Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 99/397

Journal of the Society for ARMY HISTORICAL RESEARCH

SERVING SCHOLARS , ENTHUSIASTS AND SOLDIERS FOR 100 YEARS

Summer 2021

Volume Ninety-Nine Number 397

ISSN 0037-9700 (Print) ISSN 2516-7146 (On-line)

Journal of the Society for ARMY HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Ninety-Nine

Summer 2021

No. 397

CONTENTS

P AGE

C OMMUNICATION T HE 105 TH R EGIMENT OF F OOT – T HE Q UEEN ’ S O WN R OYAL R EGIMENT OF H IGHLANDERS , 1761-1763 C OMMUNICATION C LARENDON AND H ISTORY : A C ASE S TUDY OF THE B ATTLE OF C HALGROVE , 18 TH J UNE 1643

Andrew Cormack

125

Derek Lester

134

C OMMUNICATION A N I MPRUDENT AND U NNECESSARY M EASURE :

M AJOR P ROBLEMS IN THE F IRST I NVASION OF N ORTH C AROLINA , S EPTEMBER - O CTOBER 1780

Douglas R. Dorney, Jr.

152

C OMMUNICATION S OLDIERS ’ L ETTERS FROM THE 16 TH L ANCERS , I NDIA , 1843-1847 – P ART 2

John H. Rumsby

171

A RTICLE ‘M ACHINATIONS ’ OF A ‘ MILITARY CLIQUE ’?

C ONSTITUTIONAL N ORMS AND THE B RITISH A RMY IN L LOYD G EORGE ’ S W AR M EMOIRS

Frederick Hyde

183

C OMMUNICATION T HE B ATTLE OF E L A LAMEIN , 1942 M INEFIELDS AND G AP C LEARANCE – THE S APPER E LEMENT

John C. Carbis

194

J OURNAL I NTELLIGENCE : N OTES

213 213

2025 M EDALS IN THE P ORTRAIT OF H UGH G OUGH 2026 R EPLY TO B RITISH S MALL A RMS IN THE I NDIAN M UTINY 2027 R EPLY TO B RITISH S MALL A RMS IN THE I NDIAN M UTINY 2029 R EPLY TO B RITISH S MALL A RMS IN THE I NDIAN M UTINY 2028 M USKETS FOR Y ORKSHIRE A UXILIARIES , 1745

Jonathan Maguire

David Howell

213

Jonathan Maguire Andrew Cormack

213 214

John H. Rumsby

214

R EVIEWS

218

THE OFFICIAL ADDRESS OF THE SOCIETY

The Society for Army Historical Research Vincent’s Yard, 23 Alphabet Mews, London SW9 0FN Centenary cover illustrations Left: a Horse Grenadier, 1740s. Right: a British Infantryman, early 21st Century by Peter D. Cormack, MBE, FSA

Typeset by Jude Keen Limited, Kent. e-mail: jude@judekeen.co.uk Tel. 07949 644825 Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Limited, The Dorset Press, Dorchester DT1 1HD The views and/or opinions and/or statements expressed herein do not necessarily express the views and/or opinions of the JSAHR and/or the Officers of and Members of the Council of the SAHR, including its Vice-Presidents and Patron.

Lieutenant-Colonel the Honourable William Gordon by Pompeo Batoni (1708-1787) Reproduced by kind permission of the National Trust for Scotland – Fyvie Castle

Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 99 (2021), 125-133

THE 105TH REGIMENT OF FOOT THE QUEENÊS OWN ROYAL REGIMENT OF HIGHLANDERS 1761-1763

A NDREW C ORMACK

During the eighteenth century the Army was frequently greatly expanded at the commencement of war and as quickly reduced when the conflict ended. Many regiments therefore existed for relatively short periods, enjoyed their brief moment in the limelght or, quite often, saw no interesting service at all and were merely used as sources of casualty-replacements to be drafted to regiments in theatres of active operations. They then passed from view as peace returned. During the Seven Years War eight of these regiments were raised in the Highlands of Scotland, a source of rugged and resourceful manpower, which, however, was viewed with suspicion or pragmatic callousness by a section of the political nation. 1 In 1748 the Duke of Bedford, Secretary for the Southern Department, had recommended Highlanders as suitable settlers for Nova Scotia. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland concurred with the proposal writing to Bedford that ‘... it is much to be wished that these people may be disposed of in such a manner as to be of service to the government, instead of a detriment to it’. 2 It should be noted, however, that the people referred to were actually the loyal Highlanders of Lord Loudoun’s 64th Foot because Cumberland in a later letter to Bedford of 12th November 1748 wrote that ‘the scheme you former [sic] mention to me for engaging a Number of Men of Lord Loudouns Regt to go over to Nuova Scotia ... will be laid aside’ . 3 Though the inexperience of Loudoun’s Regiment and the fact that it was never able to assemble in one body had led to its performance in Scotland during the 1745 Rebellion being less valuable than had been hoped, it had nevertheless been shipped to Flanders in May 1747 and had distinguished itself in severe fighting at the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom. 4 Despite this, His Royal Highness and government ministers clearly considered red-coated Highlanders to be as potentially dangerous as the rebels had been. This attitude can be seen to have persisted, because James Wolfe, who had served in Scotland during the 1745 Rebellion, opined in 1751 in relation to 1 These regiments were the 77th (1756), 78th (1757), 87th (1757-8), 88th (1760), 89th (1759), 100th (1761), 101st (1760) and 105th (1761) Highland Regiments of Foot. 2 A. Massie & J. Oates, The Duke of Cumberland’s Campaigns in Britain and the Low Countries 1745- 1748: A Selection of His Letter s (Stroud: The History Press for the Army Records Society, 2018), p. 343 (hereafter referred to as Massie & Oates, Cumberland’s Letters ). See also E.M. Lloyd, ‘The raising of the Highland regiments, 1757’, English Historical Review , Vol. 17, No. 67, July 1902, pp. 466-469. 3 Massie & Oates, Cumberland’s Letters , p. 346. 4 The service of Loudoun’s Highlanders is most cogently given in I.H. Mackay Scobie, ‘The Highland Independent Companies of 1745-47’ Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research , Vol. 20, Spring 1941, pp. 5-37; A. McK. Annand, ‘John Campbell, 4th Earl of Loudoun, 1705-1782’ JSAHR , Vol. 44, Spring 1966, pp. 22-24 and C. Duffy, The ‘45 – Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Untold Story of the Jacobite Rising (London: Cassell, 2003).

125

126

ARMY HISTORICAL RESEARCH

possible reinforcements for America: ‘I should imagine that two or three independent Highland companies might be of use; they are hardy, intrepid, accustomed to a rough country, and no great mischief if they fall’. 5 When a definite scheme arose in 1756 to raise such troops for the British Army the Earl of Hardwicke reported to the Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle: I found by Mr. Pitt that there is a design, whether fixed or not I can’t tell, to raise three [sic] new regiments in the Highlands to be sent to North America. I told him that was a dangerous resource and put him in mind of Lord Loudoun’s regiment, raised in 1744, which in 1745 deserted, almost all, both officers and private men, to the Pretender. He distinguished between the cases and thought they would do well enough in North America, and that it would be a drain and not many of them would return. I said that was prophesying as bad success as we had. This scheme will gain the Scotch . 6 Hardwicke’s grudging concession that the availability of commissions for Scottish Highland gentlemen and employment for their clansmen might bring some of them round to a more acceptable way of thinking was a pragmatic way of regarding the proposal. By the time of the Elder Pitt’s death, however, his willingness to trust the Highlanders had been accorded a status little short of genius: Was it not he who devised that lofty and generous scheme for removing the disaffection of the Highlanders by enlisting them in regiments for the service of the Crown? Those minds which Culloden could not subdue at once yielded to his confidence; by trusting he reclaimed them ... And Pitt himself asserted that’ they cheerfully bled in defence of those liberties which they had attempted to overthrow but a few years before’. 7 Whoever can claim the prize for having first mobilised the military potential of the Highlanders, and prior claims can easily be put forward on behalf of Lord President Duncan Forbes of Culloden and Field Marshal George Wade, there is no doubt that Highland manpower has been of inestimable benefit to the British Army. The 105th Foot was one of the Highland regiments raised during the Seven Years War. Its Establishment was, unlike all the other new Scottish regiments, set at two battalions, though only of six companies each. The first battalion raised in October 1761 was commanded by the colonel, David Graeme, and included the regimental staff of a lieutenant-colonel, a major, a chaplain, an adjutant, a quartermaster, a surgeon and two surgeon’s mates. The second battalion, raised concurrently and into November, was presumably, in practice, intended to be

5 Beckles Wilson, The Life and Letters of James Wolfe (London: Heinemann, 1909), p. 141. 6 P.C. Yorke, The Life and Correspondence of Philip Yorke, Earl of Hardwicke, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913), Vol. II, p. 378. 7 Both quotes are taken from Lloyd, ‘The raising of the Highland regiments’ – see footnote 2.

THE 105 TH REGIMENT OF FOOT , 1761-1763

127

commanded by the lieutenant-colonel. As no other staff was provided for this battalion, it must be assumed that the two elements of the regiment were expected to serve together, though perhaps the senior of the surgeon’s mates was attached to the second battalion. The first battalion was initially provided with only three captains as the Field Officers had companies, and to assist them each was provided with two lieutenants and one ensign. Additionally the colonel’s company had a captain-lieutenant. The Other Ranks consisted of four each of sergeants and corporals, two drummers and 105 privates. On the completion of the second battalion another major was appointed and in the following year two more captains. Both Grenadier companies had captains, three lieutenants each – no ensigns – and the same numbers of non-commissioned officers, drummers and Men and two pipers each. As first established, the first battalion therefore numbered 721 all ranks and the second 715 all ranks. Both battalions were accepted as complete as from 25th December 1761 but remained on the British Establishment for different times: the second battalion passing onto the Irish Establishment as from 4th May 1762 and the 1st Battalion with effect from 18th July 1762. 8 Both battalions were disbanded on 31st March 1763 and the officers were placed on the Irish Half-Pay list. The original lieutenant-colonel of the regiment was Robert Murray but he retired and sold his commission to the Honourable William Gordon on 11th October 1762. Gordon had entered the Army at the beginning of the war as a cornet in the 11th Dragoons on 26th July 1756. He purchased his lieutenancy in the same regiment on 8th May 1758 but gained his captaincy on 4th August 1759 in the 16th Light Dragoons by raising a troop for rank. He remained with that regiment for just over two years before purchasing the major’s commission of the 31st Foot, which was stationed in Scotland, on 31st November 1761 from which he purchased the lieutenant-colonelcy of the Queen’s Own Royal Highlanders less than a year later . 9 Precisely what the 105th Foot did in Ireland is unknown and it seems likely that apart from training, its chief activity was arranging for drafts of men, as casualty replacements, to be sent to the two regiments of Highlanders that were serving in Germany. Possibly some men were despatched to North America for the same purpose. Gordon remained with the regiment until its disbandment and then undertook the Grand Tour. He was recorded as being on his way from 8 The National Archives (UK), Establishments of Several Corps and Additionals to the Forces ... , WO24/405. (Hereafter TNA.) The total figures given in this document are slightly wrong as six captains are counted for the 1st Battn and no captain-lieutenant. 9 Gordon’s commission details have been kindly supplied by Dr J.A. Houlding. Gordon was made a colonel by brevet on 29.8.1777 and left Half-Pay by raising his own 81st Foot in Ireland from 19.12.1777. He became a Maj-Gen 19.10.1781 and was placed on the English Half-Pay list when his regiment was disbanded on 13.5.1783. Returned to active service as the Colonel-Commandant of the new-raising 4th Battn of the 60th Foot, 3.10.1787; Col, 7th Foot, 20.10.1788; Col, 71st Foot in Ireland, 9.4.1789; Lt-Gen, 12.10.1793; Gen, 1.1.1798; Col, 21st Foot, 6.8.1803 until his death aged 80 or 81 on 25.5.1816.

128

ARMY HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Geneva to Turin, the capital of the Kingdom of Savoy-Piedmont-Sardinia in mid- September 1764 and arrived in Rome in January 1765. 10 The splendid portrait by Pompeo Batoni that serves as the frontispiece for this issue of the Journal is said to date from 1765. Certainly that was the year in which James Boswell saw Batoni drawing the plaid in his studio. The pose is, presumably, one that the sitter struck, but to Batoni’s imagination must be attributed the representation of the plaid more in the form of an ancient Roman toga than the traditional style in which a Highlander would normally wear it. Gordon clearly entered into the spirit of this classical representation and the appearance of the Colosseum in the background and the statue of the Goddess Roma bear witness to his desire to mark his travels to the Eternal City and his appreciation of its ancient civilisation. Analysis of the portrait as military iconography rather than from an art- historical viewpoint, reveals a black cartridge box under the part of the plaid that encircles the sitter’s waist, and that would tend to indicate that the regiment’s officers, like others at that time, had opted to carry fusils – light muskets – rather than the more normal spontoons. Why Gordon felt it necessary to take an ammunition pouch to Rome may conveniently be left open to hypothesis, though the diligence of his valet in packing every last piece of his master’s military kit is to be commended. The bonnet, here shown seemingly in velvet and of a bright, mid-blue shade, appears in Gordon’s left hand and is not easily visible. It was adorned with a short, black ostrich feather. Though it is always stated that the plaid Batoni painted is in the Huntly tartan, this is not so. The artist was probably delightfully seduced by the artistic possibilities of the multi-coloured drapery but also greatly confused by it and unable to understand its design. He may also have been annoyed that so much work would have to be put into painting it and equally determined that he would charge for the labour required to depict this unusual garb. Though provided with stripes of colour arranged at right angles to each other, the design bears little resemblance to the more carefully observed tartans or brechans that can be found in Allan Ramsay’s portraits. It should also be borne in mind that the notion of a tartan pattern designated by the name of a clan or sept and only legitimately worn by entitled members of those groups, as is commonly accepted today, was an invention of the revival of the Scottish Highland dress in the 1820s. 11 The details of the body garments are clearly depicted in the painting, though the significance of the gold medal suspended from a scarlet ribbon on the right lapel remains a mystery. It appears to bear a man’s head in right profile. The terminal of the shoulder sword-belt has also given rise to questions. It is clearly a bull’s head affronté and it is proposed that it may be intended to show one of the

10 J. Ingamells, A Dictionary of Brtish and Irish Travellers to Italy, 1701-1800 (London: Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 409-410. 11 J. Telfer Dunbar, History of Highland Dress – A Definitive Study of the history of Scottish costume and tartan, both civil and military, including weapons (Reprinted – London: B.T. Batsford Ltd, 1979)

THE 105 TH REGIMENT OF FOOT , 1761-1763

129

principal heraldic charges of Mecklenberg-Strelitz, the Duchy from which Princess Sophia Charlotte, the Queen Consort of King George III had come . 12 However, it does not appear to conform exactly with the device as usually represented. It would, nevertheless, certainly be an appropriate reference to be worn by the Queen’s Own Royal Highlanders and it is equally certainly not a clan badge. Gordon’s sword has a hilt of the Pinch of Snuff type and a blade of significant, though probably not unrealistic, flexibility.

The heraldic device of the bull of Mecklenberg that formed part of the arms of Mecklenberg-Strelitz Illustration by the author

12 The Arms of Mecklenburg are ‘Or a bull’s head erased and affronté sable, crowned proper, armed argent, the tongue extended gules’ – H.C. Fox-Davies, The Art of Heraldry – An Encyclopedia of Armory (London: 1904, Bloomsbury Reprint, 1986), p. 38 and Plate VII.

130

ARMY HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Through the kindness of Mr E. Brumby and with the permission of the National Register of Archives, Edinburgh a transcription of the bill for the regiment’s bag- pipe banners and the colours of the two battalions can be reproduced. 13 The document is so detailed in its description that a reconstruction of what the flags looked like can be suggested.

The Hon.ble Colonel Grayham Dr to Wm. Nicholson for 2 Battalions of the Royall Highlanders for 2 yards and half of Crimson tabby 14 at 12s £

1.10.0

2 yards and half of blow tabby ... @: 11 for 16 yards of brode yoolow ribbon for making up of the 4 bagpipe banners

1.0.6

0.10.6

2.2.0 1.1.0

for pr mixed silk tossols & Cords

for 12 yards of silk fringe

1.10.0

for Imbrothering the Queens Cypher with with [sic] St. Andrews motto with the Queens own Royall Regt. of Highlanders and St. Andrew and his motto on 4 banners 15 to a packing box for 18 yards of Italian Mantua silk 16 blow @ 9s for 8 yards of white – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – @ 9s for 10 yards of Crimson – - – - – - – - – - – - @ 10s

24.0.0

0.1.6 8.2.0 3.4.0 5.0.0 1.1.0 5.5.0 2.2.0 1.16.0

for making 2 union sheets @ 18s per

for making 2 plain sheets

for 4 pr of Crimson and gold tossols & Cords for 4 ticking outside Colour Cassis with [illegible]

13 National Register of Archives, Scotland Ref. GD 190/3/317/82. 14 Tabby – a plain weave fabric of silk, silk taffeta or worsted – P.G. Tortora & R.S. Merkel (eds), Fairchild’s Dictionary of Textiles , 7th Edition, (New York: Fairchild Publications, 1996), p. 558. (Hereafter Fairchild’s Textiles .) 15 St. Andrew’s motto was DUM SPIRO SPERO – While I breathe I hope . 16 Milanese silk – a type of warp knit fabric with two sets of yarns that knit in opposite directions. The two sets run diagonally crossing each other and at the edges each yarn is transferred to the other set. This renders the fabric run-resistant even if the fly of the flag is frayed or the sheet is pierced. Fairchild’s Textiles , p. 358.

THE 105 TH REGIMENT OF FOOT , 1761-1763

131

for Imbrothering the Queens Cypher ribbon and St. Andrews and a large Crown In the Centor With a Large Scroll with ye Queens Royall Highland Regt. ornamented with thissells and rosis firs Battalian for the 2d Battalian In the sam mannor

13.0.0

15.0.0

with the addition of 2 large flaimes for lining the 4 ho ... [illegible]

0.4.0 —————- £89.6.6 ——————

sent to Mr Donaldson 15 of december 1761 Recd 31st March 1763 of George Ross Esqr Eighty Nine Pounds Six Shillings & Sixpence being the amount of the above Bill Wm Nicholson Pall Mall 31st March 1763

Having received the articles mentioned in the Above Accompt, you will please pay the Same and charge them to Acct of Dav: Grame To George Ross Esqr 17 Conduit Street

Though sufficiently detailed as a bill, it is unfortunate that the colour of the flames that differenced the 2nd Battalion’s colours was not mentioned. Other details, such as the colour of the title scrolls and the arrangement of the roses and thistles, as also the precise colouring of Saint Andrew, must also be conjectural but the latter’s representation with his characteristic diagonal cross is traditional. The reconstruction may be considered a satisfactory combination of the elements of the design. 18 Clearly yellow was an acceptable colour for the decoration of the pipe banners attached to the instruments’ drone pipes and it would have provided the necessary contrast for the flames in the colours of the 2nd Battalion. The regimental colour – plain blue with the Union in the upper canton, would have had these flames emerging from the lower, outer corner of the union. The quantity 17 George Ross was evidently the regiment’s British agent in London. According to the 1763 Army List he also served in that capacity to the 7th and 11th Dragoons, the 16th and 17th Light Dragoons, the 3rd Foot Guards and the 53rd, 75th, 78th, 97th and the 103rd Regiments of Foot, as well as the Fencible Men of Argyllshire. In Ireland, the regiment’s agent was Mr. Montgomery of Dublin. 18 I am particularly grateful to Miss Bridget Wright, the bibliographer of the Royal Library, Windsor for providing me with an image of Queen Charlotte’s cypher/monogram – C R – taken from Her Majesty’s bookplate.

132

ARMY HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Illustration by the author

The title on the colour is rendered as it appears in the bill.

The KingÊs Colour of the 2nd Battalion of the QueenÊs Own Royal Regiment of Highlanders.

THE 105 TH REGIMENT OF FOOT , 1761-1763

133

of Mantua silk supplied indicates that the blue of the Union in the King’s colour was the same as that used for the regimental colour and that crimson, rather than an ordinary red, was the shade used for the St. George’s cross within the Unions on both King’s and regimental colours. Paintings of the mid-eighteenth century generally show the shade of blue in the Union flag to have been a good deal paler at that period than it is in modern times. As was the case with the extant colours of the 94th Foot, the design of the colours of the Queen’s Own Royal Highlanders did not conform to the standard design of flags for infantry regiments as laid out in the regulations. 19 It is unclear as to whether the pipe banners were crimson on one side and blue on the other for both battalions, or whether one battalion had banners that were all crimson and the other, banners that were blue throughout. Though the Standing Army was viewed with suspicion and concern by those who thought that it might subvert the constitution, nevertheless the number of portraits of officers that were evidently intended to commemorate their military service indicates that more pragmatic and realistic sentiments were espoused by many. These sitters were clearly keen to record the fact that they had done their duty when their country was under threat. Batoni’s painting of Lieutenant-Colonel the Honourable William Gordon in addition to recording his Grand Tour, bears witness to his service and provides a unique reference to the uniform of a regiment that served its country briefly but honourably during the Seven Years War.

Saint Andrew, the Patron saint of Scotland, with his saltire cross and carrying the Acts of Andrew as a bound volume. Illustration by the author

19 A. Cormack, ‘The History of the 94th Foot, 1760-1763’, JSAHR , Autumn 2011. The conventional designs of the colours for 16 infantry regiments raised in 1758 appear in TNA, Board of General Officers – Clothing, WO 7/25.

Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 99 (2021), 134-151

CLARENDON AND HISTORY: A CASE STUDY OF THE BATTLE OF CHALGROVE, 18TH JUNE 1643

D EREK L ESTER

The six (originally seven) volumes of The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England by Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon have an iconic status, so much so that a new selection of extracts chosen by Paul Seaward, the Director of the History of Parliament Trust, was published in the Oxford University Press ‘World Classics’ series in 2009. Classic though it is, the difficulties of the composition of Clarendon’s history have long been apparent, combining as it does his original narratives compiled between 1641 and 1646, an autobiographical account compiled between 1668 and 1670, and a combination of the two with some additions dating from 1671. Hyde’s daily journals, which he wrote between 1641 and 1646, were not intended as a history per se . He began writing them as events occurred from 1641 and started writing his history of the rebellion in 1646. Some, but not all, of the daily journals have been edited, but the complete set of manuscripts has never been published verbatim . Editions of the ‘history’ were constructed after Clarendon’s death in 1674 by his second son, Laurence, from the thousands of documents that his father had accumulated. It is not always clear how far the latter adapted what his father had written but, as will be evident from the published version of the Battle of Chalgrove on 18th June 1643, Laurence’s version of events bore scant resemblance to Clarendon’s original journal. Apart from Clarendon’s political agenda to vindicate the principles for which the Royalists had fought, there is, as Sir Charles Firth expressed it in 1904, the ‘treacherous foundation’ of his memory leading to ‘very varying degrees of trustworthiness’. 1 Even in cases where Firth accepted the accuracy of the narrative, however, it has been shown that Clarendon’s ‘history’ misrepresented events: for example, in his belief that the break between Charles I and Parliament was the result of the machinations of only a small group of ambitious malcontents. For Firth, Clarendon’s account of developments in early 1642 such as the ‘Army Plot’ and the attempted arrest of the five members ‘are disingenuous and inaccurate’, and Firth goes on to say that Clarendon ‘... cannot avoid relating these episodes, but he minimises their importance, mis-states their history, and conceals their connexion with the general policy of the king and the progress of the breach between king and parliament.’ 2 Another example is Clarendon’s version of Royalist military fortunes in the West in which he selected and distorted evidence about the nature of the Royalist forces and their achievements because of his hostility to Prince Maurice, Sir Richard Grenville and George, Lord

1 Sir Charles Firth, ‘Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion’, English Historical Review 19 (1904), pp. 26-54 at p. 26. 2 Idem, p. 37.

134

THE BATTLE OF CHALGROVE , 1643

135

Goring. 3 The point that needs be made, however, is that the account published by Laurence Hyde and all subsequent editions based upon it do not reflect Clarendon’s original narrative. Yet, despite the need for circumspection, the published version of Clarendon’s work is often still held as a fundamental source for the history of the Civil War and the supreme authority. An example of the regard in which his text is held is his account of the action at Chalgrove fought on 18th June 1643 and best known for the mortal wounding of John Hampden. The UK Battlefields Register of Historic England, for example, still cites Clarendon as an authority along with two Thomason Tracts and an additional pamphlet in the Bodleian Library. These latter contemporary accounts are ‘His Highnesse Prince Ruperts Late Beating up the Rebels Quarters At Post-comb & Chinner in Oxfordshire And his Victory in Chalgrove Feild [sic], on Sunday morning June 18 1643’ (hereafter Late Beating Up ); ‘A True Relation of a Gret Fight Between the Kings Forces and the Parliaments, at Chinner neer Tame on Saturday last’ (hereafter A True Relation ); and ‘Two Letters from his Excellencie Robert Earl of Essex’ (hereafter Letters ). 4 To be fair, Historic England also lists the only two modern analyses of Chalgrove by Carter and Stevenson (1973), and the revisionist study by this author (2015), the latter accepted by the relevant volume of the Oxfordshire Victoria County History in 2016. 5 Historic England has accepted the argument for redefining the area on which the fighting took place as a consequence of the revisionist version which, apart from analysis of the surviving accounts, including Clarendon’s original description, was based on a range of estate maps that showed how little the landscape had changed since 1643 and included information gleaned from field walking of the site. English Heritage in the preliminary report on the battle only alluded to the 1881 Ordnance Survey map as a source for the location of the site. This placed the battle south of the Watlington to Oxford road and was based on the location of the monument erected in 1843. The actual Register report was amended to include some reference to earlier maps of 1679 and 1822 but without really grasping the significance of these sources for redefining the precise location of the action. It is known that the protagonists faced each other over a hedge that was 3 Ronald Hutton, ‘Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion’ , English Historical Review 97 (1982), pp. 70-88. 4 Bodleian Library, Wood 376 (14), ‘His Highnesse Prince Ruperts Late Beating up the Rebels Quarters At Post-comb & Chinner in Oxfordshire And his Victory in Chalgrove Feild [sic], on Sunday morning June 18 1643’; British Library (hereafter BL), Thomason Tract E.55 (11), ‘A True Relation of a Gret Fight Between the Kings Forces and the Parliaments, at Chinner neer Tame on Saturday last’; Thomason Tract E.55 (19), ‘Two Letters from his Excellencie Robert Earl of Essex’ (23 June 1643). 5 John Stevenson & Andrew Carter, ‘The Raid on Chinnor and the Fight at Chalgrove Field, June 17th and 18th, 1643’, Oxoniensia 38 (1973), pp. 346-356; Derek & Gill Lester, ‘The Military and Political Importance of the Battle of Chalgrove (1643)’, Oxoniensia 80, (2015), pp. 27-39; The Victoria History of the County of Oxfordshire: Volume XVIII (2016), pp. 425-26.

136

ARMY HISTORICAL RESEARCH

thin enough and low enough for Prince Rupert famously to jump over it, and for his Lifeguard to follow him. Since the 1679 and 1822 maps depicted hedges lining the Watlington to Oxford road that would have prevented Rupert from approaching the Parliamentarians with so little difficulty, the Register moved the battle site 500 yards northwards. This still did not reflect the correct location as suggested by contemporary evidence, for it takes no account of the site of the long-vanished Warpsgrove House, where documents show the Parliamentary reserve to have been stationed during the action. Similarly the location of the ‘Great Hedge’, which defined the movements of the protagonists before the action, is also very important, especially because some have seen it, incorrectly, as the one jumped by Rupert and his Lifeguard. ‘Great hedges’ have been known as marking parish boundaries since mediaeval times and a remnant of the one dividing Chalgrove from Warpsgrove was composed of a double line of stock- proof hedges with sufficient space in-between for horses to pass side by side. 6 The ‘Great Hedge’ clearly existed in that form in 1643 and it is impossible that Rupert could have jumped it, as it was far too tall, dense and wide. The author’s reconstruction of the seventeenth-century landscape was pieced together initially by overlaying the 1679 map of the field layout around Chalgrove village onto the present 1:5000 Ordnance Survey map. However, the coverage of the 1679 map did not extend as far as the Warpsgrove estate, so the 1849 tithe map of the estate was also used. To the north of Warpsgrove, a map of the manor of Golder dating from 1612 confirmed the outlines of the land around the hamlets of Golder, Lewknor Meadow and Easington. Other maps consulted were a map of the estate of Warpsgrove when it was sold at auction in 1874; William Burgess’s map of Clare manor in Pyrton parish dating from 1735, and the map of the Hamersley estate in Pyrton by B. Badcock of 1835. All of these maps proved that the parish boundaries had not changed since the seventeenth century and that most field shapes were similar and easily recognisable. 7 They also showed the location of the old tracks and routes between parishes that permit a reconstruction of the most likely routes taken to the field by the protagonists. The correct locations of Warpsgrove House and the ‘Great Hedge’ both appeared on the 1612 estate map. 8 Previous researchers have thought that the site of Warpsgrove House was synonymous with that of Manor (or Manor House) Farm but this was an 6 The remnant can be found on OS Explorer 171 Chiltern Hills West Ref 650975 at 51°40’22.64N. 7 Oxfordshire History Centre, MPC 569 (1679 map); MPC 764 (1821-22 map); 408A (1850 map); MPC 782 (1612 map); QS/F/A/18 (1845 map); Paxton Mss 112 (1874 map); Bodleian Library, MS Oxon a2 (14) (1738 map); MS C17: 49 (179 and 180) (1716 map); R (MS) C17: 49 (60) (1835 map). 8 Stevenson & Carter, ‘The Raid on Chinnor ‘, pp. 346-56; John Adair, A Life of John Hampden the Patriot, 1594-1643 (1976), pp. 208-24. See also National Army Museum, 9010-31-286 and 9010- 31-287, Papers of Peter Young, Unpublished paper on Chalgrove: ‘Chapter___’ …. ‘The Chalgrove Raid, 17-18 June 1643’.

THE BATTLE OF CHALGROVE , 1643

137

eighteenth century construction and the original house was contiguous with the equally long-vanished church also shown on the 1612 map. The site of the church was suggested on the 1881 OS map and has since been confirmed by geophysical survey in 2014. The probable site of the house was accepted in a revision of the Historic England battlefield map in 2019. It should be added that the current monument at Chalgrove was erected in 1843 on the initiative of George, Lord Nugent on land that was gifted for the purpose by the Reverend Renn Dickson Hampden. It is not the location of the actual fighting. Indeed, it stands at the crossroads of Warpsgrove Lane and the old Watlington to Oxford road and is over a mile from Solinger field where Nugent stated wrongly that the action took place. Despite the fact that the primary sources are easier to access than was once the case, the revisionist account has not been accepted by those who still rely on the published Clarendon text. Clarendon did not take part in the operation that culminated in the fight at Chalgrove, but he was at Oxford and witnessed the arrival of the Parliamentarian prisoners and the plunder brought into the city by Prince Rupert. However, what is clear from comparing the published version of Clarendon’s history with his original account is just how far the distortions of Laurence Hyde and his collaborators have muddied the waters and misled later historians. This later, edited version of the original manuscript was published in 1702, twenty-eight years after Clarendon’s death and its distortions have appeared in all subsequent editions. Before examining the versions of Clarendon’s account of Chalgrove, a recapitulation of the complex story of his personal history is in order. Having fallen out of favour with King Charles II, Clarendon fled into exile in 1667 and died at Rouen in December 1674. As is well known, his second son, Laurence, 1st Earl of Rochester, edited the manuscripts left by his father as part of the Royalist (and Tory) riposte to early Parliamentarian accounts of the Civil Wars, such as Edmund Ludlow’s memoirs published in 1698. The clumsily edited first volume of The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England based on the original narrative was published in 1702. Presented to Queen Anne, the title page misleadingly stated, ‘Written by the Right Honourable Edward, Earl of Clarendon’. The grateful monarch rewarded the compilers by allowing the establishment of The Clarendon Press, which was given perpetual copyright in the work. Two more volumes were published by 1704. Clarendon’s eldest son, Henry, inherited the earldom of Clarendon but died in 1709. His son, Edward, 3rd Earl Clarendon died in 1723 and, as his son had predeceased him, the title went to Rochester’s son, Henry, who became 4th Earl of Clarendon in addition to being 2nd Earl of Rochester. When the latter died in 1753, the Clarendon title of the first creation became extinct but the manuscripts of the 1st Earl passed to the 4th Earl’s daughter. The Bodleian Library at Oxford I

138

ARMY HISTORICAL RESEARCH

acquired what have become known as the Clarendon State Papers from 1759 onwards. 9 Thomas Villiers, who married the 4th Earl’s daughter, compiled The Continuation of the Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon , commonly known as ‘The Life’, first published in 1759. The title page bore the inscription: Being a CONTINUATION of His History of the Grand Rebellion from the Restoration to his Banishment in 1667. WRITTEN BY HIMSELF. Printed from the Original Manuscripts, given to the University of Oxford by the Heirs of the late Earl of CLARENDON. In reality, Thomas Villiers copied or adapted parts of the text from the edition of 1702-1704. A new edition of The History of the Rebellion was published by The Clarendon Press in 1826 with, reportedly, earlier ‘suppressed’ passages restored, although it has never been clear precisely what ‘suppressed passages’ is meant to convey. It is largely the 1702 edition. In 1888 W. Dunn Macray edited a new six-volume edition, which incorporated both the narrative and also the autobiography. It was stated as being re-edited from ‘a fresh collation of the original MS. in the Bodleian Library, with marginal dates and occasional notes’. Macray’s is regarded as the definitive edition. The narrative of the fighting at Chalgrove indicates that it follows Hyde’s original manuscript referenced in the footnotes of the 1888 edition, but this is only true to a degree. In fact, the narrative of the 1888 edition is mainly taken from the 1826 edition, including the references to the manuscript in the footnotes and the 1826 edition copied exactly pages of text from the first edition of 1702. Macray’s 1888 version is, effectively, therefore the account composed by Laurence Hyde and is not Edward Hyde’s own account. It was this 1888 edition that was reprinted in 1958 and, again, in 1992. The distortions and misunderstandings of Laurence’s version of the action have therefore been perpetuated into modern times. Despite the fact that the Clarendon papers have been available for study for 260 years, the Bodleian collection of his manuscripts is so large that many have remained untouched. 10

II

Turning to Chalgrove, the prelude was the defection of John Urry, then Sergeant Major of Horse to Sir William Balfour in the Earl of Essex’s Parliamentary Army, which was loosely concentrated around Thame, 12 miles east of the Royalist

19 Ian Green, ‘The Publication of Clarendon’s Autobiography and the Acquisition of His Papers by the Bodleian Library’, Bodleian Library Record 97 (1982), pp. 70-88. 10 W. Dunn Macray (ed.), The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England 6 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888), Vol. III, p. 53, fn 3; Bodleian Library, Manuscript of Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, ‘The History of the Rebellion’, MS Clar.112 Folio 366 (1643).

THE BATTLE OF CHALGROVE , 1643

139

capital in Oxford. 11 On joining the Royalists, Urry informed them that one of Essex’s regiments of dragoons was posted in the village of Chinnor and that the Earl’s army was expecting a convoy from London containing £21,000 to pay the troops. The King’s field commander, Prince Rupert, devised a plan to take advantage of this intelligence and to strike at the Parliamentarian force, hoping, perhaps, that he might capture the treasure waggons. Rupert left Oxford in the afternoon of Saturday 17th June 1643 with about 2,000 men. 12 This force comprised three regiments of Horse – Rupert’s own regiment plus his Troop of Lifeguards, Lord Percy’s regiment, and that of the Prince of Wales – with 350 dragoons under Lord Wentworth, and 500 ‘commanded’ foot without colours under Colonel Henry Lunsford. This force marched through the night, leaving a guard at Chiselhampton Bridge over the River Thame to secure Rupert’s withdrawal route. It fell upon an outpost of Colonel Herbert Morley’s regiment of Horse at the hamlet of Postcombe early in the morning of Sunday 18th June, capturing nine men, some horses and arms and Morley’s cornet. Approaching from the north-west, Rupert then attacked Chinnor. The Royalists killed about 50 men, captured 120 prisoners, three guidons of Sir Samuel Luke’s newly-raised dragoon regiment and some unspecified ‘booty’. While some allowance must be made for approximate contemporary estimates of timing, the analysis of the contemporary reports coupled with the reconstruction of the landscape and reasonable deduction allows all those units and individuals named in the accounts to be located with some confidence. The Late Beating Up , for example, gives timings and placement of key figures throughout the actions. Rupert and the cavalry left the village of Chinnor at about 0630 to follow the foot, which had been set in motion earlier. His pace appears to have been extraordinarily leisurely for around 0730, ‘in the village hard upon the left hand of us’ some rebels were encountered. This was the village of Aston Rowant and the rebels were about 200 men in the troops of Major John Gunter, and Captains James Sheffield and Richard Crosse. Gunter had originally been an officer of Essex’s own regiment of Foot but had been given a troop in Essex’s regiment of Horse. Significantly, he also appears to have had some responsibility for pay warrants: he was killed at Chalgrove. 13 Sheffield, formerly MP for St Mawes, Cornwall in the Short Parliament, would later rise to the rank of colonel in the New Model Army, while Crosse had succeeded Lord Brooke in command of the latter’s Troop of Horse, again in Essex’s own regiment of Horse. Crosse’s troop was transferred to a new regiment of Horse formed by Sheffield in July 1643. 14 11 Andrew Hopper, Turncoats & Renegadoes: Changing Sides during the English Civil Wars (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 226. 12 Peter Young & Richard Holmes, The English Civil War: A Military History of the Three Civil Wars, 1642-51 (London: Eyre Methuen, 1974), p. 123. 13 The National Archives (hereafter TNA), SP28/1a/34, SP28/1d/461, 468, SP28/2a/223, 227, SP28/3a/124, SP28/3b/513, SP28/7/395. 14 https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/cromwell-army-officers

140

ARMY HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Map 1 – Royalist and Parliamentarian movements of troops and reconnaissance parties prior to the battle.

K Gunter’s 300 men attack Rupert’s 1,000 men at South Weston. Dundasse’s dragoons leave Thame 7.30 am for South Weston. M Dundasse sends report back to Thame. N Hampden and Luke leave Thame for Stokefield. P Gunter, Sanders and Buller join Dundasse with Hampden at Stokefield. R 700 or 800 mounted Parliamentarians depart Thame 8.00 am and arrive Clare Crossroads at 8.30 am. Royalists march via Clare to Easington and Chalgrove. L S

A

Royalist vanguard of Foot leave Chinnor at 6 am. Royalist Horse leave Chinnor at 6.30 am. Royalist view towards Beacon Hill. Parliamentarian survivors reach Thame with news of the raid 7 am. Dragoons under Sanders and Buller arrive Chinnor 7.30 am. Sanders and Buller send report back to Thame. Sanders and Buller pursue Royalists to Aston Rowant. Gunter, Crosse and Sheffield at Aston Rowant. Sanders and Buller join Gunter's force and harry Royalist rearguard.

B C D

E

F

G

H

T

J

Highway from South Weston to Clare from map dated 1721.

THE BATTLE OF CHALGROVE , 1643

141

The strength of Essex’s army varied considerably from period to period. At Edgehill it had been approximately 15,000 strong but had dwindled to not much more than 5,000 over the winter of 1642-43 before increasing again to 19,000 during his advance on Reading in April 1643. It is suggested that its strength fell by a third after the capture of Reading on 27th April 1643 through dispersion to other duties. This decline in strength was continuing at the time of Chalgrove with the casualties suffered there adding to the process of reduction. Many officers would have had few men to command. By July 1643, losses from casualties, prisoners and disease had reduced his forces to around 2,500 Horse and 3,000 Foot fit for duty. 15 The pay convoy from London arrived in Thame very early on the morning of 18th June 1643 as indicated by the various pay warrants issued that day. 16 When the alarm came from Chinnor, Essex’s principal officers were in Thame waiting for their regiments’ money. When the magnitude of the attack became known, it was judged impractical to send messages to the cavalry regiments in the outlying villages to rally towards the scene of action because that would have taken too long. The principal officers, with whatever escorts they had to guard the money they were intending to collect, appear to have been ordered to intercept the Royalists. It is generally accepted that this initial-response group consisted of between 700 and 800 men. In addition to these, and probably before this counter- attack force could be gathered together, the commander of Essex’s Horse, Sir Philip Stapleton, who had the night watch, had sent out two officers – Captains Mount Sanders and Anthony Buller – with about 100 ‘commanded’ mounted men, to gain intelligence of what had happened at Chinnor and to discover the direction of Rupert’s march. Buller had a troop in Colonel Hans Behre’s regiment of Horse while Sanders was in the Earl of Rochford’s Foot. Some of these ‘commanded’ men were sent back to Stapleton to report while the remainder followed Rupert. Stapleton also sent Captain George Dundas’ troop from James Wardlawe’s Dragoons directly towards Chiselhampton to try and cut off the Royalists: as Wheatley bridge was held by Parliamentarian forces, Chiselhampton was the only place that Rupert could cross the River Thame. Sanders and Buller moved on from Chinnor and joined forces with Gunter, Crosse and Sheffield at around 0800. The latter having first encountered Rupert close to Aston Rowant, began skirmishing with the Royalists at about 0815 at South Weston, a mile and half beyond, trying to slow them in the hope of reinforcements arriving from Thame. The Parliamentarians, approximately 250 strong, were attacked by Percy’s regiment and Rupert’s, the latter under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel O’Neale. Letters relates that these – together some 600 men – caused the Parliamentarians to be so ‘overborne with multitude,

15 Ian Gentles, The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms, 1638-52 (Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2007), pp. 99-100. 16 Pay warrants relating to the date of the convoy’s arrival are in TNA, SP28/7, f.395; SP28/7 f.440; SP28/143, unfol. They show that pay was issued on 18 June 1643.

142

ARMY HISTORICAL RESEARCH

they broke and fled’. Having scattered the opposition, the Royalist troopers then galloped off to catch up with their Foot. This skirmish is often confused with the action at Chalgrove itself and is described erroneously in Letters as the main battle. Dundas’ troop of Wardlawe’s Dragoons probably heard the pistol shots from the skirmish and was shortly afterwards joined by Gunter’s men in their withdrawal. Dundas may have seen the Royalist infantry passing through Clare crossroads and their cavalry hurrying to join them. He greeted Gunter with the news that reinforcements were on their way from Thame. Sometime around 0730, Colonel John Hampden with Sir Samuel Luke, the Scoutmaster General, and Colonel John Dalbier, Essex’s Quartermaster General of Horse, had probably already left Thame en route to Watlington. Hampden had collected his own Greencoat regiment’s pay at an early stage – at around 0600 and before the alarm came from Chinnor. The group would probably have reached the farmstead of Wheatfield by 0815. On hearing the gunfire and making their way to Stokefield they encountered Gunter’s men. Hampden, as Essex’s second-in- command could have taken command, but recognising his own limitations as a cavalry commander and as related in Letters , he put himself in Crosse’s troop. 17 The 700-800 men also arrived from Thame, but it is not clear from the sources who was in command of this force, as it seems that it was not initially with Hampden and his colleagues. The action at Chalgrove commenced at about 0845 – The Late Beating Up suggests about 0900 – with approximately 1,060 Parliamentarians present. Stapleton did not arrive on Golder Hill with further reinforcements until sometime after 1000, in time only to meet the Parliamentarians fleeing the field. The Royalists’ infantry vanguard was nearly a mile ahead of their cavalry, well on the way to Chiselhampton bridge passing through Easington and following the ancient track from South Weston onwards down Golder Hill. The dragoons with them would have formed the rearguard and ensured the safe withdrawal of the force by lining the hedges and waiting to ambush any pursuers. At stages, as the Foot withdrew, the dragoons would have redeployed back along the road waiting for their own Horse to join them or for any Parliamentarian troops who were pursuing them. Having initially drawn up his cavalry in Solinger field facing Golder Hill, ( See Map 2) Rupert ordered his troopers from line into column and left the cornfield to follow in his infantry’s footsteps, his right flank covered by the Great Hedge. 18 The ancient track bends away from the Great Hedge at the end of Solinger field to avoid marshy land. Rupert must have crossed Warpsgrove Lane into Upper Marsh Lane, 400 yards south from where the lane passes through the Great Hedge, which was a formidable and continuous barrier with few gaps. The lane from Chalgrove up to Warpsgrove House was one such gap and was 1,000 yards away from where the Parliamentarians, who had come down Golder Hill, were

17 BL, E.55 (19). 18 ‘Late Beating Up’, pp. 6-7.