64 The Wiltshire Compounders. 
is ornamented with a map of the route adopted by his troop on that 
occasion. The armour which the Earl wore is also preserved at 
Apethorpe. Notwithstanding this early demonstration, the Earl 
appears, from some cause not distinctly recorded, to have speedily 
become disgusted with the Royal party. As early as June, 1643, 
he had either been taken prisoner or had voluntarily come within 
the personal influence of that portion of the House of Peers who 
still sat at Westminster, for during that month a vote of the 
Commons urges the Lords to impose the restraint of prison on the 
Earls of Westmoreland, Berkshire, and three others; and a few 
months later the Journals of the upper House furnish the following 
unexpected statement :—‘ The Lords have received a petition from 
the Earl of Westmoreland so full of expressions of good affection to 
the Commonwealth that they are all satisfied and do incline that 
his sequestration be taken off.” 18th February. His business was 
thereupon referred to the committee sitting at Goldsmiths’ Hall, 
who decreed his fine at £1000, in addition to £2000 already paid ; 
ratified by the Commons in September, 1644, a very early period to 
compound, for the contest was still undecided. The majority of the 
Royalists’ fines were not declared till two or three years later, for 
the simple reason that they were not yet reduced to a petitioning 
mood. Lord Westmoreland’s Wiltshire estates were the manor of 
Seend and Bowden Park, and Woodrew, near Bremhill, The Earl 
was a patron of arts and literature. In 1645 (this was during the 
war) he presented his poems, English and Latin, entitled Otia 
Sacra, a quarto volume, adorned with plates, to Emmanuel College, 
Cambridge. See a panegyric to him by the poet Cleveland. 
Sir Francis Fang, of Aston, in Yorkshire, third son of Francis, 
first Earl of Westmoreland. Little if anything is to be gathered 
from the general histories respecting the action taken by this 
knight at the breaking out of hostilities. All we know distinctly 
is that, like his brother, he found early reason to be dissatisfied with 
the way in which the King’s eause was upheld. Writing to Sir 
Edward Hungerford, of Farley Castle, in October, 1645, he says :— 
“T have not meddled in the King’s affairs these seventeen months, 
nor truly will I again fight in this quarrel.” At the moment of 
