The capture of Bolton, or "Bolton Massacre" as the Parliamentarian writers called it, was the saddest incident of the whole war in Lancashire. Nowhere else was the naturally bitter character of an intestine struggle so unhappily illustrated; nowhere else were such furious passions aroused; nowhere else was the slaughter so terrible. The account by a townsman, "An Exact Relation of the bloody and barbarous Massacre at Bolton in the Moors in Lancashire," etc., is without parallel in all the contemporary authorities for the vivid horror of its descriptions. Against the otherwise moderate conduct of the Lancashire war this terrible incident stood out in sharp contrast. It is of course easy enough for the historian, surveying it impartially at a long distance of time, to explain why this was so. No one could call Prince Rupert's methods of war merciful at any time; and in the present instance he was in haste to relieve York, and would be sure to make short work of any obstacles in his way. For the local royalist troops engaged, it was the first experience of victory after many months of defeat, and the garrison opposed to them was the same force which had besieged Lathom House, against whom naturally the Earl of Derby and his followers had a particular grudge. They were commanded by the hated Rigby, and Bolton, 'the Geneva of the north,' was especially detested by the opponents of Puritanism. All these considerations served to make the capture of Bolton more than usually terrible. It is probable, however, that the stories related by both sides of the outrages committed by their opponents, are exaggerated if not invented. The royalists assert that after their first attack had been beaten off, some prisoners taken were put to death in their sight upon the walls of the town; and they attribute their unrestrained slaughter on gaining the victory to this act of cruelty. The statement is, however, made by Seacome, who is notoriously inaccurate; and as it is quite unsupported by any other testimony, it is impossible to believe it. On the other hand, horrible stories of barbarity are related by the Parliamentarian writers as having been committed by the victors, in some cases on defenceless townsmen, and even on women and children. These are much more likely to be true than the other, but they are probably exaggerated. The gravest charge is that made against the Earl of Derby himself, that one Captain Bootle, formerly in his service, was taken prisoner and brought before the Earl at his own request to ask for mercy; and that Derby thereupon drew his sword and ran him through the body in cold blood. This story may be equally discredited.[148] Bootle was certainly killed during the siege; and the royalists state that he was killed by the Earl of Derby during the fighting, which is most probably true. Before his execution Derby denied the charge; and it seems quite incredible that a man so highminded and chivalrous, should have committed such an act even in the excitement of victory. There was perhaps great cruelty shown by the royalists, but not by Derby personally; and we must attribute the story of the manner of Bootle's death to party malice.