unsatisfactory condition of his men, and the lateness of the season (Quarrel of Manchester and Cromwell, p. 9), and though constantly urged to make his way westward, the earl made no movement till the beginning of September (ib. pp. 20-4). By 22 Sept. he was at Watford, on his way to the general rendezvous at Abingdon, and reached Reading on 29 Sept. Here he remained till the middle of October, notwithstanding the urgent desire of the committee in London that he should move forwards. He had reached Basingstoke by 17 Oct.,
was joined by Waller on the 19th, and by Essex on 21 Oct. For the command of the three armies thus united, a council of war, consisting of the three generals, with Johnston of Warriston and Crewe, had been appointed by the committee of both kingdoms.
At the second battle of Newbury, on 28 Oct., Manchester's lethargy became fatally conspicuous. Delaying to make the attack assigned to him till too late in the day, he failed in his attempt on Shaw House, and the royalist army under cover of the darkness made its escape westward, within 'little more than musket-shot ' of the earl's position (Watson's Deposition, Cal. State Papers, 1644-5, p. 150). At the council held the following day Manchester opposed Waller's and Cromwell's advice to pursue the enemy, and preferred to summon Donnington Castle. Failing in his attempt to storm it on 1 Nov. he leisurely withdrew, and the castle thus abandoned was relieved by the king on the 9th. At a council of war at Shaw Field on 10 Nov. Manchester plainly declared his horror of prosecution of the war. ' If we beat the king 99 times,' he said, ' he is king still, and so will his posterity be after him; but if the king beat us once, we shall be all hanged, and our posterity be made slaves.' On 17 Nov. he left Newbury for the purpose of protecting the besiegers of Basing House. But Basing was never reached. His starving men were deserting him, and with the remains of his army he made his way to Reading. The siege of Basing House was necessarily abandoned (Gardiner, Civil War, i. 518).
Manchester's religious views, though sincere, were not very deep. He inclined to presbyterianism from circumstances rather than from conviction, and had not attempted to curtail Cromwell's efforts to ' seduce ' the army ' to independency ' (Baillie, Letters and Journals, ii. 185). Discords among his officers were growing, and in September he had paid a hurried and fruitless visit to London in the hope of healing them [see Cromwell, Oliver, and Crawford, Lawrence]. But the breach between him and Cromwell was soon irreparable. On 25 Nov. Cromwell laid before the House of Commons a narrative, charging Manchester with neglect and incompetency in the prosecution of the war (Quarrel of Manchester and Cromwell, Camden Soc., pp. 78-95). He called attention to ' his Lordshipe's continued backwardness to all action, his aversenes to engagement or what tendes thereto, his neglecting of opportunityes and declineing to take or pursue advantages upon the enemy, and this (in many particulars) contrary to advice given him, contrary to commands received, and when there had been noe impediment or other employment for his army' (Cromwell's Narrative in Quarrel, p. 79). Cromwell's charges were probably not exaggerated. Manchester, a civilian at heart, was always of opinion ' that this war would not be ended by the sword, for if it were so concluded, it would be an occasion of rising again or of a future quarrel, but it would be better for the kingdom if it were ended by an accommodation' (Pickering's Deposition, Cal. State Papers, 1644-5, p. 152). Manchester defended himself in the House of Lords on 27 Nov., when a committee of inquiry was appointed (Lords' Journals, vii. 76), and made a vigorous attack on Cromwell (Camden Miscellany, vol. viii.) But the presentation of the bill for new modelling the army turned the course of public debate from the shortcomings of individuals to more general principles. The commons (26 Dec., 30 Dec., and 1 Jan.), although urged by the lords to deliver their reports respecting Manchester, centred all their energies on the struggle for the passing of the self-denying ordinance, and on 2 April 1645 (the day before the ordinance passed the lords) Manchester, like Essex and Denbigh, resigned his commission in the army. Forty of his officers in January 1645 signed a petition for his continuance in the service, fearing that his removal would ' breed a great confusion amongst them by reason of the differences between the Presbyterians and Independents ' (Whitacre, Diary, Addit. MS. 31116, f. 185).
Manchester, although relieved of military duty, still (4 April) retained his powers for regulating the university of Cambridge, was a constant attendant on the committee of both kingdoms, and frequently acted as speaker of the House of Lords. In the propositions for peace at the end of 1645 it was recommended that he should be made a marquis. He was one of those to whom Charles on 26 Dec. 1645 expressed himself willing to entrust the militia, in accordance with the Uxbridge proposals, and was a commissioner for framing
