On the 22nd of June, 1650, a meeting of Commissioners under the Great Seal of England was held at Preston—“for inquiring into and certeifying of the certeine numbers and true yearely value of all parsonages and vicariges presentative, of all and every the sp’uall and eccli’call benefices, livings, and donatives within the said countye”; and after examining the good and lawful men of Kirkham and Lytham, it was recommended by the assembly that Goosnargh and Whittingham should be formed into a separate parish on account of their great distance from the church at Kirkham. At this inquiry it was also stated that—“the inhabitants of Newsham desired to be annexed to Woodplumpton; the inhabitants of Clifton and Salwick, together with the inhabitants of Newton-cum-Scales, and the upper end of Treales, desired to be united in one parish. Singleton chappell, newly erected, desired that it might be made a parish. The inhabitants of Weeton-cum-Preese desired that that township might be made a parish, and the inhabitants of Rawcliffe desired to be annexed to it. The townships of Rigby-cum-Wraye, and of Warton, and of Kellamore-cum-Bryning, and Westbye-cum-Plumpton, all humbly desired to be made a parish. The several townships of Eccleston Parva-cum-Labrecke, and the inhabitants of Medlar and Thistleton, and the inhabitants of Rossaker-cum-Wharles, desired to be annexed to Elswick, and that it might be made a parish.” Although at that time these petitions failed in obtaining their objects, much the same thing has been accomplished in more recent years by Lord Blandford’s Act, by which separate parochial districts, as far as ecclesiastical matters are concerned, have been appropriated to each church, thus rendering it independent of the mother-church of the ancient parish in which it might happen to be situated.
In 1651 the son of the unfortunate monarch, who had been proclaimed king by the Scotch under the title of Charles II., crossed the frontier and invaded England with a force of fourteen thousand men. That year the earl of Derby, Sir Thomas Tyldesley, and several other officers, sailed from the Isle of Man, whither they had retired, in obedience to the call of the young prince, and landed either on the Warren, at the mouth of the river Wyre, or at Skippool higher up the stream, with a regiment of two hundred and fifty infantry and sixty cavalry. Two of the vessels grounded during the operation of disembarking the horses, and in the heavy winds that ensued were reduced to total wrecks. As soon as the news of the earl of Derby’s arrival on the banks of the Wyre was rumoured abroad, “all the ships,” says the Perfect Diurnall, “were wafted out of the rivers of Liverpool, and set sail with a fair wind fore Wirewater, where the Frigots rid that brought the Lord Derby over with his company, to surprise them and prevent his Lordship escaping any way by water.” The earl marched through the Fylde, but the martial ardour of the inhabitants was not so readily excited as on former occasions, for the recollection of their abusive and piratical treatment by the troopers of Colonel Goring, in 1644, was still fresh in their minds, and effectually checked any feelings of enthusiasm at seeing the royal banners once again unfurled in their midst. A scattered few, however, there were who were willing to forget the misdeeds of the agents in their eagerness for the success of the cause, and with such meagre additions to his strength the earl hastened on. At Preston he raised six hundred horse, and shortly afterwards encountered the parliamentarians, under Colonel Lilburne, at Wigan-lane, where the royalists were defeated with great slaughter. Sir Thomas Tyldesley was slain, and the gallant earl escaped from the field only to be taken prisoner in Cheshire and suffer the fate of his late regal master, Charles I. Alexander Rigby, the grandson of the Alexander Rigby, of Layton, before mentioned, and only seventeen years of age, also took part in this eventful engagement, and twenty-eight years subsequently, when High Sheriff of the county of Lancaster, erected a monument to the memory of Major-General Sir Thomas Tyldesley near the spot where he fell. So universally esteemed was the valiant knight for his bravery and honourable conduct that the title of “Chevalier sans peur et sans reproche” was conferred upon him alike by friends and enemies. Charles II., after the overthrow of his army by Cromwell, adopted the disguise of a peasant, and having narrowly escaped detection by hiding himself amidst the foliage of an oak tree, fled at the first opportunity over to France. Cromwell was now installed in the chief seat of authority and held the reins of government under the style of Lord Protector.
In 1660, two years after the death of Cromwell, Charles II. was recalled and placed upon the throne; and in 1662 a law was passed by which it was enacted that before St. Bartholomew’s Day of that year, all ministers should arrange their services according to the rules contained in the new book of Common Prayer, under pain of dismissal from their preferments. The following letter was received by the churchwardens of Garstang, ordering the ejectment of the Rev. Isaac Ambrose, who was a member of the family of Ambrose of Ambrose Hall, in Wood Plumpton, from his benefice on account of his refusal to conform to the arbitrary regulation:—
“Whereas in a late act of Parliament for uniformitie, it is enacted that every parson, vicar, curate, lecturer, or other ecclesiasticall person, neglecting or refusing, before the Feast Day of St. Bartholomew, 1662, to declare openly before their respective congregations, his assent and consent to all things contained in the book of common prayer established by the said act, ipso facto, be deposed, and that every person not being in holy orders by episcopall ordination, and every parson, vicar, curate, lecturer, or other ecclesiasticall person, failing in his subscription to a declaration mentioned in the said act to be subscribed before the Feast Day of St. Bartholomew, 1662, shall be utterly disabled, and ipso facto deprived, and his place be void, as if the person so failing be naturally dead. And whereas Isaac Ambrose, late Vicar of Garstang, in the county of Lancaster, hath neglected to declare and subscribe according to the tenor of the said act, I doe therefore declare the church of Garstang to be now void, and doe strictly charge the said Isaac Ambrose, late vicar of the said church, to forbear preaching, lecturing, or officiating in the said church, or elsewhere in the diocese of Chester. And the churchwardens of the said parish of Garstang are hereby required (as by duty they are bound) to secure and preserve the said parish church of Garstang from any invasion or intrusion of the said Isaac Ambrose, disabled and deprived as above said by the said act, and the churchwardens are also required upon sight hereof to show this order to the said Isaac Ambrose, and cause the same to be published next Sunday after in the Parish Church of Garstang, before the congregation, as they will answer the contrary.—Given under my hand this 29th day of August, 1662.
“Geo. Cestriens.
“To the Churchwardens of Garstang, in the County Palatine of Lancaster.”
In this county sixty-seven ministers refused to submit to the mandate, and were removed from their churches by the authority of documents similar to the above, and prohibited from officiating in their priestly capacity anywhere within the diocese. Amongst the number, so interdicted, were the Rev. W. Bullock, of Hambleton, the Rev. Joseph Harrison, of Lund chapel, and the Rev. Nathaniel Baxter, M.A., of St. Michael’s-on-Wyre. The Nonconformists were subsequently subjected to even greater harshness and injustice by an act which decreed that no clergyman, belonging to any of their sects, should reside within five miles of the town or place at which he had last preached, unless he took an oath as under:—
“I do swear that it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king, and that I do abhor the traitorous position of taking arms against his authority; against his person; or against those that are commissioned by him, in pursuance of such commissions; and that I will not at any time endeavour any alteration of government either in church or state.”
The sufferings experienced by those ministers who had been deprived of their benefices are described as having been extreme, nay, almost intolerable, and it was doubtless owing to the great severity practised towards the body of Nonconformists that the old creed gained such little popularity for some time after its re-establishment.
Charles II., soon after the restoration of monarchy at his coronation, determined to create a new order of knighthood, to be called the “Royal Oak,” as a reward to some of the more distinguished of his faithful adherents, and amongst the number selected for the honour were Col. Kirkby, of Upper Rawcliffe, Richard Butler, of Out Rawcliffe, and Edward Tyldesley, of Fox Hall, Blackpool.[43] The design was shortly abandoned by the advice of the crown ministers, who foresaw that the necessarily limited distribution of the distinction would give rise to jealousy and animosity amongst those who had been active in the late wars.