“Sir
Tho. Fairfax, a man of military genius, undaunted courage and presence of mind
in the field both in action and danger [was also] but of a very common
understanding in all other affairs, and of a worse elocution; and so a most fit
tool for Mr. Cromwel to work with”.
Sir
Phillip Warwick, Mémoires of the Reigne of Charles I (1702)
Andrew
Hopper’s book is the first modern academic study of Sir Thomas Fairfax. Books
of this type usually make or break a historian. It is to Hopper’s credit that
he has dug deeper than other previous historians were prepared to go to rescue
Fairfax’s historical reputation and place him in the correct hierarchy of
participants of the English revolution. He was second only to Cromwell in
importance during the English revolution.
Hopper
contends that it was Sir Thomas Fairfax, not Oliver Cromwell, who created and
then commanded Parliament's New Model Army from 1645 to 1650. However, this
book is not purely a military history but a political assessment of Fairfax’s
role in the successful outcome of the English bourgeois revolution.
The
book combines narrative and thematic approaches to give a more nuanced
understanding of a complex figure. The first part contains a historical
biographical study and evaluation of Fairfax as a military figure who showed
tremendous bravery and military acumen. He also had a political mindset and
when needed, defended his politics as if he was still in battle. The second
part of the book is what Martyn Bennet called “a themed analysis”.
The
comment made in the opening paragraph that these types of books can make or
break a historian may be a little exaggerated, but given the paucity of
previous biographies of Fairfax, it is not by much. There is a touch of
rescuing Fairfax from the condescension of history about Hoppers biography. As
Fairfax wrote himself in the 1660s 'my retirement makes me seem dead to the
world' (p183). It, therefore, takes a brave historian to go against the
centuries-long orthodoxy that portrays Fairfax as a relatively minor figure
during the English revolution. This book is the first step towards rectifying
this misnomer.
From
a biographical standpoint, Fairfax is a hugely complex and contradictory
character. He began the revolution fighting for King Charles I against the
Scots in the Bishops' Wars (1639) where he commanded a troop of Yorkshire Dragoons.
He switched sides and became the general of the New Model Army the most radical
army of its kind in the world. Politically he was in the camp of the
Independents. He ended his days a key figure in the restoration of Charles II.
Hopper is perhaps one of the most well-equipped historians to explain Fairfax’s
change of allegiances having written a book called Turncoats and Renegadoes.
Martyn
Bennett’s review[1]
captured the many faces of Sir Thomas when he wrote “Sir Thomas is usually shown to be politically
conservative during this period, allowing others, such as Cornet Joyce or
Cromwell to make the running: his absence from much of the Putney debates seems
to underline this political inertia. Hopper argues that this is not the case;
Fairfax may have been pushed firmly into the army's political maw by the
impugning of his honour by Presbyterian MPs, but he took up its position with
gusto. Although he later pretended he had not: Fairfax approved of the army's
radicalisation, and its accusations of treason levelled against the 11
Presbyterian MPs at the centre of the attack on the army. He supported the
mutiny against Sydenham Pointz, commander of the Northern Association Army, and
an ally of the parliamentary Presbyterians, and used it to gain control of all
the armed forces in the country. Furthermore, during the second civil war,
Hopper reads Fairfax's anger at the renewed conflict as anti-royalist, rather
than anti-disorder or anti-rebellion: placing the monarch to be the root of the
problem. The execution of Sir Charles Lucas and Sir George Lisle must then be
seen in this light”.
One
of the most substantial aspects of the book is Hopper's insistence(correctly I
might add) that Fairfax should be given much more credit for his part in
leading the New Model Army. His leadership of the army meant a successful
outcome of not only the war but the revolution itself. Hopper also believes
that Fairfax deserves far more recognition for his part in the radicalisation
of the New Model Army. Fairfax was not the passive military/political figure
shown in previous histories of the revolution.
If
there was one criticism of Fairfax, it was his prevarication at critical
moments. As Hopper points out, it is not that Fairfax was apolitical but when events
around him moved at breakneck speed his inertia at times allowed others to
carry out actions in his name, in other words allowing others to dictate the
course of the revolution. One such event being the King's trial although a
commissioner of the High Court of Justice, Fairfax did not attend the King's
trial. When his name was called in the courtroom, his wife Anne famously cried
out: "He had more wit than to be here."
Leveller Suppression
This
is not to say that that he could not act decisively, especially when he saw
that the revolution might be taken in a direction the bourgeoisie did not want
it to go. He dealt firmly and personally with the Leveller Mutinies of April
and May 1649. When Cromwell pleaded for mercy to be shown to the Levellers Fairfax
made sure one of the Leveller leaders Robert Lockyer was executed, making Lockyer
a Leveller martyr with thousands attending his funeral. Fairfax dealt extremely
severely with further mutinies most notably at Burford where he led a force of
nearly 4000, in crushing Leveller resistance in a late-night attack.Three more Levellers were made martyrs.
Fairfax
justified his action saying “the power of the army (which I once had) was
usurped by the forerunners of confusion and anarchy … the arbitrary and
unlimited power of this new counsel would act without a General, and all that I
could doe could not prevaile against this streame … For now, the officers of
the army were placed and displaced by the will of the new agitators who with
violence so carried all things as it was above my power to restraine it”.
It
is not to say that doing the bourgeoisie’s dirty work and acting as their
attack dog did not bother Fairfax who deep down had some political limited
sympathies with aspects of the Leveller programme. In a letter to Lenthal, he states
'It will be your glory and your honour to settle this poor Nation upon
foundations of Justice and Righteousnesse ... for the poore people ... may see you will improve your power
for their good, and then your Enemies
shall be found lyars'.[2]
Restoration
As
Hooper brings out, Fairfax did not exactly cover himself in glory during his
retirement and was extremely lucky not to be hanged alongside other regicides.
Some of his relatives were not so lucky. Part of this luck was because he
played such a significant role in overseeing the restoration of the monarchy.
When the Protectorate collapsed in 1659, Fairfax Carried out communication with
General Monck. Fairfax agreed to use his influence in raising an army in
Yorkshire in order to smooth the passage of Charles II to the throne.
Strong
opposition to the Restoration came in the form of Colonel Robert Lilburne and
General Lambert. Fairfax’s intervention in Yorkshire enabled Monck’s forces to
deal with both Lambert and Lillburne and pave the way for Restoration. Monck,
it seems was the supreme opportunist leading one writer to call him “a turncoat of heroic proportions”. A
Commander in chief of the English army in Scotland and an ardent follower of
Cromwell. After the death of Cromwell, he played the pivotal role in the
Restoration of the monarchy where he was given the unheard of sum of £100,000 a
year for the rest of his life to ease his pain of being a turncoat.
Conclusion
In
this book, Hopper does not examine in any great detail the charge that Fairfax
was a turncoat of similar proportions to Monck, but it is pretty clear that
such a case could be made. Thanks to relatively lazy historians, many other facets
of Fairfax’s life have not been explored. Hoppers book, at last, gives a much
more accurate picture of Fairfax warts and all.
It
is clear that that this was not an easy book for Hopper to write and he has had
to combat the previous historiography that Fairfax was a reluctant
revolutionary, swept along by events. At certain moments this was true, but in
other events, he was decisive and followed his political principles. Many
previous biographies have been one dimensional Hopper presents readers with a
three-dimensional Fairfax. It is true that Fairfax as one writer puts it been “reluctant
at certain points to carry on with the developing radicalisation of politics,
but he strove to remain at the head of the army at all times”. This a finely
researched and well-written book. Hopper restores Fairfax to his rightful place
in the English revolution.
[1] https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/637
[2] A Full Narrative of all the
Proceedings betweene His Excellency the Lord Fairfax and the Mutineers
[10 May 1649], BL, Ε 555/27, p
