"In memory we see them just the same, As we live we cherish their name"
©Marlow Ancestors. Reproduction of grave image freely allowed and very welcome with credit to this blog.
Edmond and Isabella Fleming kept Marlow Place as their country home from at least 1829 to the spring or summer of 1833. It is possible that they leased the property as early as 1823. They certainly had connection to Marlow that far back as we shall see below.
Edmond was a silversmith, jeweller, money lender and pawnbroker who operated from multiple London premises with the help of his family and numerous hired staff. He was an extremely wealthy man clearly in love with his job as he continued to work right up until his death aged 88 in 1836. As well as the usual pawnbroker fare of silver spoons, secondhand clothes, and rolls of fabric, Edmond's shops glittered with a grand display of jewellery items set with diamonds, rubies, emeralds, sapphires, pearls, garnets, and jacinths, with heavy gold chains, silver and gold spectacles, top quality watches and clocks not to mention paintings, snuff boxes and music boxes. Though it stretched his ready cash supplies a little he once lent a combined total of £2,500 to a single customer over the course of a few days. If he found himself in possession of too much unredeemed stock he would sell some at auction, often at auctions organised with other pawnbrokers.
So where did our multi-hatted business man come from? Not from Marlow sadly, but from Cumberland, according to contemporary report, though the names in his family suggest a probable ultimate origin in Scotland. His wife Isabella, lived into her 90s and thus to the age of the census. In 1841 she is stated as having been born in Scotland. The couple married in London in 1782. She was nee Purse. It isn't known how she came to make the journey to London, but we do know that she was not alone there as her brothers Alexander and William Purse both lived in the city. They too were silversmiths and in Alexander's case also a pawnbroker.
Edmund came to London with two of his own brothers, William who settled in Holborn and Joseph who based himself in Drury Lane. Joseph was certainly a pawnbroker too. William was probably the William Fleming goldsmith, silversmith and pawnbroker of Whitechapel High Street who had died or left his premises around 1829. Joseph was perhaps first to arrive in the big smoke as he appears as a London pawnbroker from 1774. William married in London the next year. Edmund was not definitely there before his 1782 marriage and does not definitely have his own London premises until 1802. It is possible that he and William initially worked for their brother Joseph. That said sources for the late 1700s business of London are scant.
Joseph lived in Gloucester Place, Camden Town though his shop in Drury Lane was also a dwelling house.
He did marry but mentions no children in his will.
William is interesting as his bride is Mary Margaret Hammond at their London marriage. For reasons that you will see below it is possible that she was a relative of the Hammonds of Western House Marlow.
William and Mary had a son Henry who became a pawnbroker and silversmith too with his own premises but this doesn't seem to have lasted long. In 1827 Henry walked into another silversmith's shop, picked up a watch and just walked out with it. He was arrested. At an initial hearing it was suggested to the court that he must have been insane as no rational person openly steals a watch in broad daylight with no attempt to conceal the act. They guessed he was a teacher as he had pockets full of pens. There is no reason to think that was the explanation for the pens. It does make you wonder if he was not unwell in some way and suffering from mental confusion. Nevertheless he plead guilty and was transported to Australia.
Edmund's business concerns eventually significantly eclipsed that of his brothers. The scale of his pawnbroking/ silversmithing empire (one of his premises, in Farringdon Street, was so big it was actually a warehouse) meant he had to put a lot of trust into his staff to do without him for at least part of the time on a day to day basis. In 1828 Edmund realized that the trust placed in one of them was a mistake. Thomas Kerby, a seven year employee of Edmund's had committed multiple frauds against him. Stretching himself too thin may also be the reason that Edmund was twice fined for not displaying a both visible and legible list of his fees in one of his shops. I doubt a 40 shilling fine hurt his pocket that much!
We can't make any excuses over Edmund's conviction and fine for charging a customer who had pawned a cloak half a pence too much interest. Tsk,tsk Edmund.
Like most pawnbrokers all the Flemings suffered from thieves attempting to sell them stolen goods and as a result Fleming employees made frequent trips to the courts to give evidence for the prosecution. The risk of getting a bad reputation if stolen or fake goods were not identified quickly hung over all such enterprises. In 1787 an apparently unrelated London pawnbroker Francis Fleming was exposed as a long term fence for goods taken in burglaries. Word that a pawnbroker called Fleming was to appear at the Old Bailey reached the people of Cumberland and some jumped to the conclusion that one of our Flemings was responsible, or as the Cumberland paper thought had deliberately spread this false information in a spirit of maliciousness. The paper was quick to stress that Edmund, William and Joseph were all honest traders with good characters (this was before the half pence overcharge on the cloak, mind you).
Edmund and Isabella's son David was also a wealthy pawnbroker and silversmith, with premises in Whitechapel. These David had perhaps taken over from from his uncle William, Edmund's brother. As David had no wife or children his principal heirs were his siblings but also two of his employees, John Vaughan and a man whose full name I could not quite read who received legacies of £200 and £50 respectively.
David's will was witnessed by a Henry Hammond of Great Marlow. It was written in 1823, six years before David's death and the first known date of the Flemings living at Marlow Place. The will was likely witnessed in London as the other men putting their names to it were London traders. Henry Hammond was the brother of Robert Hammond of Western House, Marlow. Were these Hammonds relatives of David's aunt Mary Fleming, nee Hammond? If the Flemings were not already maintaining a country home in Marlow why does one of them already know the Flemings well enough to be asked to witness so important a document as David's will in 1823, probably making a journey in order to do so?
There are other intriguing Fleming connections to Marlow. The family of late Victorian High Street grocer Edmund Coster believed that his mother was of the Marlow Place Flemings. My research suggests it is not likely she was a direct descendant of Edmund and Isabella but she might have been a slightly more distant relative. She was born in London. Another Flemming connection is the presence of a Mrs Flemming as the occupier in a cottage next to the Hammond's in Western House in 1833. We will endeavour to see if any of these links can be explained.
Another son of Edmund and Isabella Fleming, William Thomas served an apprenticeship to a stationer but ended up becoming - yes, you guessed it -a silversmith and pawnbroker. At first he was with his father then traded as an independent in Fleet Market. There he was accused of not displaying his fees, at the same hearing his dad appeared for the same offence but William got off on a legal technicality as this address on the summons was slightly wrong. At some point between 1832 and 1834 around the time his parents decided to give up their country home of Marlow Place, William bought his own pile out in the sticks- Cookham Grove not too far from Marlow. His parents, siblings and other relatives all used it too, this was a close family and this likely reflects their approach at Marlow Place too. It was there that Edmond died aged 88 after a short illness in 1836, and Isabella in 1847.
Like his father and brother David William Thomas was one of the governors of the Pawnbrokers Society.
A further son Joseph of Edmund and Isabella was initially a solicitor at Old Jewry but looks to have succumbed and become a pawnbroker as well as a solicitor before the end of his life. Joseph like his brothers had neither a wife nor children. This meant that two of their sisters Isabella, the eldest, and Louisa inherited much of the combined family estate as well as the lease of Cookham Grove. The women were the main legatees and executors of their mother.
After the deaths in middle age of both her brothers, Isabella formally took over the family business for her mother. Given the scale of the operation involved it is hard to see her managing to do this if she hadn't already had some involvement prior to that. Like her dad Isabella would continue to operate as a silversmith and pawnbroker until she was in her 80s, splitting her time between London and Cookham. For inexplicable reasons her brothers had been granted probate but had failed to administer their father's will during their respective life times or appoint anyone else to do so despite years passing by so after her mother also died, Isabella sought permission to administer the whole lot, which was granted.
In his will Edmund had suggested that his elderly wife could consider running the business after his death. If she didn't wish to do that the premises and stock were supposed to be sold off for her benefit. He obviously didn't guess that his daughter Isabella would consider taking over. As it happened the business was neither sold nor taken over by the mother. It appears Isabella's brother Joseph took to pawnbroking alongside practicing law until his death and Isabella's subsequent takeover.
Isabella and Louisa had numerous servants to make them comfortable at Cookham and in London. The women obviously enjoyed the riverside location of Cookham Grove as they were both subscribers to a monograph on kingfishers in 1868 and one of them also donated to another bird book. While Isabella may have approved of kingfishers dipping into the Thames she was far less keen on the human equivalent. In fact Isabella and her legal representatives waged unceasing war not only on anglers but boatmen, Thames Conservancy workers, bathers, lock keepers and anyone else she considered to be annoying her or infringing on her rights to the river bank. Isabella was accused of "locking up" and blocking off everything she could to impede access to fishing ponds, backwaters and the bridges over them. She seems to have been the terror of Cookham waterfront!
Isabella subscribed to the very Victorian sounding Asylum For Idiots. The Queen herself was a patron of this Redhill institution. If you are imagining straight jackets and cruelty you will be pleased to know that the mission of the asylum was to provide kindness, protection, and education for those usually considered impossible to educate in any way. Isabella and Louisa's donations entitled them to vote for which candidate "idiots" should be admitted into the asylum when a place became vacant!
Education was perhaps a cause they particularly felt close to as they also donated to Diocesan church building funds over many years.
Louisa and Isabella both lived to a ripe old age.
Written and researched by Charlotte Day.
For more posts similar to this see the Biographies Of Families Index
A history of all the different occupiers of Marlow Place can be read here.
©Marlow Ancestors. You are welcome to use my research for family or local history purposes with credit to this blog.
Selected Sources=
Wills of David Alexander Fleming 1829, Joseph Fleming 1803, William Purse 1805, Alexander Purse 1825, Edmond Fleming 1836 and Isabella Fleming 1847 all transcribed by me from copies of the originals held at the National Archives, Kew.
First Annual Report of the Committee to the Governors & Subscribers of the Pawnbroker's Society, 1824. Google Books.
1833 Parochial Assessment Great Marlow
Johnstone's London Commercial Guide and Street Directory, published by Barnard and Farley, London, 1817.
The Gentleman's Magazine volume 183. By E Cave 1848. And volume 176 in 1844.
The Westminster Poll Book 1774. Google books.
Prospectus For The Asylum For Idiots. United Kingdom, n.p, 1859.
Kelly's Post Office Directory of Berkshire etc, By Kelly's Directorie Limited 1869.
M Billing's Directory and Gazetteer Of The Counties of Berks and Oxon by Martin Billings 1854.
Robson's London Commercial Directory 1822 and 1839.
Post Office Annual Directory 1808, University of Leicester Archives.
Newspapers from the British Library's archives and accessed by me via the BNA=
Cumberland Paquet 9th April 1788, Cheltenham Chronicle 3rd April 1828, Morning Advertiser 10th December 1831.
Thames River Preservation Reports, Parliamentary Papers of Great Britain Published by the Stationary Office.
Cookham Census 1841, Rootspoint https://www.rootspoint.com/record/1841-UK-Census/Joseph-Fleming-1791-Out-Of-County/4ac30f05-13cb-4ce5-bd4e-94f43b47f0de/
Other Cookham census transcribed from microfilm, National Archives by Jane Pullinger, With thanks.
In 1640 King Charles 1st needed money in order to keep Scottish insurrections down and expected parliament to agree to raise this. M.P.s largely felt they would get little reward in return and that if he could Charles would find excuses to be done with them altogether.
An M.P offered a £650,000 loan to the King in return for a bill promising not to "perogue, adjourn or dissolve this parliament without the consent of both houses".
Marlow M.P Bulstrode Whitlocke was tasked with drafting this bill . His "An Act to prevent Inconveniences, which may happen by the untimely adjourning, proroguing, or dissolving this present Parliament" went through parliament and gained royal assent assent though very begrudgingly so. Peace between parliament and crown would not last long.
Bulstrode Whitelocke was a lawyer by trade and seated at Fawley Court. He became M.P in 1640. He was at first declared the loser in the election but that result was quashed when it was revealed that the return sent to parliament by the town burgesses had been a false one (allegedly at the behest of the Mayor of Marlow, but did we have one then?). Mr Hoby was the other elected M.P at that time.
Bulstrode was appointed to the committee examining the possible impeachment of the King's chief minister the Earl Strafford. That impeachment was decided upon and Bulstrode acted as one of the barristers for the prosecution. Strafford said afterwards that Bulstrode, unlike some others present, treated him like the gentleman he was but was nevertheless absolutely determined against him.
As war broke out Bulstrode rode to Oxford, with what became by the end of his journey thanks to the gradual picking up of more and more supporters, around 3000 men. They entered the city without opposition. Bulstrode warned that Oxford was an obvious strategic base for Royalist troops and that the town ought to be fortified against their incursion. Lord thought the city unlikely to be particularly desired by the Royalists and so these plans were, to the roundheads significant later regret, not pursued.
While he was away Bulstrode's home Fawley Court was occupied by a Royalist regiment of horse under the ultimate command of Prince Rupert. Soldiers used valuable books from Bulstrode's library as touch papers to light their pipes and plundered his estates of corn and other foodstuffs. They stole all four of his carriages and used them to carry away his valuables including various family heirlooms. The damage to the house was so bad that it was no longer considered as a really liveable in home ever again and was pulled down and rebuilt 40 years later.
Bulstrode was one of the peace commissioners sent to the King and Prince Rupert at Oxford in 1642 to present a peace treaty. This ultimately was not signed by Charles who gave away the stolen Fawley Court to his supporter Sir Charles Blunt in a further slap in the face for our Marlow M.P.
Bulstrode gave a long speech in Parliament a few months later urging peace. He told his fellow M.P.s that God had given them "in many places great successes against our enemies and sometimes he is pleased to give our enemies successes against us. In all of them whether of the one party or the other the poor English are still the sufferers. Whose goods I pray sir, are plundered? Whose houses are burnt? Whose limbs are cut or shot off?...Whose blood stains the walls of our towns and defiles our land? Is it not all English? And is it not then time for us who are all Englishmen to be weary of these discords and to use our utmost endeavours to put an end to them?" But peace was not easily to be achieved.
In 1645 Bulstrode was accused of having with another man been previously in secret meeting with the King, following an accidental meeting between them at Oxford, in which he had in fact urged the King to go to parliament and make peace. It was not permitted for any Parliamentarian to meeth Charles or one of his representatives without openly announcing such intent. Bulstrode was found not guilty.
Nevertheless rumours arose that when Charles stopped at Hambledon right in Bulstrode's home patch, in 1646 Bulstrode had turned a blind eye for fear the king would be murdered otherwise. For religious reasons he had various enemies that might have spread malicious gossip in order to discredit him. They were the movers and shakers behind the earlier charges against him. In any case it was hardly down to Bulstrode alone to watch for a fleeing monarch.
The former Royalist stronghold at Greenlands Hambledon, had been destroyed following a six month siege two years earlier. Cannons were fired from across the river at the house. Bulstrode later bought the ruins and the land that went with them.
He then lived himself at Phyllis Court which was fortified under his supervision and effectively used as a garrison for several hundred Roundhead soldiers so his commitment to the Parliamentary cause per se isn't really in doubt.
Around this time he used his influence to prevent the libraries of the colleges of Oxford being sequestered. He was a former alumni of Oxford himself.
All the while he was involved in fighting and attempts at making peace Bulstrode also continued to practice law.
When plans to put the King on trial for his life were being put into place Bulstrode fled from his London professional base to the country so as to avoid any order to give assistance. He did not support the execution of Charles or the abolition of the House of Lords. Once he was certain that he would not be personally involved in the trial he returned to the city. On the day of the King's execution Bulstrode stayed home working and praying.
Thomas Scot(t) of Little Marlow, M.P for Aylesbury and a lawyer was one of those appointed to try the King. He voted in favour of the guilt of Charles and was one of the men who signed his death warrant. Unlike some of the other signatories Thomas never regretted his part in the regicide, in fact he declared his pride in it to the end of his days. From 1649 he was the head of national and foreign intelligence whose role included keeping tabs on Royalist exiles abroad. When the tide eventually turned towards the restoration of the monarchy, Thomas himself attempted to shelter from the approaching storm of retribution abroad, but was arrested and returned to face the music. Inevitably considering his continued defiance and lack of repentance, he was executed in 1661 for his role in the regicide.
Seymour Court house in Marlow and the farm that went with it were let by the elderly William Herbert, Baron Powis (nephew of the former Queen Catherine Parr wife of Henry 8th) and his wife Eleanor, (nee Percy daughter of the Earl of Northumberland) during the Civil War. They had other estates and it is uncertain whether they were ever in actual residence here. According to some folklore the house was attacked and damaged by Parliamentarian forces during the war. I can find no direct contemporary evidence for that, though William and Eleanor's son Percy was declared a "delinquent" as a Royalist and had his estates elsewhere sequestered. It also seems that William himself may have lost property in Wales but not obviously in Marlow for the same reason. He was certainly imprisoned for a period despite his advanced age for his political sympathies. The family also suffered financially because of Eleanor's (and possibly her husband's) religious recusancy. In their final years both seem to have run up large debts and experienced much (relative) hardship.
Lord Paget was a local roundhead supporter, living with his family at Harleyford during the war.
But what of the ordinary people of Marlow during the war?
Parliamentary forces certainly came to Marlow, destroyed it's bridge to prevent Royalist troops using it to to cross the Thames and took possession of the church. Both horses and men occupied the church, necessitating a deep clean afterwards, and the churchyard. During this era of course almost no one had a stone erected on their grave and graveyards were fenced so they would have made a more convenient camping / horse grazing place than would be the case today. In his 1981 book Thames Crossings by Geoffrey Phillips said that there was in Marlow a chapel of St Mary, from at least 1394 which was located at "the town end of the bridge" and that the "ruins" of it were removed in civil war to build fortifications. All this must have proved disconcerting to the ordinary folk of the town even if they had roundhead leanings. There are some unanswered questions as to how life for them changed under partial military occupation. Did the soldiers allow access to the churchyard for parish burials or to the church for normal worship for instance? Marriage ceremonies in this era often started in a church porch as it symbolised the bridging of the secular and spiritual world's. The end of the ceremony was then performed inside church. During the civil war the whole ceremony could have taken place in the porch if the parties were allowed that far at least. Baptism was quite commonly performed outside of a church anyway.
Following the war, between 1653 and 1660, marriage became purely a civil act in the eyes of the law though not in the eyes of most people. During this period church marriages had no legal validity so that couples had to present themselves to a Justice of the Peace in order to tie the knot. In practice brides and grooms often sneaked in a religious ceremony as well as a civil one. The then London-based parents of future Marlow resident James Etheridge were one such couple according to his writings. First they married at a chapel in Lincoln's Inn, then the next day they had an official service conducted by the correct official.
Charles Lovejoy the Marlow shoemaker 1648 betrays perhaps some hint that commercial life was being disrupted in the town as he instructs his wife Abigail to sell his Marlow house "at some convenient time". As this was in part to pay his debts which would normally be paid as soon as possible after death, delay would usually have been avoided by all concerned to prevent unpleasantness. Some property transactions certainly did take place however as can be seen at the property records of Buckinghamshire Archives, including those which needed the involvement of those from outside of the immediate local area indicating road travel was not thought impossibly risky. It certainly wasn't easy however with so many bridges closed and road maintenance disrupted.
The civil war disrupted imports, exports and internal trade within England. The barge masters of both Great Marlow and Little Marlow must have faced a headache as their River Thames became a point of contention between the opposing forces for more or less it's whole length. Parliamentary ammunition barges and boats passed through Marlow multiple times on their way from Windsor to Reading. Soldiers were transported by water from London to Reading through Marlow. Some may have stopped in the town on the way. You can bet these were watched in passing by curious or fearful Marlovians.
The loss of not only Marlow's bridge but other local ones like Maidenhead effected not only the ability of the residents to trade but to see their families. Many Marlow people for instance had relatives just across the river at Bisham but what a world away they must have seemed without a usable bridge between the two banks of the river. It is uncertain whether little rowing boats were allowed to cross at will or whether civilians could even leave such boats by the river because of the possibility that they might fall into the "wrong" hands. Those with friends or family in Windsor must have heard news of the Royalist attack on the town in 1642, when it did filter through, with dismay. Ultimately those Royalists troops were driven back. Some of our townspeople had family in Hambledon too, the site of the Greenlands siege.
Though towns were considerably more self sufficient than today luxury items such as pewter, glassware and silks sold by local mercers largely came from London sources and would have been more of a headache for Marlovians to obtain if they wished to avoid a trip to London and normal supplies couldn't arrive. The Parliamentary army occupied London in 1648 refusing to leave until all unpaid tax levies created to fund the army were fully collected from the residents. The atmosphere in London must have been intimidating. In The Impact Of The Civil War On The London Economy Ben Coates writes that the tax collectors then charged with this duty were often accompanied by soldiers.
The writer also tell us that soldiers in the roundhead New Model Army were not given any food rations except when involved in a siege but rather had to buy their own food. An official travelling "market" followed them. There is disagreement about where those market supplies came from but I agree with the author that it would have been impossible not to need to source food along the way rather than just haul it all from London. Buckinghamshire farmers, including Marlovians, could have rode out to and bargained with the market sellers when they were anywhere within reach in order to sell their crops for cash.
Where soldiers were billeted in a premises food provided might be paid in tickets which could be exchanged for cash later (well, in theory). Did any Marlow homes or inns get used in this way or was the church accommodation sufficient? Two named inns are known in Marlow town centre at the time, the (Upper) Crown and the Bear and certainly there were several more whose names are lost to us.
Researched and written by Charlotte Day.
Related Posts=
1600s trade directory Part One. Part Two
Leisure in 1600s Marlow here
More posts about Marlow pre 1800 indexed here.
©Marlow Ancestors. You are welcome to use this post for family or local history research with credit to this blog.
Some Sources=
The Impact of the English Civil War on the Economy of London, 1642-50 by Ben Coates .United Kingdom: Ashgate, 2004.
Memorials of the English Affairs by Bulstrode Whitlocke.
Property records, Buckinghamshire Archives.
https://historyofparliament.com/2019/08/30/averting-the-prorogation-of-parliament-may-1641/
Memoirs, Biographical and Historical, of Bulstrode Whitelocke: Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal, and Ambassador at the Court of Sweden, at the Period of the Commonwealth. By R.H Whitelocke United Kingdom: Routledge, Warne, and Routledge, 1860.
The Marlow Guide, 1967.
Magna Britannia: Being a Concise Topographical Account of the Several Counties of Great Britain. Containing Bedfordshire, Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire, Volume 1 by Daniel Lyssons. Published by Cadell. United Kingdom. 1867.
Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 51: Scott, Thomas (d.1660) .
Calender of proceedings : preserved in the state paper department of Her Majesty's public record office.Great Britain. Committee for Compounding with Delinquents, 1643-1660 HMSO Publication date 1889. Accessed from the Internet Archive.
Will of Charles Lovejoy transcribed by me from a copy held at the National Archives, Kew.
Chiltern Hundreds by Albert J Foster published Great Britain by Virtue, 1897.
Thames Crossings: bridges, tunnels and ferries, by Geoffrey Phillips . Published Great Britain by David & Charles, 1981.