Marlow Ancestors: Civil War

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.

Marlow Ancestors

Search This Blog

Monday, September 1, 2025

Marlow in the Civil War

PHOTO ID ANYONE?

Report Abuse