Charles Stanley, 8th Earl of Derby
The close association between the Tyldesleys and the Stanleys was to end at the Battle of Wigan Lane on 25 August 1651 when Sir Thomas Tyldesley fell fighting alongside James Stanley, the 7th Earl of Derby. James Stanley was to be executed later in the same year, on 15 October 1651, having sought and been refused permission first to visit Tyldesley's tomb.
In contrast, Charles Stanley, the 8th Earl of Derby and Lord Lieutenant of the County of Lancashire was "aggresssively anti-Romanist" [FN1]. In the 1660s there were recurrent rumours of uprisings and invasions. One of the Earl of Derby's Deputy Lieutenants, Sir Roger Bradshaigh 1628-1684 [FN2] believed that Catholics should be allowed to join the militias formed to combat these threats. On 8 July 1666 Braidshaigh wrote to Charles Stanley pressing the case:
I hope the private peeke betwixt Ned Tyldesley and Mr. Sheriff will not be a sufficient cause to judge all of his Faith like Phanaticks [i.e. Quakers and extreme dissenters] ; they weare otherways esteemed in the late Warr and accrewd a good opinion by theire faythfull servise, and they are in some other countys to my knowledge better esteem'd, and not ill by his Majestie. My Lord, notwithstanding what I write on their behalfes, I have nothinge to doe with theire Fayth, whearin they dissent from us ; nor as theye are generally of my Kindred, which I cannot helpe; but I have the fayth to beleeve, out of conversations I have had amongst them, and the experience I have had of theire servise and sufferinge for the King, that they will be as ready as ever, either for the King or Kingdom, against any forraigne power whatever.Nay, I have heard it frequently from them, with many serious conversations, that though the Pope himselfe should endeavour to invade, they would be as ready to sheath a sword in his gutts as any enemy whatever. I humbly beg your Lordships pardon for this bouldnes, which proceeds from what past between us the other day concerning them, which I was not so willing to declare myselfe in then, though I have done it in the Parliament House, when they had like to have been excepted out of the Act of Oblivion.
Whatever the outcome of these discussions, fears of a "Popish Plot" led Charles Stanley to order Edward Tyldesley's house to be searched later that year. The order has been preserved in Bradshaigh's letter-book [FN3]:
A copy of my Lord of Derby's Order by which Ned Tildesley and Sir Thomas Preston was to bee searcht for Armes, August the 8th, 1666.
Whereas I am commanded by his Majestie to disarme all such persons as are observd to keepe horses or Armes above their ranke, you are therefore hereby commanded to make search within this County Pallatine of Lancaster with [which] persons are armed above their ranke and qualitie and give me notice thereof, and to secure them for his Majestie's service. And in the execution of this warrant I doe hereby command all officers and souldiers (and all other persons within this County) to be aiding and assisting to you herein. This shall bee your warrant. Given under my hand and seale the 28th of July (1666).
C. Derby.
To Lieut. Newton in the County of Lancaster.
I would have you to apply yourselfe to some of my Deputy Leivtenants as are next and adjacent to those persons that are armed and horsed above theire ranke for their advice and direction in the execution of this warrant; whom I therefore here desire to be aydinge to you accordingly.You are to make search at the house or houses of Sir Thomas Preston and Mr. Tyldesley of Lodge.
A true Copy examined by us 8th of August (1666).
Will. Richardson. Adam Smith.
More intriguingly, Edward Tyldesley also appears in a letter to Braidshaigh from Colonel Kirkby in 1671 [FN4]. Clearly the Vice Chancellor and Bradshaigh had been communicating regarding Edward Tyldesley—it is unfortunate further detail is not given:
Honble Sir, Yours of the 24th I thanke you for, and have enclosed a description of Bloud which I did allsoe on this day seven-night. My Cosen Roger read your Ires as I was with him to see him take Coach at Puttney, he dined with a greate many Cheshire and Lancashire Gents uppon A Invitation of Doctor Smalwood who gave us a noble treate yesterday Meane tyme aboute 3 of the clocke in the afternoone the Dutches of Yorke dyed. This day his Maitie is Expected in towne from Newmarkett. The house is now upon the Law bill, And I beleeve we shall rise within this fortnight, since his Matie sent to us to make a recesse on this day senight. I hope to see you soone after our risinge of the House and therefore defer what I have to say till I see you. My Lord Ormond thankes you for your Care, & desires your continuance. Mr. Vice Chancellor gave you an account of what passed concernninge Tyldesley, I shall say noe more, but you may be very well satisfyd with his Matles good opinion of you. My service to your good Lady, Cosen Betty and all my good friends, to Betty my Blessinge, Bro: and Sister Errington present there service to you and are glad you seald your pte. God will reward you for your care of your Betty and her Brothers. Brother Farley doath much obstruct them. I am sory things are not soe fairely carryd amongst soe neare relattions. I thought it a poore satisfaction for my Children, better then to have longe Suite to greate hazard and cost,
Deare Sir I am Yours
R. KirkbyLondon Aprill 1 1671
The House sitt morninge and afternoone and I am called downe into the HouseMr. Blood is a slender man some what inclininge to tallness, a Long leane pale face with pocke holes in it. Small grey eyes and hollow, with a light Browne straight haire.
[Footnote added later in another hand] This Mr. Blood and his Sone, and Mr. "Moore" weare the persons who attempted to steale the Kinges Crowne out of the Tower and had got it to the 2nd gate. They weare the persons allsoe suspected that assaulted James Duke of Ormond in his Coach and had taken him out to have murtherd him.
Thomas Blood notoriously attempted to steal the crown jewels on 9 May 1671, but was already being sought for other offences. Curiously the Tyldesleys were to gain a connection with the Bloods. Thomas Blood's wife was Mary Holcroft, and her niece, Eleanor Holcroft, was to become the second wife of Thomas Tyldesley 1657-1715, the Diarist.
1. Sir Roger Bradshaigh, Arthur Hawkes, Chetham Miscellanies, 1945, Vol 109 at page 38.
2. Hawkes suggests that Bradshaigh had been guardian of Edward Tyldesley, "the infant son of Sir Thomas Tyldesley". This seems unlikely. Bradshaigh was only 7 years older than Edward Tyldesley, and Edward Tyldesley was not an infant when his father died—he was 16 years old.
3. Sir Roger Bradshaigh's Letter-Book, The Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1911
4. Hawkes page 43.
2. Hawkes suggests that Bradshaigh had been guardian of Edward Tyldesley, "the infant son of Sir Thomas Tyldesley". This seems unlikely. Bradshaigh was only 7 years older than Edward Tyldesley, and Edward Tyldesley was not an infant when his father died—he was 16 years old.
3. Sir Roger Bradshaigh's Letter-Book, The Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1911
4. Hawkes page 43.
