[18] Green had given £1. 10s. to the building of Salford Chapel in 1634. Judging from the amounts at which he was assessed in the levies made upon the town during the war, he was a well-to-do man; the Conduit was then one of the streets inhabited by the richer citizens ("Manchester Municipal Records"). Green does not seem to have been an ardent royalist, for he was not sequestered, but he afforded shelter to one George Leigh of Barton-upon-Irwell, who at first supported the royalist cause, but on Prince Rupert's invasion fled to Manchester ("Royalist Composition Papers," Vol. 4, p. 82).
[19] Sir Thomas Stanley was the son of Edward Stanley of Bickerstaffe, who was made a Baronet in 1627‑8. He was a consistent, if rather lukewarm, supporter of the Parliamentary cause. He was the direct ancestor of the present Earl of Derby. ("Lancashire Lieutenancy," Pt. 2, p. 246.)
[20] "C.W.T.," p. 33, note. Sir Alexander Radcliffe was committed to the Tower for his part in this disturbance, and remained a prisoner until the following year. Ordsall Hall, then about 1-1/2 miles from the town, stands now in the midst of cottages and workshops. It is the property of Lord Egerton, and was until recently used as an Anglican Training College.
[21] There are a Parliamentarian paper describing the affray, two royalist tracts and an account in the "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," pp. 29, 30, 31 and 113). The reference in the "Discourse," p. 6, may be dismissed as worthless; that writer is not often well informed on matters relating to Manchester. It is evident that the banquet was a pre-arranged affair in spite of statements to the contrary ("C.W.T.," p. 30), and also that the rising of the townsmen was not wholly the result of the Parliamentarian leaders' agitation. Probably each party in the town made its own arrangements entirely neglecting their effect on the other; and probably each side gave afterwards what it honestly thought to be the statement of the facts. There is an account of this affray in Burghall's "Providence Improved" (R.S., No. 19, p. 29); but it adds no new details.
[22] "Rushworth," Vol. 4, p. 670, 676, 678. Cf. an article by the present writer on the "Sieges of Hull during the Great Civil War," in the "English Historical Review" (1905), Vol. 20, p. 464.
[23] The account given in the "Valley of Achor" ("C.W.T.," p. 113) suggests this. The statement that the other side were in a vast majority is, however, made by both parties.
[24] The judges in Lancashire were ordered to stay proceedings against Tyldesley, "who, as this House is informed, slew the man at Manchester," and other proceedings begun for the same reason. There is a similar order concerning proceedings against Stanley, Birch and Holcroft ("C.J.," Vol. 2, p. 714). Assheton, Rigby and Moore were members of this Committee ("C.J.," Vol. 2, pp. 689, 690). It seems probable that the man actually responsible for the death of Perceval was Richard Fleetwood of Rossall ("C.W.T.," p. 72).
[25] The authority for this statement is Seacome's "House of Stanley," p. 70-74. Though Seacome is very inaccurate, there seems to be no reason for doubting his statement here.
[26] "A Copy of Lord Strange's Warrant," 669, f. 6 (74); Marlet's "Charlotte de la Tremoille," pp. 76-7; "Clarendon" (Macray), Vol. 2, p. 342 (bk. 6, par. 67). Marlet is of the opinion that Prince Rupert would have acceded to the request, but was prevented by the King.
[27] The Impeachment was moved in the House of Commons on August 29, and Sir Robert Harley took it to the Lords on Sept. 14 ("C.J.," Vol. 2, p. 742; "L.J.," Vol. 5, pp. 353, 354, 355, 357). The order for publishing the Impeachment and carrying it out was dated Friday, Sept. 16 ("L.J.," Vol. 5, p. 358). The Impeachment and Order are printed in "C.W.T.," pp. 35-37.