at the fight at Oswestry they were all lost.
• 1. July the 2d Corporall Broomer lost his horse at the fight at Oswestrey.
• 2. July the 4th. Tho[mas] Lewin & Mathewe Hagger left their horses tyred within a myle & a halfe of Salop and soe were lost.
• 1. July the 9th George Jefferies, with his horse went to the king.

Again, not many battle casualties, although the fights that this troop was in were smaller than Marston Moor or Edgehill. The biggest losses at Oswestry on 30 June were spare horses that had already been abandoned by their riders. As with Luke’s account, it’s not clear what ‘lost’ means, but in this case it seems likely that they captured rather than killed. This is a bit more explicit with John Trott’s horse, as the account says that he was killed at Tipton Green but his horse and arms were only lost. There’s even more desertion here than in the other accounts. This is probably down to pay being worse in regional armies, because apart from the Eastern Association, they didn’t get their own treasuries or much money from London.

These three accounts don’t give any direct evidence of how cavalry fought in battles, but whatever they were doing didn’t necessarily get many horses killed.

I promised that I’d get back to blogging in January. I’ve finished the last freelance contract, but I’m just about to start a bigger one so I won’t be blogging as much as I’d planned. Instead of what I said I was going to do, I’ll be posting a transcript of an early-modern document every month, with links to images and some explanation of what it’s about. This means that my blogging will be exclusively early-modern for at least six months. The series starts tomorrow with accounts of horse losses in the English Civil War, which will make a nice transition from last year’s cavalry series and partly answer a question that people are always asking me.

The other big news is that I’ve changed my Creative Commons licence to attribution only. This means that you (yes, YOU) are free to modify and re-use my blog posts for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as you attribute it to me. The new licence DOES NOT apply to any posts deleted before today. Also, I’m not waiving any of my moral rights, so no defamatory false attribution, please. I was already planning to make this change before Aaron Swartz died, partly to save me from the trouble of having to give permission for commercial use when people ask for it, and partly to prove that CC-BY doesn’t automatically help neo-nazis. The downside is that I have to pay myself £1,500 per post in Blog Processing Charges, but I’m hoping I might get some free taxpayers’ money to cover that, because I’m a businessman too and so my profits should be just as important as publishing companies’ profits.

I’ll be taking a break from blogging from now until January as I’m about so start a new freelance contract and ‘work comes first, I’m sure you’ll understand’. I was hoping to write a post summarizing the cavalry tactics series, but it’s still too complicated and uncertain for any definite conclusions. When I come back I’ll be blogging about some different things. I’m planning new projects involving digital history and WW1, so expect to see more about that sort of thing and less about early-modern cavalry. I think my blogging is starting to resemble TV seasons: I’ve posted regularly about cavalry (and also the Wharton letters running at the same time) since August, but now it’s finished and after a break will be replaced by something different.

Writing about cavalry charges often uses the phrases ‘close order’ or ‘knee-to-knee’. But what do these actually mean, and how close can you keep charging horses? This post won’t necessarily answer these questions satisfactorily, but it will show that there are lots of different opinions in drill books and eyewitness accounts.

Francois de La Noue, The politicke and militarie discourses of the Lord de La Nouue, trans. Edward Aggas (London, 1588):

the Germaines exceede all other nations, because they seeme to bee not onely close, but even glewed each to other: which proceedeth of an ordinarie custome that they have to keepe alwaies in bodie, as having learned as well by naturall knowledge, as by profe, that the strong alwaies carie away the weake. Also the more to testifie that they sieldome fayle in this, whensoever they be broken, in their retire and flight they still remaine unseperate and joyned together (p. 200)

But when a troupe is set in a wing, although the good, which ordinarily are the smallest number, do march cheerely to the onset, yet the rest that are not so willing to bite, (which faine to bleede at the nose, to have a broken stiroppe, or to have their horse unshooed) doe staie behinde, so as within two hundred paces of waie, we shall see glasse windowes in that long file, & great breaches wil appeare therein, which greatly incourageth the enimie: and many times among an hundred horse, scarce 25. doe enter in (p. 188)

There’s obviously a double standard here because La Noue was arguing for the position that reiters in deep squadrons were better than lancers in single lines. I’ve already shown that his theory of shock was based on the fallacy that horses can be rigidly joined together. It would be wrong to cherry-pick either of these quotes to prove that close order was or wasn’t possible.

Gervase Markham, The souldiers accidence (London, 1625):

for you must know that a Troope of horse consisteth of Ranks and Files as well as a Company of foote, and having set file unto file close, that is Cuise unto Cuise, or knee unto knee (p. 47)

It is then to be understood, that in Horse-troopes there are but two sorts of Distances or Orders, eyther in Rankes or Fyles; That is, Close Order, and Open Order, Close order in Fyles, is Cuish to Cuish, or knee to knee, and Open order in Fyles, is six foote (which is accounted an Horse length): So Close order in Rankes, is to the Horses Crooper, or without Streete, and Open order is sixe foote, above which the Rankes must never open. And therefore that the Troop may March orderly and keepe their Distance truly (p. 55)

Markham isn’t very reliable, but this at least shows that the phrase ‘knee to knee’ was used in the 17th century. He doesn’t go into any more detail about exactly what it means, but the most likely meaning is that the troopers’ knees should be touching each other.

My notes don’t make it clear whether John Cruso’s Militarie instructions for the cavallrie (1632) said much about this, but he did say that ‘The principall strength of Cuirassiers consisteth in keeping themselves close serried together; for this the Germanes are commended.’ (p. 98). This could be derived from La Noue but it’s not a direct copy.

Robert Ward, Anima’dversions of warre (London, 1639) says almost exactly the same thing as Markham (p. 295). This could be because it’s true, or because of writers copying each other.

John Vernon, The young horse-man, or, The honest plain-dealing cavalier (Andrew Coe, London, 1644):

those troops that are to give the first charge being drawn up into battail as before, are to be at their close order, every left hand mans right knee must be close locked under his right hand mans left ham, as hath bin shown before. In this order they are to advance toward the Enemy with an easie pace, firing their Carbines at a convenient distance, always aiming at their Enemies brest or lower, because that pouder is of an elevating nature, then drawing neere the Enemy, they are with their right hands to take forth one of their Pistols out of their houlsters, and holding the lock up are most firing as before, always reserving on Pistoll ready charged, spann’d and primed in your houlsters, in case of a retreat as I have shown before, having thus fired the troops are to charge the Enemy in a full career, but in good order with their swords fastned with a Riband or the like unto their wrists, for feare of losing out of their hand, if they should chance to misse their blow, placing the pomell on their thigh, keeping still in their close order, close locked as before. (p. 43)

This is the most explicit and detailed description of close order in this period, but that’s the problem: it’s unique. As far as I know, no-one else writing in English in the first half of the 17th century said anything like this. That doesn’t automatically mean that it’s wrong, but it should at least be grounds for suspicion. I haven’t found an account of a civil war cavalry charge that matches Vernon’s prescription. A lot of this is because most accounts aren’t detailed enough. As I’ve already shown, we usually don’t know whether charges ended at the gallop (like Vernon says they should be) or not. But it could be significant that no eyewitness ever explicitly mentions firing during the charge. We know that Rupert at Edgehill and Byron at Roundway Down gave definite orders against it, but things are less clear for parliamentarian charges.

The other big mystery is what happens at the end of the charge. Vernon doesn’t say exactly what the cavalry are supposed to do when they get to the enemy. As they’ve already fired twice and are supposed to save their third shot for a retreat, this can’t be the mingled fire tactics that La Noue, Rupert and Byron advocated. Vernon doesn’t seem to want to use swords as shock weapons like lances: with the pommel resting on the thigh and the troopers locked tight together, the point probably isn’t going to reach the enemy. Ultimately, if both sides manage to do what Vernon wants then they have to crash into each other, and as we should all know by now that’s disastrous for both of them. Maybe he wants to intimidate the enemy into running away, but he doesn’t explicitly say that, and the emphasis on keeping hold of the sword suggests that Vernon was expecting close combat.

(Also I’ve only just noticed that Vernon’s book was printed by Andrew Coe. I don’t know exactly what significance that has, but it would be worth investigating.)

Sir Richard Bulstrode’s account of Edgehill said that Rupert ordered his cavalry ‘to march as close as possible, keeping their Ranks with Sword in Hand’ (Bulstrode, Memoirs, p. 81). He didn’t say exactly how close it was possible to march.

As usual, Cromwell’s writings aren’t much help. Two of his letters about Gainsborough mention ‘close order’ but don’t go into any detail about what it means (Abbot, i, pp. 243, 245; quoted in my Cromwell post). Be suspicious of any historian who does claim to know exactly what it means, especially if they appeal to John Vernon’s authority.

Richard Atkyns gives the best description of close order in his account of his charge against Heselrig’s lobsters at Roundway Down:

we advanced a full trot 3 deep, and kept in order; the enemy kept their station, and their right wing of horse being cuirassiers, were I’m sure five, if not six deep, in so close order, that Punchinello himself had he been there, could not have gotten in to them. All the horse on the left hand of Prince Maurice his regiment, had none to charge; we charging the very utmost man of their right wing; I cannot better compare the figure of both armies than to the map of the fight at sea, between the English and the Spanish Armadas, (only there was no half moon) for though they were above twice our numbers; they being six deep, in close order and we but three deep, and open (by reason of our sudden charge) we were without them at both ends (Young, ‘Praying Captain’, p. 58)

This implies that it was easier to keep in close order when defending, and that charging led to formations opening out.

There’s now a big gap in my knowledge as I haven’t looked at the later 17th century or early 18th century for a long time. We’ll pick up again with Major-General Warnery, whose treatise was published in England in 1798 but drew on the author’s experiences under Frederick the Great.

Warnery isn’t as explicit as Vernon but does seem to want very tight formations:

When it is reflected, what bruises a trooper is liable to in his legs, with the present suple boots, from the holsters, knees, carbines, scabbards, &c. of each other, when the squadron charges close and firm as it ought to do, to give it weight and effect. I think it will not be denied, that stiff boots, which will defend the trooper from such accidents, ought to be given him; they will at the same time enable him to charge closer in line, than they have ever been able to do since suple boots has been adopted (pp. 48-49)

I don’t think Warnery wants horses to crash into the enemy. Although he talks a lot about shock and weight, when he goes into more detail, it’s always about the sword point:

Since the lance has been rejected, the sword is, without contradiction, the queen of arms for the cavalry; and it is upon that alone, that they should depend in action, until the enemy is dispersed (p. 16)

The point of the sword is more advantageous than the edge, because with it you can reach your enemy at a greater distance than with the other, the smallest wound with it renders the wounded incapable of serving during the remainder of the action at least; it does not require so much force to give a dangerous wound with a thrust as with a cut (p. 16)

The troopers of the front rank raise their swords to the height of their faces, the arm extended in tierce, the point against the eyes of his enemy, and the hand a little turned, that the branch of guard of the sword may cover his own; they must raise themselves a little in the stirrups, the body forward, and aim to place a thrust with the point against the man or the horse opposed to him; in a word, he must do his best, either by thrusting or cutting, to disable his enemy; thus the shock or charge is soon finished (pp. 46-47)

Warnery doesn’t see the main effect of the charge as psychological:

It will easily be conceived what terrible blows must be given by two brave troopers who meet each other in the charge; many people are however of opinion, that the shock of two lines of cavalry never takes place, one always giving way before the other arrives to it; though this is most frequently the case, it is nevertheless an error to say, that always happens; at the battle of Guastala the shock was general: at Strigau likewise (p. 49)

Although the rest of the book implies that these ‘terrible blows’ are given with the sword, if Warnery gets his way then there has to be a big collision between horses. In his ideal charge, the cavalry are in such close order that the troopers’ legs are getting bruised, and neither side turns away, so there’s nowhere else for the horses to go but straight into each other (there’s also a lot of stuff about rear ranks adding weight to the shock and preventing horses in front from stopping, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt about that for now).

Some later British drill books disagreed with Warnery, saying that horses getting too close was a bad thing.

Instructions and Regulations for the Formations and Movements of the Cavalry (1799):

Any attempt to close the files at the instant of the charge, would only increase the intervals in a line, and tend to impede the free movement of each horse, who at no time requires to be more independent than when galloping at his utmost exertion; and every rub to right or left diminishes that effort in a degree. (p. 32)

Manual of drill for mounted rifle Volunteers or Volunteer irregular Cavalry (1863):

Any closing in or crowding at the instant of the charge must impede the horses and impair the effect, and must therefore be avoided. It is from the uniform velocity of the line that the greatest effect is produced (p. 100)

Both of these drill books were definitely talking about something called ‘shock’ but they said that it depended on velocity, not on a tight formation. They both insist that horses shouldn’t be rigidly joined together and that they need to move independently.

British practice in the First World War also seems to have been not to get too close. Farrier Sergeant Albert Turp of the Royal Dragoons described taking part in a charge against German infantry at Collezy in 1918:

We had of course been taught that a cavalry charge should be carried out in line six inches from knee to knee, but it didn’t work out like that in practice and we were soon a pretty ragged line of horsemen at full gallop. (Kenyon, ‘British Cavalry‘, p. 234)

Even the ideal was looser than what John Vernon recommended in the 17th century and was hard to achieve in practice. The aim seems to have been to ride through the enemy and stab them with the sword point on the way past. Sgt Turp continues:

I remembered my old training and the old sword exercise. As our line overrode the Germans I made a regulation point at a man on my offside and my sword went through his neck and out the other side. The pace of my horse carried my sword clear and then I took a German on my nearside, and I remember the jar as my point took him in the collarbone and knocked him over. (Kenyon, ‘British Cavalry’, p. 235)

There’s a controversial photo that may or may not show the Australian Light Horse charging at Beersheba in 1917. This shows a fairly loose formation. Although there are a some small bunches of horses galloping close to each other, there are big gaps between the groups and it’s hard to make out any straight ranks or files in the foreground.

This is just a small sample, but it shows a wide range of opinions from theorists and eyewitnesses about how close cavalry could and should get during a charge. I’m inclined to agree with the British Army view that if you can get horses into very close order it would be counterproductive. Galloping horses can trip over very easily. If one goes down, others are likely to trip over it. This can lead to a domino effect. The most famous example (at least in Britain) is the 1967 Grand National, when a huge pile-up at the 23rd fence allowed outsider Foinavon to win by default. The best footage of the accident has been taken down from YouTube because of a copyright claim, but this is the British Pathe film, taken from a different angle (about 1:30):

You definitely wouldn’t want that to happen to a cavalry troop in a battle (unless it was on the other side, of course). This is a more recent example, from Aqueduct in the US:

Lots of horses came down even though they were more spread out.

I’m still not in a position to strongly argue that close order was impossible, but if it could be achieved, I don’t think it was necessarily a good idea. Apart from the risk of horse accidents, it would get in the way of using swords and lances as shock weapons. It’s much better to go through the enemy and stab them with a point than it is to crash your horses into them.

This post is part of a series of letters from parliamentary soldier Nehemiah Wharton during the English Civil War, which will be posted on the anniversary of the day they were written. For more information see the introduction. To find the rest of the series, use the “wharton letters” tag. The original of this letter is held by the UK National Archives, reference SP 16/492/321, ff.87-88. The text of the letter is out of copyright. Images are available for non-commercial use only at Flickr (click on folio numbers for individual page images).

In the last letter of the series, Wharton goes to Hereford and finds that the people swear too much.

[f. 87r]

most worthy S[i]r

Fryday Sept the 30th was my last unto you. this day a company of knights gentlemen and yeomen of the County of Hereford, came to his Exelency, petioners for strength to be sent spedily to Hereford forthwith wee were commaunded to draw out 15 men out of every company in our Regiments, in all about 900, with 3 troopes of horse and 2 peeces of Ordinance with which we marched (a forlorne hope) towards Hereford. our leaders were The Earle of Stanfords, Leiftenant Colonell, Sargeant major Barrif, and Captaine Inglisby, of Colonell Hampdens Re[giment], Captaine Jones of Cholmleys Re[giment], Captaine Ward of Stanfords, Captaine Povy of Hollis his regiment besides Leiftenants and Sargeants Our ministers Mr John sedgwick, and Mr Kemme. after wee had marched 10 miles wee came to Bromyard, the wether wet, and they way very fowle, here we got a little refreshment and from hence marched 10 miles further to Hereford but very late before wee got thither and by reason of the raine and snow and extreamity of could one of our soildiers died by the way and it is wonderfull wee did not all perish, for the cowardly Cavalleers were within four miles of us in this poore condition comminge to Hereford the gates were shut against us, and for two howers we stood in dirt and water, up to the midde legges for the City were all malignants, save three which were roundheads and the the marquesse of Harford had sent them word the day before, that they should in no wise let us in or if they did we would plunder their houses, murder ther children, burne their Bibles, and utterly ruinate all and promised he would releive them himselfe, with all speede for which cause the Citizens were resolved to oppose us unto the death, and havinge in the City three peeces of ordinance, charged them with nayles stones &c, and placed them against us, and wee against them, resolvinge either to enter the City, or dye before it but the roundheads in the City, one of them an Alderman, surnamed Lane: p[er]suaded the silly maior, (for so hee is indeede) that his Exelency and all his forces weere at hand wherupon he opened unto us, and we entred the City at Bysters gate but found the Dores shut, many of the people with their children fled, and had enoffe to doe to get a little quater but the poore maior (seinge he was so handsomly cozoned) was not a little angry for Harford with his forces, which Fled from Sherbon, promised to visit them the day followinge. this night though weet and weary, wee were faine to guard the City.

this day our generall proclaimed, that all delinquents that in ten daies would returne, and joyne with the parliament, should favorably, but conditionally, be excepted exceptinge such as are members of the house, which must submit to the sensure therof. But these by name are p[ar]ticularly excepted The Earle of Bristo, the Earle of Cumberland, the earle of Newcastle, the Earle Rivers, secretary Nicolas, Mr Endymeon Porter, Mr Edward hide, The Duke of Richmond, the Earle of Carnarvan, the Lord viscount Newwarke, The Lord viscount Fauckland, his majesties secretary in spetiall

Saturday our Squadron watced at St Owens gate, which day I tooke an opportunity to veiw the City, which is well scituate, and seated upon the river Y invironed with a stronge wall, better then any I have seene before, with 5 gates and a stronge stone bridge of sixe arches, over the river, surpassinge worsester. in this City there is the statlyest market place in the Kingdome built with Cullumnes, after the maner of the Exchange. the Minster every way exceedinge that at worcester but the City in Circuit not so large the inhabitants are totally ignorant in the waies of god and much addicted to drunkennesse, and other vices, but principally unto swearinge so that the children that have scarce learned to speake, doe universally sweare stoutly many here speake welsh.

this day our companies exercisinge in the feilds at Worsesster, one of The Lord Generals soildiers shot at randum, and with a brace of bullets, shot one of his fellow soildiers through the head, who immediatly dyed,

[f. 87v]

Sabbath day, about the time of morninge prayer, we went to the Minster, where the pipes played, and the puppets sange so sweetely, that some of our soildiers could not forbare dauncinge, in the holy quire: wherat the Baallists were sore displ[esd?] the Antheam ended they fell to prayer, and prayed devoutly, for the Kinge, the Bishops &c and one of our soildiers with a loud voice saide, what neiver a bit for the Parlaiment which offended them much more not satisfied with this humane service, we went to devine, and passinge by found shops open, and men at worke to whom wee gave some plaine dehortations, and went to heare Mr Sedgwick, who gave us two famous sermons which much affected the poore inhabitants, who wonderinge said, they neiver heard the like before and I beleeve them, the Lord moove your harts to commiserate the distresses, and to send them some faithfull and painfull ministers, for the revennews of the Collidge, will maintaine many of them.

This even the Earle of Stanford (who is made governor of Hereford) entred the City with a Regiment of foote, and some troopes of horse: and tooke up the Bishops Pallace, for his quarter and is resolved, there to abide wherupon On Munday morninge, we marched towards Worcester, and at the end of ten miles came to Bromyard, where we quartered all night, This day his Exelency proclaimed, that all soildiers that would set to diginge should have twelve pence the day and enter into pay presently.

Tuesday wee marched to worcester, and weere received with much joy for the deseigne was so desperate, that our Juditious frends, neiver looked to see us againe. I am in good health, and by the goodnesse of god supplyed with strenth, beyond expectation.

Wensday morninge, I went to veiw the soildiers workes, who have pourtraed out the severall formes of their Scaunces, halfe moones, Redouts, &c beginninge at Severne on one side, of the City, and goe round the City unto Severne againe. it will be finished with all convenient speede for as wee intrench here so also doth Prince Robber, at Bridge norton, twelve miles of and we heare at Beaudle also, from whence commeth the coales, that supply Our City but we have sent out some forces to expell them thence.

this day after noone, at the request of my Captaine and other commaunders: I againe rode with them unto Malverne hils, forementioned, leavinge our horses in the towne, after much toyle we asscended the hills, which indeede are a very Curious prospect for the day beinge cleare, wee could see neare thirty miles round, all the valley betweene us and woster, though five miles broad, and many miles longe, (inclosed with hedges) semed unto us, but as a garden with a few knots in it, (though indeede they are very large pastures) at the bottome of these hils is Malverne Church, the statlyest parrish Church in England adorned with varieties of rarities, which I want time to expresse.

Thursday wee exercised our soildiers in the feilds, this day the Lord of Coventry came in to us and this even we expected 3 lords more with [a?] Message from his majesty,

Fryday a pare of gallowes were set up in the market place, for the villan that betrayed our troopes, unto the hands of Prince Robber and we this day expect his exaltation I have nothing of worth to present you with, but I have sent you the gods of the Cavalleers inclosed, they are pillage taken from S[i]r william Russels of which I neiver yet got the worth of one farthinge for it is instantly the prey of the ruder sort of soildiers, whose society blessed be god I hate and avoide

I have breifly sent you every dayes passage since I left London which I hope you have received. I earnestly desire to heare of the welfare of you, my Mrs and [f. 88r] you whole family, by this bearer, Thomas Weeden, who weekely visits our army, and is faithfull he lodgeth at the Saracens head, in Carter lane. S[i]r I greete you and my Mrs with my most humble service, as also Mr Molloyne and his Wife, unto whom I am much ingaged principally for his devine exortation, to reade those 2 chapters which I and my company have often done, they beinge very p[er]tinent to the deseigne in hand. I pray excuse my longe silence towards him and assure him that I will p[ar]ticularly present him, with the next remarkeable passage. I would have done it before this time, but your Athenians catch it from us, and carry it post unto you, (though for the most more then is true) that before we can get conveyance, it is turned into antiquity thus with my love and service to Mrs Elizabeth, Anna, John, and little Sammuell, and my love to all my fellow servants, of both sexes, for the present I rest, but not sease to remaine untill death:

Your auntient, humble, and affectionate servant,

Nehemiah Wharton

Worcester Octob[er] the 7th 1642

[f. 88v]

To the worthy and his much honored Frend Mr George Willingham Marchant of the golden Anchor in Swethins Lane London these present

[added in different hand: the post is at the howse? heere in Carter lane]

Transcribing this letter was more problematic than usual because there are lots of marks which may or may not be punctuation, and it’s impossible to tell from the microfilm whether they’re original. In the previous letters, Wharton didn’t punctuate his writing this much.

There were a few minor errors in Ellis’s version: ‘exortation’ was missed from the phrase ‘for his devine exortation, to reade those 2 chapters’, and earlier, ‘dehortation’ was misread as ‘exhortation’. The captain of Holles’s regiment was rendered as ‘Pony’, which is a reasonable reading of the manuscript, but I think Povy is more likely based on the list of officers in Thomas Tracts E.117[3]

William Seymour (1587-1660) was 1st Marquess of Hertford and later 2nd Duke of Somerset. He was the Earl of Essex’s brother in law but fought for the King in the civil wars. When he tried to execute the Commission of Array in Somerset in August, he was chased off by a large crowd. He retreated to Sherborne Castle, and held it against Parliament for a while before escaping into Wales.

The identities of the men excepted from pardon should mostly be obvious. Edward Hyde was later Earl of Clarendon and wrote a history of the civil wars that was mostly lies.

Digging trenches is often part of a soldier’s job, so it’s surprising that here they had to be paid extra for it. At least some of the soldiers seem to have been obsessed with money, as we saw during the mutiny, and Wharton didn’t approve of their baseness.

This is the last surviving letter that Nehemiah Wharton sent to George Willingham. Frustratingly he says his next letter will be to Mr Molloyne, but if it was sent, it isn’t known to have survived. Nobody knows what happened to Wharton. His regiment was at the battle of Edgehill on 23 October, so it’s possible that he was killed there. But it’s also possible that he survived and his subsequent letters haven’t. It would be amazing if someone discovered more of them, especially if there was an account of Edgehill in them, but that seems unlikely now. The story doesn’t have a neat ending, but that’s always the way with history.

Francois de La Noue (1531-91) was a protestant commander in the French Wars of Religion. He wrote a military treatise that was translated into English by Edward Aggas and published as The politicke and militarie discourses of the Lord de La Nouue Whereunto are adjoyned certaine observations of the same author, of things happened during the three late civill warres of France. With a true declaration of manie particulars touching the same in 1588. I’ve referred to this book before because it has a lot of interesting things to say about lances and pistols. In the lance post, I mentioned that La Noue had a distinctive theory of shock. Now I’m going to look at it in more detail (or at least the version given in the English translation, which might not be exactly what La Noue wrote; for convenience I’ll be referring to it as ‘La Noue’).

La Noue uses the word shock several times. Although it’s often associated with lancers, it isn’t always. Sometimes it clearly refers to something other than the effect of the point of the lance on enemy armour:

I will say, that although the squadron of Speares doe give a valiant charge: yet can it worke no great effect: for at the onset it killeth none, yea it is a miracle if any be slayne with the speare: onely it may wound some horse, and as for the shocke it is many times of small force (p. 201)

Here the shock is different from killing or wounding with the spear. Sometimes it might refer to the force that knocks a rider off a horse. That seems to be what it means here:

I wil not otherwise speak of these mightie blowes that cleave a man to the waste, or cut asunder a Vantbrasse arme and all: neither of those shockes or fals that doe a man no harme, but that he may rise and leape againe upon his horse back, as he were become a leopard

In other places it seems to mean something else again. La Noue also uses the word ‘overthrow’. Sometimes this could mean riders being knocked off their horses by a lance, as with the shock in the quote above, but sometimes it can’t:

Then did the squadrons of speares growe into credite, who (as I have heard) were so aranged by the Emperour Charles, who meeting our files of men of arms did easilie overthrow them, which also the squadrons of Rheitres have sometimes done: neither is it much to be mervailed that it came so to passe for natural reason sheweth it, which willeth that the strong carrie awaie the weake: Also that sixe or seaven ranks of horsemen joyned together ouerthrow one alone. (p. 186)

Since reiters don’t have lances, they can’t be using them to knock the enemy down, so this ‘overthrow’ must be something else. It could be a metaphor that refers to a psychological effect, or it could just mean ‘defeat’ without specifying how. La Noue soon goes into a bit more detail:

we must not care so much, that everie one at the meeting strike one blow with his speare: but rather that it may bee able to overthrowe all that come agaynst it, which is much bravelyer done when it is in the squadron? It may lykewise bee replyed that the squadron cannot overthrowe above fifteene or sixteene horse at the most of the troupe that standeth in a haie, which is true, but those shall be about the Ensigne, where the Captaines and best men are placed: which being carried awaie, al the rest shaketh, and although that parte that hath not bene touchd doe close up the flankes of the squadron, yet doth it small harme, in that it cannot enter upon the men that are thus in a heap united together: who likewise in their shockes doe strike those as well as the first, and breake them. Yea, although three or foure troupes of horse be araunged in a haie one at anothers heales, yet shall a squadron overthrow them all almost as easilie as the boule doth many rankes of scailes (pp. 186-7)

The reference to a boule is obviously a simile so we shouldn’t take it too literally. But earlier he mentions the 15 men in the middle being overthrown, which causes the others to shake. It seems to me that this means that the 15 who are in the way of the squadron are somehow physically moved, and that this demoralises the rest, who haven’t been touched. It also seems that La Noue imagines that the members of the squadron are somehow rigidly joined together. He makes a clear distinction between a squadron and three or four single lines at each other’s heels. I’m not sure why they should be different as a squadron in a deep formation is still made of several ranks close behind each other but actually moving independently. As I pointed out in the physics post, there’s no way to rigidly join cavalry horses together, so they never physically behave as a single body. La Noue may be appealing to some pre-Newtonian ideas about physics (Aristotle would be one of the usual suspects) but it might as well be magic.

Sith therefore that it is one principle that squadrons doe breake with the vyolent shocke which they susteyne, may we not thereupon inferre, that those that keepe themselves closest and doe strike with the whole bodie conjoyned, doe worke the greatest effect: It is hard to denie it: and who doe better practise those rules then the Reistres? (p. 200)

Here he’s even more explicit that the squadron is somehow joined together. The word ‘break’ is often used as a metaphor in writing about battles, and can mean broken morale, but La Noue could be using it to mean that the joins of the formation are physically broken apart.

Whatever La Noue was saying, his ideas about close formations and shock don’t reappear so prominently in English drill books in the early 17th century. Cruso cited some parts of the original French version of La Noue’s treatise but didn’t discuss this idea of shock in detail, although traces of it are still hanging around:

Some authors (for the disposing of the Cuirassiers for fight) hold that they ought to be ordered in grosse bodies, that so (by their soliditie and weight) they may entertain and sustain the shock of the enemie. (Cruso, p. 42)

Cruso doesn’t say who these authors are (the marginal notes for this passage only mention classical sources which can’t have anything to do with cuirassiers) but it seems very similar to La Noue, who is cited on the same page for his advice to only use the pistol at very close range.

Robert Ward’s 1639 drill book Anima’dversions of warre mostly concentrated on the use of pistols and seems to have completely rejected La Noue’s theory of shock:

Moreover the Wedge is of greater strength than the Rhombes, because it bringeth more hands to fight, for the hinder part of the Rhombe is of no use but to avoyde surprises, for it avayleth nothing in charging, whereas all parts of the Wedge are effectuall (Ward, p. 314)

This discussion of impractical and obsolete formations shows that Ward’s work wasn’t closely related to contemporary reality, but I’m just quoting it here because it directly contradicts pp. 186-7 of La Noue that I quoted above. Although Prince Rupert seems to have used the close-range pistol tactics favoured by La Noue, the testimony of Richard Atkyns and Sir Richard Bulstrode that royalist cavalry were only three deep on at least some occasions suggests that they weren’t influenced by La Noue’s shock theory. The deep and close formation used by Heselrig’s lobsters at Roundway Down is consistent with what La Noue wrote, but this battle just proved that it didn’t work (Young, ‘Praying Captain’, p. 58; I’ll quote it in detail next week).

You should also be able to see parallels with things that I’ve criticized various modern historians for writing. There’s Glenn Foard’s ‘breaking them with the sheer force of impact’, Austin Woolrych’s ‘relying on the sheer weight of impact for their greatest effect’, and of course Wanklyn and Jones’s ‘Close order turned the whole squadron into a single missile, maximizing the shock of impact’ (Foard, Naseby, p. 251; Woolrych, Battles, p. 73; Wanklyn and Jones, Military History, p. 34). Either they’re using misleading metaphors, or they’re repeating the same fallacy as La Noue.

This post is part of a series of letters from parliamentary soldier Nehemiah Wharton during the English Civil War, which will be posted on the anniversary of the day they were written. For more information see the introduction. To find the rest of the series, use the “wharton letters” tag. The original of this letter is held by the UK National Archives, reference SP 16/492/28, ff. 80-81. The text of the letter is out of copyright. Images are available for non-commercial use only at Flickr (click on folio numbers for individual page images).

This week, Wharton sends more information about the battle of Powicke Bridge, and decides that Worcester is like Sodom and Gomorrah

[f. 80r]

My much honored M[aste]r I humbly greete you my last unto you was Sept the 26th in which there were some errors occasioned partly by my overhastinesse in wrightinge for the bearer promised mee to deliver it on wensday sept the 28th partly by the various relations dispersed but cheifly by reason I was upon the guard and upon paine of death durst not stir from it to se or heare any occurrences but I had as good intelligence as the Citty then afforded for the trewth of thinges was not then knowne the errors are these

First I wrote that the Earle of Northhampton and the Lord Craven were with the Prince but they were not but upon suffitient information they were these Prince Robert Duke Mawrice the Lord Digby Commissary Wilmot S[i]r Lewes Dives S[i]r William Russell and Esquire Hastings

a second was that most of the Curoseers his Exelencies trope were cut of but they are since returned and but few lost but Doe still beare the aspersion of cowards

the third was that Colonell Sands was dead but both he and captaine sands though both wounded yet are still livinge but that I may not trouble you with common relations which commonly are fictions I have conferred with commaunders the best intelligencers and have asso veiwed the place where the battaile was fought but breifly worcestershire is a pleasant fruitfull and rich Cuntrey aboundinge in corne woods pastures hils and valleyes every hedge and heigh way beset with fruite but especally with peares wherof they make that pleasant drinke called Perry which they sell for a penny a quart though better then ever you tasted at London

Touchinge the City it is more Large then any I have seene since I left London and Like London it abounds in outward thinges of all kinds but for want of the word the people perrish it is pleasantly seated exceedinge populous and doubtlese very rich it is scituate on the east banke of the famous River Severine the wals in the forme of a triangle the gates seaven the Bulwarkes five but much decayed no Castle, only a mount of earth in this Citty there is a very stately Cathedrall called St Maries in which there are many stately monuments but amongst the rest in the middle of the quire is the monument of Kinge John all of white marble with his picture theron to the life on the South side Kinge Arthurs Tombe of Jette but no picture theron this Citty hath also a stronge stone Bridge over severne consistinge of sixe arches with a gate on the middle of the bridge as stronge as that on London Bridge with a p[or]cullis

five miles upon the Left of this is Malvern hills which for height and length and breadth doe many degres exceede all that ever I see I nominate them because they are famous for on the top of them there is a very brave chase for many miles together a large ditch and springs also all on the very top

betweene these hils and the river was the late skermish about one mile from the City which was on this manner Our troopes on that side were devided to keepe the severall passages and Colonell Sands Colonell vines and sargeant Major Duglas with their Troopes were set to keepe this passge which was at the end of a narrow lane which the treacherous inhabitants neare them discovered to the Prince and he forwith set some troopes to lye in ambush who brake downe a hedge and lay in a feild on the right of them the treacherous citizens attendinge them in multituds with muskets who lay on each side the hedge this done the prince with other forces went to meete them but first sent a false alaram [f. 80v] informinge them that the Cavaleers weere all fled and had left the City and also that his exelency was come even to the gates and immediately these 3 troopes poasted away to meete his Exelency for S[i]r william Belfore Colonell Clarke and our other commaunders heard not of it But hastinge downe A narrow lane the prince met them Colonell Sands beinge in the front the Prince asked him whom he was for, he answared for Kinge and Parlaiment he replyed not for the kinge alone he answared no then said the Prince for the Kinge have at you the Colonell answared for the Parlaiment have at you ad so they discarged each at other the rest followed them and presently those in ambush fired upon them as also the musqetteers behind the hedges the horsemen charged not the second time but immediatly fell to their swords so that for the space of almost an hower the skermish was excedinge hot

this relation I had from an gentleman that was in the front of the battell and was wounded with the sword and bullets in seven severall places was stripped naked and yet liveth he affirmeth that though there were ten for one yet there were more slaine and wounded of them then of us and I spake with one that heard the Prince at his returne say that our men fought more like Lions then men our wounded commaunders he brought into the City and gave commaund that that they should be carefully looked unto and with all speed gathered his forces together and fled leavinge all their reconings to pay in some place 20 pounds in others ten in some more some lesse pretendinge and also promisinge to returne since their departure we heare that the Prince is wounded but it is certaine Duke Mawrice is mortally wounded they report unto the Kinge that they have slaine eight hundred of our men when there were but 28 slaine in all and some of them were Cavalleeres of this I am certaine for I told all their graves and searched the register of St Jones parrish where they were all buried they boast wonderfully and sweare most hellishly that the next time they meete us they will make but a mouthfull of us but I am p[er]swaded the Lord hath given them this small victory that they may in the day of battell come on more presumptuously to ther owne destruction in which battell though I and many thousands more may bee cut of yet I am confident the Lord of hoasts will in the end triumph gloriously over these horses and all their Cursed riders

They left at their flight in the City some horses Truncks and other thinges all which his exelency hath seazed on Colonell Essex is made governor of this City and his regiment shall be garisons here S[i]r Our army did little thinke ever to have seene Worcester but the providence of god hath brought us heither and had it not the City is so vile and the cuntrey so base so papisticall and Atheisticall and Abominable that it resembles sodom and is the very Embleme of Gomorah and doubtlesse it would have bin worse then either Algiers or Malta a very den of theeves and receptacle and refuge for all [f. 81r] the helhounds in the Cuntrey I should have said in the land but wee have handsomley handled some of them and doe cull out the rest as fast as wee can who verbally cry pecavi but cordeally itterum faciam and indeed they doe as they are taught by Dr Prediux late madde Byshop and other popish preists who are all run away.

to conclude Munday Sept 26th one of Prince Roberts Trumpeters cames to our gates and sounded a point of warre who was presently taken and led blindfold through the City unto his Exelency This night sargeant Major Duglas was nobly buried

Tuesday our soildiers by commission from his exelency marched [7?] miles unto S[i]r William Russels house and pillaged it unto the bare walls

Wensday wee fasted and Mr Obbediah Sedgwich preached unto us whom the Lord extreordineryly assisted so that his doctrine wrought wonderfully upon many of us and doubtlesse hath fitted many of us for death which wee all shortly expect

Thursday his Exelency proclaimed that whosoever had any goods of the chavalleres in custody should forthwith surrender them this day I mett with your servant Davy who is in good health with his horse he was on the west of Severne neare the battell but untill it was ended heard not of it wee joyntly present you and my Mrs with our humble service as also Mr Willingham your Brother with his family Mr Chappels man and I doe present our service [unto?] Mr Chappell and his wife Mr Felton and his wife and desire to heare of their welfare

Fryday morninge our drumms beate for our Regiment to march away but wheither I know not wee should bee very glad to see our Colonell S[i]r I humbly intreate to excuse my late errors and to accept these my pore indeavors beinge the last I suppose that ever I shall present unto you thus with my dearest love to all your children and my fellow servants wheither with you or from you beinge to march away in hast I must conclude your everlovinge humble thankfull and auntient servant

Nehemiah Wharton

Worcester Sept the 30th 1642

[f. 81v]

To the worthy and his much Honored Frend Mr George Willingham at the Golden Anchor in Sweethins Lane London

In this letter, Ellis read Davy’s name as ‘Barry’, even though he got it right every other time. He also changed Hastings’s title from ‘esquire’ to ‘Mr’ and mistranscribed ‘told all their graves’ as ‘told all their gunnes’

The ‘Curoseers’ were the Earl of Essex’s lifeguard, a troop of gentlemen equipped as cuirassiers in three-quarter plate armour. They included future Cromwellian generals Charles Fleetwood and Edmund Ludlow. Ludlow’s memoirs are now suspect, but for what it’s worth, this is what they say about the incident (pp. 45-6):

The Body of our routed Party returned in great Disorder to Parshot [Pershore], at which place our LifeGuard was appointed to quarter that Night; where, as we were marching into the Town, we discovered Horsemen riding very hard towards us with drawn Swords, and many of them without Hats, from whom we understood the Particulars of our Loss, not without Improvement, by reason of the Fear with which they were possessed, telling us, that the Enemy was hard by in pursuit of them: whereas it afterwards appeared, they came not within four Miles of that place. Our Life-Guard being for the most part Strangers to things of this nature, were much alarm’d with this Report; yet some of us unwilling to give credit to it till we were better informed, offered our selves to go out upon a further Discovery of the matter. But our Captain Sir Philip Stapylton not being then with us, his Lieutenant one Bainham, an old Souldier (a Generation of Men much cried up at that time) drawing us into a Field, where he pretended we might more advantageously charge if there should be occasion, commanded us to wheel about; but our Gentlemen not yet well understanding the difference between wheeling about, and shifting for themselves, their Backs being now towards the Enemy, whom they thought to be close in the Rear, retired to the Army in a very dishonourable manner, and the next Morning rallied at the Head-quarters, where we received but cold Welcome from the General, as we well deserved.

King Arthur is actually Arthur, Prince of Wales (1486-1502), Henry VIII’s older brother.

Charles Essex was a colonel of foot in the Earl of Essex’s army, although his regiment hadn’t been completed yet and was still in the county of Essex on 21 September. (That’s a lot of mentions of the word Essex but it’s all coincidence.)

John Prideaux (1578-1650) was appointed Bishop of Worcester in November 1641 (Wharton probably means that he was lately made bishop, although maybe the insinuation that he was mad was intentional!). Because he supported the King, Parliament ordered that he should be arrested and that his property should be sequestered, although he wasn’t actually caught until Worcester surrendered in 1646.

The Latin words mean ‘I have sinned’ and ‘let me do it again’. This is probably a puritan satire on Catholic confession.

Although Wharton supposed this would be his last letter, there’s one more to come on 7 October.

This post is part of a series of letters from parliamentary soldier Nehemiah Wharton during the English Civil War, which will be posted on the anniversary of the day they were written. For more information see the introduction. To find the rest of the series, use the “wharton letters” tag. The original of this letter is held by the UK National Archives, reference SP 16/492/21, ff. 68-69. The text of the letter is out of copyright. Images are available for non-commercial use only at Flickr (click on folio numbers for individual page images).

This week, the army marches to Worcester, and the cavalry get into a fight with Prince Rupert.

[f. 68r]

Noble S[i]r september the 13th was my last unto you this even wee had tidings that Killingworth Castle in warwick shire 6 miles from Coventry was taken with store of ammunition and [money?] and some prisoners ther number uncertaine the rest fled and the Cuntrey p[ur]sued them and wanted but the assistance of Coventry to destoy them all

wensday sep the 14th our forces bothe foote and horse marched into the feild and the Lord generall veiwed us both both [sic] front reare and Flancks where the Drumms beating and the Trumpets sounding made a harmony delectable to our frends but terrible to our enemies this even contrary to expectation our regiment marched 5 miles north east unto Spratton where wee and as many as could bilited in the towne the rest quartered the cuntrey

Thursday our regiment met againe where those famous lawes for our army were read and expounded this day wee received and accepted sargeant major Neale

Fryday our regiment were commaunded to meete here againe to be mustered where we exercised in the feild the whole day and the muster master came not wherat we were all much displeased this night our company by lot watched the towne

Saturday our regiment met againe and weere mustered. this even Captaine Francis returninge from London informed mee of the corragiousnesse and constancy of the City of london and also of ther constant supplyes of money and plate and also told me that the whole City were now either reall or constrained roundheads

Sabbath day wee peacably injoyed with Mr Obbediah Sedgwick who gave us two heavenly sermons

Munday morninge our regiment began to march towards warwick Shire and passed through west haddon Creeke and hill Morton where wee had a suply of drinke which upon a march is very rare and extreordinary welcome and at the end of ten miles wee came to Rugby in warwick shire where we had good quarter at this towne Mr Norton formerly preached this towne also was lately disarmed by the Cavallers on the sabbath day the inhabitants beinge at Church

Tuesday morninge our Regiment marched 2 miles unto Dunsmore heath where the Lord Generall and his Regiment met us as also the Lord of Stanford Colonell Cholmley and Colonell Hampden with many troopes of horse and 18 feild peeces where we kept our randevoes untill even where wee had tidings that all the malignants in worsester shire with the Cavalleers were got into worsester and fortified themselves wherupon wee marched 6 miles unto baggington within two miles of Coventry this night the rest of our regiments quartered about the cuntrey

Wensday morninge wee marched towards warwick leavinge Killingworth Castle upon the [right?] and after wee had marched 6 miles our forces met againe and [quarted?] before warwick untill 40 peeces of Ordinance with other carriadges passed by in which time I veiwed the antiquities about one mile on this [side?] warwick as S[i]r Guyes cave his Chappell and his picture in it his stables all hewed out of the maine Rock as also his garden and 2 springinge wels wherat he [drank?] as is reported from hence our regiment marched through warwick in such hast that I could not veiw the towne but had only a sight of the Castle which is very stronge built upon a mighty rock wherof ther are store in this Cuntrey

this night we marched 2 miles further unto Burford where our quarter was as constantly since his exelencyes comminge it is very poore for many of our soilders can get nether beads bread nor [water?] [f. 68v] which makes them grow very stronge for backbiters have bin seene to march upon some of them sixe on brest and eight deepe at their open order and I feare I shall be in the same condition eare longe for wee can get no carriadge for officers so that my trunck and all nessessaries therin are left at Coventry and indeede our regiment is more slighted then any other which is occasioned as I conceive partly by the false informations of leiftenant Colonell Briddeman and our late Sargeant major Generall Ballard prophane wretches but cheifly for want of our Colonell who should be one of the counsell of Warre at which counsell we have none to pleade for us or remove false aspersions cast upon us in so much that I have heard some of our captaines repent their comminge forth and all for want of a Colonell

Thursday morninge we marched in the front 4 miles towards Worcester where wee met one ridinge post from worceter informinge us that our troopes and the Cavallers were ther in fight but it was false only to hast the captaines from Warwick upon this report our whole regiment ran shoutinge for 2 miles together and cryinge to worcester to worcester and desired to march all night but after we had marched 2 miles further we were commaunded to stand untill our forces passed by and then marched 2 miles further unto Assincantlo where wee could get no quarter neither bread nor drinke by reason of the Lord Comptons late beinge there

Fryday we marched 4 miles unto Oster where our forces met and from thence 8 miles and incamped 4 miles on this side worsester but our soildiers cryed out for one hower together to goe forward to set upon the enemy but could get no commission this day we had such fowle wether that before I had marched one mile I was weet to the skinne

this day our horse forces namely S[i]r william bolford Colonell Sands Colonell vines Colonell Clarke Major Duglas kept all the Passages over Severne and by that meanes kept in the Cavalleres who often assayed to fly but were repelled these Commaunders sent to his Exelency for 3 feild peeces and offered with them to keepe them in on that side untill wee had surrounded them but they were denied this day towards even prince Robert entered the City at a bye passage with eighteene troopes of horse most of the City cryinge welcome welcome but principaley the Maior who desired to entertaine him but hee answered god damne him he would not stay but would goe wash his hands in the blod of the roundheads and immediately set some to lye in ambush and with the rest sallyed out upon our forces and immediatly Colonell Sands came on bravely evene [unto?] the brest of their cheife commaunder and discharged the rest undauntedly followed but ther forces immediatly fled and ours followed them and by the ambushment were beset before and behind so that the batt[le] was very hot and many fell on both sides some of our cheife commaunders as Colonell Sands and Duglas was wounded and are since both dead the cheife amongst the Cavalleeres were Prince Robert who I heare was wounded the Lord Craven and the Lord of Northhampton our wounded men they brought into the City and stripped stabbed and slassed ther dead bodies in a most barbarous manner and imbrued their hands in their blods they also at ther returne met a yonge gentlemen a parlaiment man as I am informed his name I cannot learne and stabbed him on horse back with many wounds and trampled upon him and also most maliciously shot his horse

this even our Generalls trope of gentlemen goinge to quarter themselves about the cuntrey were betrayed and beset by the enemy and overmuch timerous immediately fled so confusedly that some brake their horses necks others their owne some were taken others slaine and scarce halfe of them essaped [f. 69r] which is such a blot upon them as nothinge but some desperate exploit will wipe of hearinge this newes wee immediately cryed out to march unto them and forwith drew out a forlorne hope some out of every company and sent them before intendinge to march after them but about eleven of the clock the enemies fled and our hope returned here we aboade all night where we had small comfort for it rained hard our foode was fruite for those that could get it our drinke water and beds the earth our canopy the clouds but we pulled up the hedges pales and gates and made good fiers his exelency promisinge us that if the cuntrey releived us not the day followinge he would fier ther townes thus we continued singinge of psalmes untill the morninge

Saturday morninge we marched unto worsester our regiment in the reare of the waggons the raine continuinge the whole day and the way so base that we went up to the ancles in thick clay and about 4 of the clock after noone entred the city where we found 28 dead men which we buried some of them Cavallers and these were all that we can find slaine on our side this even by lot our company watched one of the gates and also the day folloinge untill even this even his exelencyes guard entred the maiors house and toke him prisoner who is now more guarded then regarded

Sabbath day morninge our soildiers entered a vault of the collidge where his exelency was to heare a sermon and found eleven barrels of gunpowder and a pot of bullets this day Mr marshall Sedgwick &c preached about the City but I beinge upon the court of guard could not heare them

this even his exelency proclaimed that no soildier shuld plunder either church or private house upon paine of death wee shortly expect a pitcht battell which if the Cavallers will but stand will be very hot for we are all much inraged against them for their barbarismes and shall shew them little mercy but I want time to in large my selfe to conclude I humbly intreate you to present my humble service to my Mrs as asso Mr Edgertons our quartermaster and mine to Mr Molloyne and his wife my service also to mr Hunt Mr Priaux Mr Simpson and his Wife Mr Hawkins Mr Starkey & I humbly in treate let me heare from you of your welfare My Mistris and your family S[i]r it is extreame hast that makes me compose so confusedly and therfore with my service To Ms Elizabeth Anna John and little Sammuell and my love to all my fellow servants I rest yours in all good services untill death

Nehemiah Wharton

My Captaine presents you with his best respects and drinkes to you every day we sit at table together I have received your feather for which I give you humble thankes

Worcester Sept the 26 1642

[f. 69v]

To the worthy and his much Honored Frend Mr George Willingham Marchant at the golden Anchor in St Swethins Lane These present

Spratton is in Northamptonshire, near Holdenby House. Ellis mistranscribed it as ‘Stratton’. He also skipped a line, missing out ‘and all nessessaries therin are left at Coventry and indeede our regiment is more’, giving the impression that Wharton’s trunk was slighted rather than his regiment!

The laws of war were published as Lawes and ordinances of warre, established for the better conduct of the army by His Excellency the Earle of Essex (Thomason Tracts E.116[34]).

The caves mentioned are at Guy’s Cliffe in Warwickshire. Since Wharton visited, carvings have been discovered there which may have been made by black slaves who were used to rebuild the house in the 18th century.

The parliamentary cavalry officers listed are Lt-Gen Sir William Balfour, Colonel Edwin Sands or Sandys, Captain Nathaniel Fiennes, Captain Edward Clarke and Major Alexander Douglas.

The battle described is known as Powicke Bridge. There’s a fuller and probably more accurate account in the next letter on 30 September.