deputy in the office of Lieutenant in the County of Stafford during his absence in attendance upon his Majesty in his high Court of Parliament at Westminster, to joyne with the other deputies in the execution of the said office of Lieutenantcy, and also solely by himself, if cause require it, to do and perform all other things requisite for His Majesty's service, and for my said Deputy Walter Wriottsley his better performance thereof I have delivered him a true copie of His Majesty's said Letters Patent to me therein made." This warrant is signed "Ro. Essex." In the same year, in conjunction with Sir Hervey Bagot and Thomas Crompton, two other Deputy Lieutenants, he made the muster for the Scotch war, which is printed in vol. xv of the Staffordshire Collections. The men mustered on this occasion were the trained bands who had been previously employed in 1639, and an additional body of 300 men who were impressed for the occasion; the service was very unpopular, and in some counties the men mutinied and murdered their officers. The insubordination did not reach this pitch in Staffordshire, but riots and disorders occurred in many parts of the country during the march of the men to the rendezvous. Amongst the State Papers there is a letter to the Lords of the Council, signed by Sir Hervey Bagot, Walter Wrottesley, and Thomas Crompton, dated from Uttoxeter, 15th July 1640, giving an account of the riots at that place between the 1st and the 3rd July of this year. The Deputy Lieutenants write : "That receiving notice of the riot from one of the Constables whilst we were at supper between 8 and 9 of the clock at relationships of this era are often no nearer than those of Baillie Jarvie and Rob Roy, when the former claimed the famous freebooter, as his near kinsman, four times removed." It will be seen by the pedigree below that Essex was second cousin once removed of Walter, but by the half blood only. Mary, d. of Thom. r Walter Devereux, Lord Fer-Margaret, d. of Robert Gar- Sir Robert Devereux, ob. v.p. 1547. Walter Devereux, created Robert, Earl of Essex, the favourite of Queen Elizabeth, beheaded 1601. Robert, Earl of Essex, the Parliamentary General, ob. s.p. 1646. night, we gave order to the Constable speedily to raise what forces he could in the Towne, and to bringe them downe to the Inne where we lodged which the Constable did performe, as we conceive, very honestly, and when we had gotten to the number of 40 or 50 townsmen well armed with Halberds and other weapons, we did rise from supper and with that number and our owne servants we made after them, and were soe neere them at the first settinge forth, as that we were within hearing of them, but being on foot, and not soe well able to travell as those miscreants who made haste to do mischeife, before we could approach to the said place where they beganne their worke the said unruly multitude had pulled down about some tenne roodes of Rayles and had made two fiers thereof. When we came neere unto them we made a stand and caused proclamation to be made accordinge to the Statute in that case provided. This beinge done we came close up to them, and by all faire perswations sought to pacify them, letting them know the danger they were in if they should now persist and continew in this riotous and unlawful course. They gave little care to our perswations, and then we fell to action, and conceiving ourselves able to deale with the number as then assembled, we in our owne persons with the helpe of some High Constables and our owne servants laid houlde of the ryotors and delivered them upp into the hands of the said Townsmen whoe stood by us armed with weapons charginge them to hould the said Riotors fast, but more souldiers comyng in they were rescued and taken from them, whereby we were disinabled to record the said Ryott or to inflict condigne ponishment on the said Riotors beinge menne unknowne to us," etc., etc. The riots continued all the following day, the soldiers being masters of the town, and the High Constable of the Hundred reporting that he "could not stay their hands without effusion of much blood." The report then goes on to state that : "On the 3rd July finding them to grow insolent and fearing some greater mysheife likely to ensue, if they were not mastered, we caused several High Constables to raise strength out of the townes 4 or 5 miles of Uttoxitor and to bring them armed, and sent for the assistance of some of the neighbouringe Justices soe that night we ourselves and the said Justices howsed the said souldiers and sett strong gardes in severall places of the towne whome we comaunded to watch all that night, by which meanes we kept them in reasonable good order until such time as they were delivered over to the officers authorised by the Lord Generall of his Majestys Army to receave them," etc. On the 28th July an urgent message from Humphrey Wyrley to Walter Wrottesley states that the same soldiers had broken out again into a riot at Mr. Lane's at Bentley, and asks him to meet him without delay at Walsall, for "you and myself are the two next Justices dwelling to the place where the riots are committed," etc. The sequel was on a par with the above proceedings; when the train bands and the impressed men came into the presence of the enemy on the Tyne, they all turned their backs and ran away without stopping till they reached Newcastle. The The Long Parliament met in the following year. private letters at Wrottesley shewed clearly that Walter Wrottesley's sympathies at this time were all in favour of the Parliament, and this in fact, owing to the mismanagement of the King's affairs, was the general bent of men's minds. On the 9th February 1641, Thomas Pudsey, one of his neighbours, writes to him from Essex House, London1: "Strafford's tryal will be to-morrow senet. It is thought he will not come off well, for the axe or the rope may sarve his turne. The Bishop of Oxford is dead, and our Bishop is not well, and I think all have quesie stomachs, for they stand upon their good behaviour; in the house some are for Bishops and some for none, and if there be any, they are to be alowed a partickelar stipand so that their pride will be abated." The correspondence formerly at Wrottesley tends to confirm the opinion of Lord Clarendon, that the opposition to the King's measures proceeded more from dislike to the Bishops and their pretentions, than from any ill will to the monarchy. Laud and the Bishops had, however, persuaded the King that the outery against them. was only a pretence, and that the agitation was really aimed at the monarchy, and Charles therefore made the cause of the Bishops' his own, and lost both his crown and his head. Another letter from Pudsey of later date, states that the writer had been into the City to see the axe sharpened which was to be used at the execution of Lord Strafford. This appears to have been made a public spectacle, and will give an idea of the brutality and violence of the political feeling of the day. All this time, notwithstanding his pecuniary embarrassments and the public troubles, Walter Wrottesley was in treaty for the purchase of a Baronetcy. The King's need for money was great, and the following letter shows the method by which these dignities were acquired at this date. On the 6th March 1641, Sir John Skeffington writes to him, asking for two large trees, and offers a Baronetcy, the King having given him a warrant, "with liberty to nominate a gentleman whom he and I think fit," and he gives him the first offer for £300. The house of the Earl of Essex. Pudsey was in the service of the Earl. On the 10th of the same month, Thomas Pudsey advises Walter Wrottesley not to think of the Baronetcy. "It is thought those which have been made shall be called in question, and nothing shall be done but by Parliament." In a later letter the Baronetcy was declined "as the times are dangerous." At the first meeting of the Long Parliament, an order had been issued to seize the arms of the Roman Catholic Recusants, and this order involved Walter Wrottesley in a quarrel with his neighbour Thomas Leveson, of Wolverhampton, who was a Roman Catholic, and subsequently famous as the Governor of Dudley Castle for the King during the Civil War. On the 20th April 1642 Walter writes to Sir Sampson Evers, enclosing particulars of the conduct of Mr. Thomas Leveson, and stating: "That on the 9th April last Mr. Thomas Leveson had sent to John Tanner, an armourer, in Wolverhampton, to demand his horseman's arms, who gave his messenger answer, that he was not to deliver them without command from the Deputy-Lieutenants. Mr. Leveson then came himself to the said John Tanner's shop and spoke these words, Sirrah, why did you not send me my arms?' John Tanner submissively replied, with his hat in his hand, that he was not to deliver them without orders from the Deputy-Lieutenants and therefore wished him not to take it ill. Whereupon Mr. Leveson asked who were the Deputy-Lieutenants, to which John Tanner told him Mr. Crompton and Mr. Wrottesley and others. Thereupon Mr. Leveson, in a violent passion, said that Mr. Wrottesley was a fool and a knave and he (meaning John Tanner) was a stinking rogue, and with these words, with a cane which he had in his hand, stroke him two or three blows, one whereof hit him on the head, and made a great knob in the skin thereof."1 Walter Wrottesley also wrote an account of this affair to Essex, in which he states : -- "That he and Mr. Crompton had given instructions to Tanner not to restore the arms to Mr. Leveson, as he was an active and dangerous recusant, and that the latter had told Tanner that Mr. Wrottesley was a fool and a knave, and with his cane did beat Tanner in his own house, which is much taken notice of in the county, and that he (the writer) was deeply wounded in his reputation by the matter." And he added that "Leveson is going to "Leveson is going to France to breed up his son in Popery," and suggests that a writ of "ne exeat regno" should be issued against him. There had been previous bickerings between Walter and Leveson, Welbeck MSS., printed by the Historical Commission, and Commons Journals, ii, 554. the latter having distrained upon the Wrottesley Constable for not attending his Court Leets in 1640. Walter took the part of his Constable, declaring that he owed no service to Leveson's Courts, and this turned out to be the case. Parliament now was master of the situation, owing to the King's weakness in parting with the power of dissolution. They took possession of the Fleet, and on the 15th April passed an ordinance that the King's Commissions of Lieutenancy were illegal and void. Essex was re-appointed Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire by the Parliament, and on the 29th of June he appointed Walter Wrottesley his ViceLieutenant for the County. The preamble of the warrant issued for this purpose ran as follows: "Whereas the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled have for the safety of his Majesty's person, the Parliament and Kingdom in this tyme of imminent danger, by an ordinaunce of the said Lords and Commons ordeyned me Robert Earl of Essex to be Lieutenant of the County of Stafford," etc.1 It would appear by this Commission that Essex calculated on the support of Walter, but in this he reckoned without his host. The violent proceedings of the Parliament had caused a re-action in the King's favour; Falkland and Hyde and all the moderate members of the Parliament withdrew and repaired to the King. Walter Wrottesley appears to have belonged to this party and was appointed one of the Commissioners of Array by the King. On the 26th of July Essex writes to warn him against having anything to do with the Array, as it was illegal. On the 9th of August the Parliament voted the King's Commissioners of Array to be traitors. On the 22nd of the same month the King set up his standard at Nottingham 1 Original Commission formerly at Wrottesley. It was signed "Essex." 2 Wrottesley Muniments. According to Clarendon, Parliament had obtained an opinion from Selden that the King's Commissions of Array were invalid. If Selden really gave this opinion without any qualification, it only shows how political prejudices tend to distort the judgment, for as an historian and archæologist, he must have known that the English sovereigns had issued these Commissions from time immemorial. It is possible, however, that in some of the Tudor Commissions there had been a departure from the original form of words. Thus in the original Commissions the words, for the defense of the Kingdom" or to accompany the King, "ad profiscendum cum nobis' always occur. If Selden argued that Commissions of Array could be issued only for defence of the kingdom against external enemies, the answer would be that they had been issued both by Henry VI and Edward IV during the Civil Wars of Lancaster and York. It may be said, however, that in all these cases the writs were for the protection of the King's person, but even admitting this to be true, in the case of the writs of Charles I this technical objection would not apply, for the King took the field in person. |