Part 14

These events were happening in the month of April, 1639. On the twenty-third of the same month three years later, Charles paid his second visit to Hull. And what a different reception was then to await him!

During these three years the relations between King and Parliament had been steadily growing more strained. Each recognised the possibility of there being in the future an appeal to arms; and each recognised, too, the importance of possessing ‘the most important fortress in the whole kingdom, and its vast magazine, which far exceeded the collection of warlike stores in the Tower of London.’[54]

Footnote 54:

In 1639 the military stores at the King’s Manor in Hull included 50 cannon, 200,000 muskets, carbines, pistols, and swords, 1,800 spades, shovels, and wheelbarrows, with powder, shot, and match to the value of upwards of £6000. Other stores of armour, powder, cannon balls, and musket shot purchased in Holland were added in the same year.

It was the King’s misfortune that Parliament, and not he, secured possession of Hull. Early in 1642 the Commons appointed Sir John Hotham, Member of Parliament for Beverley, to be Governor of Hull; and sent him down to take possession of the town, with orders not to deliver it up without the King’s authority ‘signified by both Houses.’ On April 23rd the King himself set out from York on the same errand, taking care to send forward from Beverley an officer charged with the message that the King would shortly arrive to dine with the Governor of the town.

But the result of this message was not what the King had expected it to be. Having consulted Mr. Pelham, one of the two Members of Parliament for the town, Sir John Hotham caused the bridges to be drawn up, the gates to be closed, and the walls to be lined with soldiers. The Mayor and townsfolk were ordered to keep within their houses.

It was eleven o’clock in the morning when the King, with a bodyguard of some three hundred soldiers, arrived before the Beverley Gate, where only three years before he had received such a cordial welcome. Now, when he commanded Sir John Hotham to open the Gate, he was met with a polite refusal. The Governor was very sorry to have to disobey the King’s command, but ‘he durst not open the gates to him, being intrusted by the Parliament with the safety of the town.’

To the offer of the King, that he would leave all his train outside the Gate, with the exception of twenty horse, the Governor proved equally unresponsive.

From eleven o’clock till four o’clock the parleying of King and Governor went on. Then the King ‘retired to a little house without the walls, and after an hour’s stay returned’ and demanded a final answer. Would Sir John Hotham admit the King to ‘a town and fort of our own, wherein our own magazine lay;’ or would he forthwith be proclaimed a traitor?

Sir John chose the latter alternative, and was at once proclaimed guilty of high treason by the King’s heralds. Then the King withdrew to Beverley, and the first act of open hostility between Parliament and King was ended. The Great Civil War had, in fact, begun.

XXII. HOW HULL WAS TWICE BESIEGED.

The events of April 23rd, 1642, were immediately followed by the sending of letters to Parliament. Sir John Hotham forwarded an account of how he had obeyed the orders of Parliament to the best of his ‘understanding and utmost endeavours, though with some hazard of being misconceived by His Majesty’; while the King wrote demanding that ‘his said town and magazine might be immediately delivered up unto him, and that such severe exemplary proceedings should be taken against those persons who had offered him that insupportable affront, as by the law was provided.’

To the King’s letter no reply was given. But in reply to that of Sir John Hotham a deputation of members was sent to thank him and the soldiers under him for their services. Two warships were ordered to sail immediately to Hull under the command of the Earl of Warwick; and the following resolutions were passed by the two Houses:—

(1) That Sir John Hotham has done nothing but in obedience to the commands of both Houses of Parliament.

(2) That this declaring Sir John Hotham a traitor—being a Member of the House of Commons—is a high breach of the privilege of Parliament.

Copies of these resolutions, and of the ‘Declaration’ which accompanied them, were printed and spread abroad among the people. So also, from a printing-press established in St. William’s College at York, were issued pamphlets giving the King’s version of recent affairs. In one of these King Charles states his views in these words:—

We would fain be answered, what title any subject of our kingdom has to his house or land that we have not to our town of Hull? Or what right has he to his money, plate, or jewels, that we have not to our magazine or munition there? If we had ever such a title we would know when we lost it? And if that magazine and munition, bought with our own money, were ever ours, when and how the property went out of us?

The answer of the Houses of Parliament to the King’s questions was contained in _A Declaration of the Lords and Commons on the 26th of May_:—

By the known law of the kingdom, the very jewels of the Crown are not the King’s proper goods, but are only intrusted to him for the use and ornament thereof; as the towns, forts, treasure, magazine, offices, and people of the kingdom, and the whole kingdom itself, are intrusted to him, for the good and safety, and best advantage thereof; and as this trust is for the use of the kingdom, so ought it to be managed by the advice of the Houses of Parliament, whom the kingdom has trusted for that purpose.

While letters, pamphlets, and declarations were thus being composed, both King and Parliament were making preparations for actual warfare. And herein are seen the far-reaching effects of the prologue to the drama of the Great Civil War. The King had not—so the Royalist historian, the Earl of Clarendon, tells us—‘one barrel of powder, nor one musket, nor any other provision necessary for an army; and, what was worse, was not sure of any port to which they might be securely assigned; nor had he money for the support of his table for the term of one month.’

To purchase a supply of arms and ammunition by the sale of her own jewels, as well as of the Crown jewels, which Parliament was shortly to declare were ‘not the King’s proper goods,’ the Queen had sailed to Holland; and as the result of her journey a small ship, named the _Providence_, arrived in the Humber and was run ashore in Keyingham Creek. Sir John Hotham, hearing of its arrival, sent out from Hull a party of soldiers to seize its cargo. But his men were unsuccessful, and thus a small supply of military stores reached the King at York.

Meanwhile Parliament was busy in borrowing money ‘to raise forces which should defend the Protestant religion ... and the privileges of Parliament.’

These few words show us what was really the cause of the trouble. There had been growing up in the country a strong religious spirit which we call Puritanism, and the Puritans hated everything that savoured of Roman Catholicism. The Queen, Henrietta Maria, was a Roman Catholic, and the King was thought to have leanings to ‘idolatry’ himself. It was feared, in fact, that King Charles’ intention of raising an army of 22,000 soldiers for service in Ireland, and of arming them from the magazine at Hull, was only a subterfuge. What he really intended, so the Puritans said, was to overawe Parliament, and make England again a Roman Catholic country.

By the judicious spreading abroad of such pamphlets as the following—

More news from Hull; or a most happy and fortunate prevention of a most hellish and devillish plot, occasioned by some unquiet and discontented spirits against the town of Hull, endeavouring to command their admittance by casting balls of wild fire into the town, which by policy and treaty they could not obtain

—Parliament succeeded in borrowing a large sum of money, and large quantities of plate.

On June 3rd there assembled on Heworth Moor, close to the walls of York, a huge gathering of the King’s adherents, whose help was asked in ‘the defence of true religion, and of the laws and constitutions of this kingdom.’ The King was here accompanied by his son, Prince Charles, a bodyguard of 150 knights in armour, and some 800 soldiers. A month later the Court was moved to Beverley, where the King took up residence in the house of Lady Gee, a short distance within the North Bar.

* * * * *

Now began the first of two sieges which the town of Hull sustained during the war. The King’s forces are said to have amounted to 3,000 foot soldiers and 1,000 horsemen. Two hundred of the latter, under the command of Lord Willoughby de Eresby and Sir Thomas Glemham, were sent to establish forts at Paull and Hessle, on the shore of the Humber, above and below the town. A similar number of the former were employed in digging trenches to divert the stream which gave the town its water-supply.

But the Royalists were no match for the defenders of the town. The Governor called a Council of War, and the Council decided on a bold stroke of defence—nothing less than the cutting of the banks of the Humber and the Hull. This was immediately carried out, with the result that the low-lying lands surrounding the town were submerged, and any widely-planned measures of attack were rendered impossible. Sir John Meldrum, a Scots officer whom Parliament had sent down to assist the Governor, also organised a surprise attack on the King’s forces. The foot soldiers fled at the first blow, and the horse soldiers, thus left unsupported, were compelled to retreat to Beverley.

Luck was, it seemed, entirely against the King. Off Paull one of the Earl of Warwick’s ships of war fought with and sank a vessel bringing guns and ammunition to him, and in an engagement in the village of Anlaby a barn was set on fire which contained a large portion of the ammunition which he then possessed. These reverses caused the King to decide on raising the siege, and on retiring to York.

The measures adopted by the Governor for the defence of Hull thus proved entirely successful. But an interesting side-light on these measures is thrown by _The Humble Petition of the Gentry and Inhabitants of Holderness_, which was signed by ‘neer three hundred’ of his ‘Majesties most loyall and oppressed subjects,’ and ‘delivered to His Majestie at Beverley the sixth of July, 1642.’ The petitioners declare that they have

for the space of four moneths (with much patience and prejudice) endured great and insupportable Losse ...

They further complain that the cutting of the river banks Drowning part, and indangering the rest of the Levell of Holderness, is a Presumption higher than was ever yet attempted by any Subject.

The answer of ‘the Kings most excellent Majestie,’ signed by Lord Falkland, contains many fair words, and a promise that he will

by drawing such Forces together as he shall be able to leavie, endeavour the Petitioners Relief in their present sufferings—

a promise which the ‘Gentry and Inhabitants of Holderness’ probably did not consider altogether satisfactory.

Queen Henrietta Maria, who had during all this time been raising supplies of money for her husband, set sail from Holland on February 2nd, 1643, bringing with her a supply reckoned by popular rumour at £2,000,000. For nine days the small fleet accompanying her battled against a storm, and the Queen’s personal bravery was shown when she kept up the spirits of her terrified attendants with the jest that ‘Queens of England are never drowned.’

After a second start she eventually reached Bridlington Quay, and slept once more on land. But in the early hours of the February morning the little seaport was awakened with the noise of guns, and the crashing of shot among the houses. Four ships of the Parliamentarians were outside the harbour firing at the Dutch vessels which had brought over her and her supplies.

Once again the Queen showed her courage. For, hurrying to a place of safety in what scanty clothing she could lay hands on, she remembered that she had left behind her little lap-dog, and would not rest content until she had returned to her bedroom and rescued it. The rest of that night the Queen spent taking refuge in a ditch, but the morning brought to her aid some of the forces of the Earl of Newcastle, and the journey to York was accomplished in safety.

* * * * *

Less than twelve months after the first siege of Hull, the town came within an ace of falling into the hands of the King, and this through treachery on the part of its former defender.

Sir John Hotham, who had on more than one occasion shown a certain amount of indecision, and who was credited by some with secret leanings to the King’s party, was greatly angered by the decision of Parliament that its forces in the North of England should be under the command of another Yorkshireman, Ferdinando, Lord Fairfax. Considering himself and his services slighted, he now, with his son, Captain Hotham, plotted to give up the town to the Queen.

But the plot was discovered, owing to counter-treachery on the part of one of his relatives; and on June 29th Captain Mayer, in command of the _Hercules_, then lying in the Humber, landed a hundred men and seized the castle and block-houses.

Meanwhile the Mayor, Mr. Thomas Raikes, had placed a guard over the Governor’s house, and had secured possession of Captain Hotham. The Governor himself effected his escape, passed out of the town by the Beverley Gate, attempted unsuccessfully to cross the river Hull at Stoneferry and at Wawne, decided to attempt to reach his house at Scorborough, was met in Beverley by his nephew, Colonel Boynton, and was knocked off his horse and captured by one of the latter’s soldiers.

Both father and son were sent to London on board the _Hercules_, and were then committed to the Tower. After an imprisonment lasting for seventeen months they were tried at the Guildhall, and condemned to death on a charge of ‘traitorously betraying the trust imposed upon them by Parliament.’ New Year’s Day, 1645, saw the execution of Captain Hotham on Tower Hill, the following day saw that of his father.

To return to the events of 1643—Lord Ferdinando Fairfax was appointed Governor of Hull in place of Sir John Hotham, and to raise money for the payment of his soldiers sold to the Trinity House his store of family plate. The agreement made on the occasion runs as follows:—

Whereas I Ferdinando Lord Fairfax, Lord Gen̄all of the Northerne forces raised for the Kinge, & Parlmᵗ; and Governor of the Towne of Kingston upon Hull, have received the some of ffoure hundered pownds, & foure shillings of the Guild, or Brotherhood of Maisters Pilotts, & seamen of the Trynity howse of the said Towne, for the use of the King, & Parlmᵗ: I doe hereby grant, bargaine, & sell sev̄all peices of silver plate conteining in weight one thousand six hundered ffiftie six ownces, to the said Trynity howse, & their successours for ever and have delivered the said plate to Willm Peck, & Willm Rayks Wardens of the said howse to the use thereof. In witnesse whereof, I have hereto sett my hand & seale the 4th day of September, Anno dni 1643

Fer: fairfax.

Two days before the signing of this agreement the second siege of Hull had been begun by the Marquis of Newcastle, with a force of 4,000 horse soldiers and 12,000 foot. This had been rendered necessary by the fact that Newcastle’s _Cavaliers_ would not leave their Yorkshire homes on a march southward, while the hated _Roundheads_ remained in possession of a stronghold from which they could with ease ravage the surrounding country. Hence Newcastle wanted, above all things, to gain possession of the town.

The second siege of Hull was very largely a repetition of the first. The besiegers cut off the water-supply, and also succeeded in mounting guns within half-a-mile of the town walls. With these guns much damage was at first done; for by constructing a furnace for the heating of balls, the gunners were enabled to fire red-hot balls over the walls of the town. But this was not for long, Lord Fairfax’s erection of a flanking battery soon putting these guns out of action.

]

At the beginning of the siege the Governor’s son, Sir Thomas Fairfax, who had been driven out of Beverley, had taken refuge within the walls with a large body of cavalry. But horse soldiers are not of much use in repelling a siege, and their horses are likely to be a severe hindrance. So it was in this case; and when the opportunity was afforded by the arrival of some of Oliver Cromwell’s soldiers at Barton, Sir Thomas and his ‘twenty troops of horse’ were ferried across to Lincolnshire.

Footnote 55:

This passage, which connects Blackfriargate and Little Humber Street, was, in the seventeenth century, the only entrance to the town from the landing-place on the Humber. It is less than seven feet wide.

On the 22nd of September—a day being held in the town as one of fasting and humiliation—Cromwell himself crossed over the Humber, bringing a fresh supply of muskets and powder. The town was now once more entirely surrounded by water. For a fortnight before this the former Governor’s plan of cutting the rivers’ banks had been carried out, and the Royalists thus compelled to abandon their positions.

Things were going badly for the besiegers. On September 28th their powder magazine at Cottingham was blown up, but whether by accident or by treachery is not known. On October 5th a reinforcement of 500 men crossed over to Hull from Lincolnshire, and six days later the garrison made a successful sally and captured one of a pair of huge guns known familiarly as ‘the Queen’s pocket pistols.’ That night the Marquis of Newcastle determined to raise the siege, and on the 12th of October the besieging army withdrew to York, smaller by one-half than it had been six weeks earlier.

* * * * *

The importance of the two sieges of Hull cannot be overestimated. Had the first been successful, the King would have been in the position to strike a decisive blow before the forces of Parliament were organised. In 1643 the King’s plan of campaign was that his three armies—his own at Oxford, that under Sir Ralph Hopton in Cornwall, and that under the Earl of Newcastle in Yorkshire—should converge on London, the headquarters of Parliament.

But for this plan to succeed two obstacles must be removed. The Parliamentarians held the seaport towns of Plymouth and Hull. The siege of each was undertaken; and the siege of each failed, mainly because Parliament held ‘the command of the sea.’ Thus, in the words of the great historian of the Great Civil War, ‘Hull and Plymouth saved the Parliamentary cause.’

XXIII. SOME ANCIENT EAST RIDING FAMILIES.

‘My ancestor came over with William the Conqueror,’ boasts one who is proud of his long line of ancestors. ‘So did mine’—‘and mine’—‘and mine’—might say a good number of us. Perhaps we could not prove our statement, but never mind. If we cannot prove that an ancestor of ours did come over with William the Conqueror, no one can prove that he didn’t.

Of course we all of us had ancestors living somewhere or other in the year 1066, but there are very few who can identify those ancestors. How many of us can trace back our pedigree for a couple of hundred years? Few probably. But the family descent of some of our countrymen and countrywomen can be traced back for several hundred years. These are our nobles and landed gentry.

Thus the descent of the present Baron Hotham of South Dalton can be traced back, through the Sir John Hotham who defied King Charles I., to an ancestor who in the twelfth century changed his name from De Trehouse to Hotham; that of Major Chichester-Constable of Burton Constable to an Ulbert Constable who lived in the reign of Henry I.; that of the Duchess of Norfolk to a William Fitz Nigel, who was Lord of Flamborough in the same reign; that of Mr. W. H. St. Quintin of Scampston Hall to a Sir Herbert de St. Quintin who was one of the companions-in-arms of William the Conqueror; and that of the Duke of Northumberland and Earl of Beverley to a Willelmus de Perci, who ‘came over with the Conqueror’ in the year 1067.

* * * * *

Proudest of all the proud nobles of the North were the PERCYS, whose descent from Willelmus de Perci has just been mentioned. Willelmus took his surname from the village of Perci in Normandy, and himself boasted a descent from one of the companions of that Rolf the Viking who sailed up the Seine in the year 912. _Als Gernons_ he was nicknamed, from his habit of wearing whiskers, whence the name ‘Algernon’ which was given generation after generation to the male members of the family.

In the Domesday Book Willelmus de Perci is recorded as the tenant-in-chief of more than a hundred manors in Yorkshire, and of twenty-three in Lincolnshire. Among the former were Leconfield, Scorborough, and Nafferton; among the latter Immingham. Willelmus was one of the Norman knights who accompanied Duke Robert of Normandy in the First Crusade, and he died at Mountjoy within sight of the Holy City.

Century after century the Percys took part in all great affairs of state. A Percy fought in the Battle of the Standard, another took part in the signing of Magna Carta at Runnymede, another was taken prisoner with the King at the battle of Lewes, another fought in the great naval victory of Sluys, and helped to win the battle of Neville’s Cross six years later.

The thirteenth Baron Percy was created Earl of Northumberland on the day of Richard II.’s coronation. But he and his son ‘Harry Hotspur’—the hero of the famous battle known as ‘Chevy Chace’—befriended Henry of Lancaster when he landed at Ravenser Spurn. Afterwards, however, both father and son rebelled, and Hotspur met his death at Shrewsbury, while his father was slain at Bramham Moor, in Northumberland. Hotspur’s son, the second Earl, fell at the battle of St. Albans which opened the ‘Wars of the Roses,’ and his grandson, the third Earl, fell at Towton six years later. Such a race of fighters were the Percys.

Most princely of the line was Henry Algernon Percy, the fifth Earl, nicknamed ‘Henry the Magnificent.’ He took part in the Field of the Cloth of Gold, and ruined himself by the expense there entailed. This Henry Percy possessed a castle at Wressle, and a fortified manor-house at Leconfield—the latter a large house standing ‘withyn a great Mote,’ and built ‘three partes ... of tymbere,’ the fourth part being ‘of stone and some brike.’ The ‘Mote’ remains, but all traces of the ‘large House’ with its eighty-three rooms have disappeared.

Wressle Castle, or rather a part of it, still exists—the only ancient castle in the whole of the East Riding. Built in the closing years of the fourteenth century, it remained the chief Yorkshire seat of the Percys till the time of the Great Civil War; when orders for its destruction were issued by a Parliamentary Committee at York, although the owner—the tenth Earl of Northumberland—had sided with Parliament against the King.