BATTLE IN THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR AND INTERREGNUM This article explores why the English Civil War and Interregnum 1642- 1660 seem to have been a quiet time for Battle. We have found no evidence of protest, skirmish or military action in or near the town. The reasons for this are interesting ; and we look at some notable characters along the way. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The English Civil War and the Protectorate which followed it, comprising the period 1642- 1660, had three phases of military activity and many phases of political and religious change. The conflict began as a struggle between the King and Parliament about Charles’ insistence on religious reform through Archbishop Laud, particularly the revised Prayer Book and amended ritual; and about his equally firm insistence on a literal interpretation of the Divine Right of Kings, containing only a subservient role for Parliament. The Battle of Naseby in 1645 and the execution of Charles in 1649 clarified that the monarchy no longer had that authority, but Parliament, the Lord Protector and the Army still had to settle who was in charge. As Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell found Parliaments as troublesome as Charles had, for different reasons, and dismissed them; Parliament found that its authority was as subservient to the Army as it had been to Charles, again for different reasons. The Army found itself divided not only along religious grounds, but also politically, as new sects such as the Levellers, Ranters and Diggers – some of them hundreds of years ahead of their time – developed in a febrile atmosphere of debate and experiment. Contemporary writers speak much of the “world turned upside down”. 1 In matters of religion, the Presbyterianism which had appeared the alternative to Charles’ religion in the 1640s, was outflanked by a more rigid Puritanism in the 1650s, and even mainstream Puritanism was outflanked by more radical sects such as the Quakers and the Baptists, both strong in Sussex. Once Cromwell died in 1658, the country slid towards anarchy as his son Richard was unable to control the Army. In 1659/60 General Monck, as the only one left with an army, subtly – his motives are still debated today – steered events towards the Restoration of April 1660, as gradually opinion came round to the view that a flexibly run monarchy was the only governance model that would work. Against this background, anything could have happened in Sussex – this paper examines why the events were in fact so limited. Narrowing the view to Sussex, Parliamentarian forces got an early grip on the county militarily, seeing it as being of strategic importance because of its ports and its iron production. The aim was also to cut off supplies of French arms for Charles. In west Sussex1, Chichester and Arundel experienced sieges as Royalists and Parliamentarians tussled for possession of these important routes to France with its supplies of weapons and money and its means of escape. Otherwise the military action in the county saw none of the heavy casualties elsewhere in England, Scotland and Ireland, the nearest battle to Battle being at Haywards Heath. The Parliamentarians quickly established committees to run local affairs in Sussex and other counties, backed up by the military when necessary, and in that respect the enforcing role of Col Herbert Morley was crucial. In general, allegiance to Parliament or the King was mixed in west Sussex, but in east Sussex it was more for Parliament, although there is plenty of evidence that as the conflict and the Protectorate wore on there was a growing sense of sullen indifference or resistance in east Sussex. Rye, perhaps influenced in earlier times by a Protestant influx from France, was in a category of its own in being strongly Puritan. THE GREAT FAMILIES DIVIDED The two aristocratic Royalist households of Battle – the Ashburnhams and the Montagus – were disabled for a variety of reasons and so unable to resist Parliamentary control of this part of Sussex. Many other leading families in the area were split between Parliament and King, as happened all over the country, so their net impact against Parliament was neutral. Two examples in passing: Col Anthony Stapley MP was Parliamentarian; he was married to the sister of Lord Goring, a leading Sussex Royalist. Sir Edward Ford, another leading Royalist, was brother-in-law to Ireton, Cromwell’s son in law. Most commentators think Sussex was largely Parliamentarian in sympathy but in any event the Ashburnhams and Montagus were not in a position to encourage the Royalist cause locally in Battle. They had interests away from Battle; and their influence was further weakened by the process of “composition” in which crippling fines were levied on their 1 The formal division into West and East Sussex postdates this period by over two centuries but the terms have been used in this article- in lower case- for convenience. 2 estates by Parliament for their adherence to Charles I. So there seems to have been a power vacuum in Battle. The Montagus were literally away from Battle: by 1642 they were based at Cowdray Park by Midhurst; and in any event their attentions were elsewhere. Inherited in 1592 by Anthony- Maria Browne, Battle Abbey was part of the Cowdray estate. In the years preceding the English Civil War until his death in 1629 the second Viscount, a leading Catholic, had been concentrating on the debate about whether English Catholics should be led by a bishop, with the courtesy title, the Bishop of Chalcedon. Battle Abbey was probably not occupied or of military significance, maybe partially ruined at this time. Two thirds of the Cowdray estate was sequestered in 1643 by the Parliamentarians from Francis Browne – Cowdray was garrisoned by Parliamentary forces. According to the Cowdray Heritage Trust there are marks in the Cowdray walls from musket shot fired by soldiers at this time. Even so it seems the focus for the Montagus during the English Civil War was Cowdray. Short of funds, Francis Browne accordingly divided and let out some of the Battle Abbey estate and in 1661 had to “dispark” the deer park at Battle Abbey. A survey at the time for Francis Browne of the family estates by Nicholas Lane does not mention Battle. We cannot find portraits of Francis – maybe due to the later Cowdray fire or perhaps he was just not that significant. 3 John Ashburnham (above) was absent from east Sussex for most of the English Civil War, in the service of Charles I as his personal secretary and attended him at his execution. One of Charles’ shirts is in the London Museum. 2He spent much of the period 1649-60 in prison or banished to the Channel Islands. His father had lost much of the family money around 1619, but John subsequently married the wealthy Frances Holland, and in 1639 a warrant under the Privy Seal enabled him to regain his ancestral seat at Ashburnham. Like Montagu he suffered financially in the Civil War period, in his case from composition of 50% of his estates. John Ashburnham got little help from the fact that his relative Laurence Ashburnham was a Deputy Lieutenant for Sussex on the Parliamentary side. But his fortunes were restored yet again because his second wife, the Dowager Lady Poulett, was also rich and paid his fines. In 1660 he was reappointed as Groom of the Bedchamber. Other families such as the Sackvilles, were ruined by fines. Lord Dacre of Hurstmonceux, although a Royalist to begin with, distanced himself from Charles I as the conflict wore on. He and his family just tried to carry on as though everything was normal. Eggs and fish were, for him, in plentiful supply at Eastbourne market, and breeding of partridges on his estate continued as normal. He even sailed his pleasure yacht at Pevensey! The Whistlers were divided between King and Parliament. Ralph Whistler was a Captain of Horse with the Parliamentarians and eventually accumulated 22000 acres of land in Ireland. John Whistler his brother, on the other hand, joined the King in 1642 when he set up base at Oxford and was impoverished by fines and subsequent imprisonment. He even had his horse confiscated and to quote his petition to the Sussex Committee “ a woman [was ] put in [ to his house] who kept a tavern and a house of worse fame, who tore his house, burnt great parte of the materials and spoiled and embezzled almost all his goods.” Inept intervention by Charles in family quarrels did not help the Royalist cause either. Thomas Lunsford of East Hoathly was notorious, as we shall see later, so Charles’ decision to make him a Colonel in the Royalist army, damaged support for the Royalists in Sussex. The difficulty of deciding between the sides is illustrated by the diary of Sir William Campion of Sussex. He eventually favoured the Royalists but only after a struggle: “I did not rashly or unadvisedly put myself upon this service for it was daily in my prayers for two or three months together to God to direct me in the right way and besides I had conference with diverse able and honest men for advice, who confirmed me in my judgement”. Sir Thomas Roe says that “No neutrality is admitted, both parts resolve that those who are not with them are against them.” The divisions would have been exacerbated because if you elected to be a Royalist, you would have to pay fines based on your property and might even have that property sequestered; if you were a Parliamentarian then while Charles I was in power, you could be found guilty of treason.