Will Of Baldwin Borlase Of Medmenham 1689

Will written 1675. Says he sick and weak but of sound mind.

Commends soul to God.

Burial at discretion of executors.

To his mother Dame Alice Borlase twenty shillings to buy a ring.

To cousin John Borlase of Great Marlow 20 shillings to buy a ring and to John's sister Mary Borlase £100 and to her sister Mrs Elisha Borlase £100.

Cousin Miss Mary Miller daughter of Humphrey Miller and Mary his wife (who is the testator's sister) £100 when she reaches the age of 21. [The term cousin was used for nieces and nephews as well as other relatives at this time].

To ....  ...ence £5

Mr William Barton £5

Mr Henry Cant of Hillingdon £5

To John Ingwood £5

Money to buy rings for each of the servants who live with brother John Borlase.

Loving friends Andrew Duffield of Medmenham, John ...of Hambledon, Thomas Clayton of Henley and Peter Dicconson of Medmenham and to John ...ley of Hambledon  15 shillings each to buy rings.

All linen,woollens, swords, belts to George ....well

To my dear and loving John Borlase of Bockemore  [Bockmer] in Medmenham, baronet all rest of his estate after legacies, debts and funeral expenses paid. This John made executor of the will too.

Witnessed by Henry Cant, William Barton ,John Norcott.

I (Charlotte Day) transcribed then summarized this PCC will from a copy obtained from the National Archives, Kew.

Many local wills are available on this blog including about a half dozen from Medmenham.

©Marlow Ancestors. You are very welcome to use my transcription summary for local or family history purposes with credit to this blog.

Marlow in the 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. 

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.

The Ancient Chapel At Ackhampstead

 This post is a tribute to the lost and ancient little chapel at Ackhampstead near Moor Common / Finnemore. (Otherwise known as the chapel of St. Mary de (or le)  Moor/More.) Ackhampstead was latter part of Great Marlow parish for certain civil purposes so we sometimes get enquiries about it.  No one was exactly sure when it was built but generally the tradition was that it was a chapel of ease for the wealthy Brinkhurst family of The Moore in the Tudor era. That seems very likely. They were later Catholic recusants who lost a lot for sticking by their faith. Some of the Victorian villagers believed it was specifically a female Brinkhurst that had established the chapel and who knows they may have been right.  More on them in another post.  Either way it was old, and apparently beautiful. 

The Moore(s) would later be known as Moor farm. 

The chapel had continued in use for centuries. There wasn't ever many houses immediately about it - Ackhampstead was a tiny hamlet. People who recorded they lived there may also otherwise describe themselves as resident at The Moor, Finnemore/Finnemoor or "Fennymore" but usually it was accepted there were about 12 cottages in the Regency and early Victorian Ackhampstead.  This meant a population of about 75 people in 1849.  Although the parish authorities had an exact idea of where the boundaries of the district of Ackhampstead were, in every day life the farm labourers residents were much less precise in how they defined their home. The Black Boy beerhouse at Moor Common is occasionally referred to as part of Ackhampstead. The residents of the handful of cottages at Chisbridge Cross ("Chusbeech" , "Christbridge" and a hundred other variations) were considered part of Ackhampstead chapel district too. 

The problem for the locals was that Ackhampstead might have been surrounded by Buckinghamshire, but technically it was an outlying part of the parish of Lewknor Uphill in the Diocese of Oxford.  This was not very practically or financially  convenient for the vicar of Lewknor 8 miles away. He appointed a curate for Ackhampstead but the wages came out of his own living which was the gift of All Souls college, Oxford. In 1842 the new vicar was Rev Edward B Dean. A few years later he was accused of trying to shed Ackhampstead from his parish by any means necessary so he'd no longer need to provide for a curate. He was very determined to be rid of it for sure but we can't see into his heart and truly know what his motivations were. 

"In good sound and durable repair"

In August 1848 Benjamin Disraeli presented a petition from the parishioners in Finnemore who claimed the Bishop of Oxford was suppressing them. They were asking for the governments protection against the injury they said the Bishop was planning to subject them to - specifically pulling down their ancient chapel. It was signed by all the landowners, farmers and cottagers there, bar one lady who said that she didn't want the chapel to go but didn't want to upset the rector and curate of nearby Hambledon who were criticised in the petition. They attempted to address the question of whether Ackhampstead was a drain on parish resources. They pointed out that the vicar of Lewknor had the benefit of just over 9 acres of glebe land around Ackhampstead chapel plus he received a portion of the rent from Moor and Finnemoor farms, and the great tithes from all the land in Moor and Finnemoor which was then commuted to a rent charge. (Ready cash more desirable than a portion of crops etc by now.)  Plus the small tithes of Cadmore End. The residents said that to the best of their knowledge the chapel was established for the benefit of the residents of Moor and Finnemore (Ackhampstead). It was well attended by worshippers from both of those places and from further afield and the building was in "good sound and durable repair" as they put it. This last point is important because it doesn't seem it was disputed at that time and it makes what happens later especially sad. 

Those signing the above petition believed that the Vicar of Lewknor was going to give up a portion of his living to sort of persuade Hambledon to adopt Ackhampstead as part of their parish. The point of doing so would be to close Ackhampstead in favour of a new church at Frieth they were then building and it would also increase the living at Hambledon. The farms and cottages at The Moor in particular were "remote and distant" from Frieth they said but a "remarkably short" distance from Ackhampstead. The Bishop of Oxford had sanctioned the demolition of their chapel without consulting them and now their only option was the "great expense and trouble" of challenging that decision in the ecclesiastical court of the same bishop who wanted the chapel closed. The petition didn't do any good but it bought a lot of press attention to what was happening at Ackhampstead. The Bishop said the court was not presided over by him and was subject to regular law processes. What's more the demolition wasn't his idea, but the Vicar of Lewknors (although he supported it). However Ackhampstead landowner Joseph Townsend had previously received a letter from the provost stating that the judge might in fact be the bishop or his commissary. 

Wanton and disorderly conduct

I mentioned above that the rector and curate of Hambledon were criticised in the petition. It was a slur on their honour to suggest they were motivated by financial rather than spiritual gain. The curate of Hambledon had been conducting the services at the chapel. (Prior to that the chaplain of the Royal Military College junior branch in Marlow had done the honours.) The Ackhampstead residents said the services had been held at the "improper, inconvenient and uncanonical hour" of 6pm. They seem suspicious that the clerics  were making the services as difficult as possible to attend in order they could say they were unpopular and would scarcely be missed. Six pm doesn't sound too bad an hour to us but it was a different thing in the winter when travel was down unlit and notoriously muddy and difficult to traverse dark lanes. Curiously it was claimed that the late hour of service was encouraging "wanton and disorderly conduct" among the "rustic" population gathered about the chapel after dark! A constable had been called more than once to keep order while the worshippers were inside. Who were these troublemakers? Perhaps Cadmore Ender's  - see below! In response to this complaint the Bishop of Oxford had ordered that services should be held at 10.30 am and 3pm. But the villagers said this order was ignored. 

Another argument advanced was that Ackhampstead was just too far from the rest of the parish to be convenient for those living in those places who were also not very close to Lewknor. Well those at Ackhampstead had the answer to that. They would personally donate to the cost of building a church somewhere else that would suit these other hypothetical people, as long as their own chapel at Ackhampstead was allowed to stay open. They REALLY wanted to keep it. 

Arguments for closure

Now for the other side of the argument. Phillip Wroughton of Ibstone House said there was no evidence the chapel was intended only for the benefit of those at Ackhampstead/Finnemoor rather than the parish as a whole. So the needs of everyone no matter how far they they lived from Ackhampstead should be considered.  He said the chapels maintenance was provided for out of a general rate paid for by everyone and the principal residents of places such as Cadmore End and Studderidge (Stutridge) districts had always maintained pews there at times. So it was quite reasonable that the chapel should be effectively be moved somewhere more central in the parish in order to suit the most number of people. 

50 people who said they lived outside of the Moor and Finnemoor district but whose family used Ackhampstead chapel anyway wrote to the Bishop to support his idea of closing Ackhampstead. This was because they said they were happy to go to the new church at Frieth as it was nearer to them. If these out of district worshippers stopped going to Ackhampstead, probably only 20 worshippers would be left they claimed. So it might as well be shut up. The Bishop published this favourable letter and his grateful reply. This was followed by a letter from 46 people in Cadmore End also supporting the decision. 

The other main argument in favour of closing Ackhampstead chapel down was it was difficult to get to because of the state of the footways and lanes leading to it. The naysayers said those coming from the South or West had to cross Moor Common which "during the great part of the year, and always after wet, is a swamp" or otherwise cross some meadows ("swampy" ) or some fields ("virtually impassable" except in the summer.) There were no houses on the east. From the North it was accessed either through a "dirty field" or through a farmyard and along a lane that was considered difficult to traverse all year round after rain. The previous winter people had preferred walking through a ploughed field to passing up that lane. However this claim about the difficulty of travel was treated with some scorn in the press. It was only a matter of concern for those making the journey and those same people were overwhelmingly in favour of continuing to do so, mud or no. Joseph Townsend pointed to those from outside Ackhampstead who claimed to make up most of the regular worshippers there. If the journey was so difficult why did do so many of them make it and not travel to Hambledon for example instead? Joseph said those attending often came from Hambledon itself or Frieth. He added that he had made a path at his own expense and partially through his private land to allow pleasant access to Ackhampstead from the direction of those two places.  He had allowed  this to be appropriated for general use as a footpath, but those mentioning the marsh and miry fields had forgotten to mention it. And should anyone suggest that Joseph had no right as a resident of Wood End to interfere with Ackhampstead matters, he countered that no one seemed to mind it when he donated money to the Vicar of Lewknor to look after Ackhampstead. (Money that several years later had not been spent on the project it was collected for - the fencing in of the glebe land around the chapel.)

There was much debate about whether the various cottagers would be closer to Ackhampstead or the new Frieth church. One side said of 11 cottages they considered to be within Ackhampstead, only 6 were closest to the ancient chapel and for some of those the difference was only 40 yards. (The Lewknor/ Hambledon parish boundary line was partially made up of the outer wall of one of those cottages.) For those that would be left further to travel, the inconvenience would be made up as there was a good "hard road" to Frieth they said. 

Be careful in Cadmore End

At this time it was suggested that a church might be built at Cadmore if Ackhampstead closed. It's funny to think of it now but Cadmore End or "Cadmoor" / "Cadmer End" as it was often known was considered a "wild place". Partly this was apparently because the residents lived so far from their mother church. The result? "A deplorable state of spiritual destitution". I don't know what the  agricultural labourers of Cadmore were up to exactly to cause this spiritual panic but saving their souls was apparently the real motivation for providing a church closer to them. I'm not sure that really holds water as those advancing this argument admitted that Ackhampstead was only one and a half miles away from the riotous Cadmore Enders of which there would be about 150 in number. If they wouldn't make such a short journey to Ackhampstead would they bother to turn up at another chapel slightly nearer? And there was also the chapel at Lane End, also one and a half miles away. I don't think the suggestion by the Ackhampstead residents that they'd contribute to the cost of a chapel like Cadmore was taken seriously. This was despite the fact they claimed to have £600 of the projected £800 promised already.  It was claimed that Lewknor wasn't a wealthy living and couldn't support two chapel of eases so if there was going to be one in the spiritual wasteland of Cadmore End, the other had to go. On the other hand, those at Ackhampstead said that if things were so bad at Cadmore, no doubt the church would be happy to pay to do something about it without interfering with Ackhampstead. 

It was strongly denied that Hambledon parish was going to get any payment to take on Ackhampstead. In fact the curate of Hambledon would lose his stipend for preaching at Ackhampstead if it closed. 

Your district or mine? 

Part of the problem was the issue of whether Frieth would be a built as a chapel of ease for Hambledon or would be part of a proposed new church district. This doesn't seem much of an issue in our eyes but it mattered for the reasons Joseph Townsend stated in a letter to the local paper. Technically if those at Ackhampstead were to continue to live in a different church district from Hambledon and Frieth, they did not have the automatic right to attend services in those places. They could only attend "on sufferance" as the worshippers from Hambledon had been allowed to attend Ackhampstead in the past. But if Frieth was made a new district, with Ackhampstead made part of it, they would be able to attend Frieth in their own right. I don't think anyone was seriously going to enforce these residential requirements because it's obvious that no one had done so in the recent past here. But it was a matter of principle to Joseph that the Ackhampstead people should not be cast adrift without really belonging to the nearest place of worship. Of course if a church was built at Cadmore End it would be in the same existing Lewknor Uphill parish as Ackampstead, and they could form a new district together. 

Decisions made

Back to the court case in 1849. The villagers and the two major landowners in the area (Sir William Robert Clayton of Harleyford with 300 acres and Joseph Townsend of Wood End with 134 acres) were in agreement they wanted and needed the chapel. Their plea via Disraeli included the desire that it should be possible to quickly and easily obtain justice if coming up against the ecclesiastical authorities. As things stood a "want of wealth " subjected citizens to injury in the face of the "uncontrollable power" of the ecclesiastical law. Well Clayton and Townsend did not suffer from a want of wealth and presumably it was they who paid for the appeal. But the point was understood in the national papers and the fight was partially  presented as the poor against the wealthy. The Bucks Advertiser, on the side of the Ackhampstead people, said of the Bishop of Oxford "those that do not speak of him with contempt regard him with indifference". 

The Consistory Court was presided over by Dr Phillimore (chancellor for the Diocese of Oxford) who said he thought it right to consider the Bishop of Oxfords views "with attention and respect" although the Bishop would have to abide by any decision he made. Not the most hopeful start perhaps. The court had been adjourned eleven times previously though, so I'm sure the petitioners against were more than ready to get things underway. (On 9 occasions it was because Dr Phillimore wasn't in attendance. This treatment did not go unnoticed in the national press). It was determined that those opposed to the chapels removal would not be allowed to be heard directly as they had expected but only through a legal representative, which increased their costs. 

Dr Phillimore considered the information from the endowment of Lewknor vicarage in 1412. This stated that it was entitled to all tithes from Ackhampstead and Fennymoor  and that divine service should be held at Ackhampstead every Sunday by either the vicar or a chaplain appointed by him. In 1685 the tithes of Ackhampstead were to go to Ackhampstead chapel along with the small tithes of Cadmore End. The first decision was did he have the power to grant a faculty (permission) for the removal of Ackhampstead chapel anyway? The answer he decided was yes and it was now time to consider whether he should. 

Ackhampstead's residents had strongly objected to the idea you could legally move a church. They thought the only precedent was in a case of a dilapidated one in which case a vestry (parish meeting) could be called and a rate (tax) could be decided upon to pay for the demolition of the old and rebuilding the new, in the SAME spot. Ackhampstead was in a fine condition. A vestry had been called, and in this all of the residents of Ackhampstead had voted against the move. But they weren't the only ones invited - all parishioners in Lewknor could attend and the majority of those had voted for closure. Ackhampstead said the opinion of people who actually used the chapel should be the ones listened to. 

In the end, the decision was made the chapel should go. No appeal options were left. The villagers would be given the benefit of attending Frieth but those with seats (eg family pew) in Ackhampstead would not be given them at Frieth automatically. There were however some conditions to Dr Phillimore's permission. The faculty would be granted subject to an £800 bond payable by those applying for it (Rev Dean of Lewknor) as a reassurance that the chapel should be rebuilt (or rather replaced, at Cadmore End) and that they would meet the costs of the building. (Actually they planned to raise a subscription fund to pay for the construction.) He suggested that two specific clauses should be inserted in to the faculty  - one to prevent a local rate (tax) being levied to pay for the church in the end, and secondly one to protect the old chapel from "desecration". I'm not sure if the second was included in the final version but if so, it was not abided by. 

Final service

The last service was held on 3rd June 1849 "to the deep regret if the poor who had so long worshipped within its sacred walls". Even this wasn't managed sensitively. The villagers attending did not know in advance that the doors would be shut to them afterwards and that they'd never be allowed one last look inside. (Although see below)  It was presumed that as a decision had been made to proceed with a church at Cadmore End, Ackhampstead would be allowed to stay open until it was finished and ready for services. But this didn't happen. The vicar of Lewknor announced after the service "without a word of comment or explanation" that the chapel was now closed. 

 Frieth church of St John the Evangelist was consecrated by the Bishop of Oxford in June 1849. It was indeed paid for by voluntary subscription. Questions were raised as to whether it would be big enough at 150 sittings to meet the needs of all those from the Hambledon area who said they'd prefer to attend there, as well as those from Ackhampstead. An extension was made to the building in 1872 it "not being sufficiently large for the congregation attending it"  so these concerns were probably justified. The new south aisle was constructed by Marlow builder Mr Corby.* 

Demolition job? 

You probably noticed the Ackhampstead residents accused the Church of not only wanting to shut their chapel but actually pull it down. Was this actually realistic? Although it's easy to find example of long abandoned chapels that had been converted into other usage, it doesn't seem to have been considered dignified or proper for Ackhampstead to be used for something else. The idea of pulling down an ancient structure horrified some. But those who thought it would otherwise fall into ruins said such an obvious sign of neglect would be "distasteful". I think the real problem was if the chapel was left standing, the Lewknor parish wouldn't have wanted to pay for its maintenance just for appearances sake, and possibly couldn't afford to. It's a pity no record of any bequests relating to its upkeep were still to be found. 

What was lost. 

When Frieth Church was built it was said to be about 7ft longer and 2 ft broader than the existing Ackhampstead chapel. 

The best descriptions of Ackhampstead come from the first few years after its closure. I'm especially grateful to the reporter of the Bucks Herald who described it in 1850. He thought it was beautiful and probably one of the oldest chapel of ease in existence. The bell had bore the date of 1665 he said. 

The main gist of the Bucks Herald article was to record his astonishment at how a chapel which had been complete and in good repair just a year before had degenerated into such a state. It was "bare ruins". The lead had been stripped from the font first. Then the hangings had vanished from the pulpit and reading desk. This was followed by the loss of the glass and lead from the windows, the inscribed bell, many of the pews and the reading desk. Worse still an old bricked up door had been broken through and the stone and brickwork had been partially destroyed. The writer firmly blamed the church authorities for failing to properly secure the building after the final service. He said for 5 months it had stood unprotected, and even after that someone had got in and took up the floor, roof, remaining pews and seating. The building deserved better he said, and we can only agree. He thought if it was thought better to let it disappear it should have been razed with "reverence and dignity". 

A guide to ecclesiastical topography published in 1850 says that Ackhampstead chapel was a small, poor affair (in terms of decoration or monuments probably) with no particular features of interest although they do not mention it being in a ruinous state so it's not clear when they visited. These guides obviously take time to compile. It's also worth noting that this book covered the diocese of Oxford and the material was submitted for "correction" as necessary to the Archdeacon. He probably would not have wanted to dwell on the charms if any of such a bone of contention!

 An especial concern at the time of the newspaper writers visit, was that no work had begun on Cadmore End church although it soon would be. By 1912 only a fragment of the flint walls of Ackhampstead remained. The visitor describing it then could only guess that it seemed to have been rectangular with lancet windows. Trees and shrubs were growing within the ruins. 

We will never know who was responsible for this destruction. It was traditional to strip buildings and recycle materials, and if the Church authority did not seem to care what happened to it, why should the locals who could give the materials new life? It would be nice to think some of the contents such the hangings might have survived in the hands of one of those who fought so hard to keep the chapel open. The new Cadmore End church would bear the name of its destroyed namesake, St Mary Le Moor, and became an independent ecclesiastical parish. 

 NB:

Ackhampstead was later attached to Marlow for poor law, licencing and school purposes and became part of the ecclesiastical parish of Hambledon. 

Written and researched by Kathryn Day. 

Related Posts:

This blog deals with Great Marlow itself mainly but an index of posts about nearby places is available here

*For other construction projects of Thomas Corby see here

Index of church related posts here

To find every mention of a family or individual here use the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu.

If you are looking for an ancestor that lived at Ackhampstead and you are wondering where they might be buried (or married) try Lewknor, the mother church. 

Sources include: 

Kelly's Directory of Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire 1899

The Ecclesiastical and Architectural Topography of England: Oxford Diocese - Royal Archaeological Institute of Great Britain (John Henry Parker, 1850)

An inventory of the historical monuments of Buckinghamshire  - Commission on the historical monuments and constructions of England (HMSO 1912)

Wiebe, M G (Ed.)  - Benjamin Disraeli Letters Volume 5, (Toronto University Press Inc, 1993)

Bucks Advertiser and Aylesbury News 9th June (which also quotes the Daily News of that month) & 27th October 1849;Bucks Herald  26 March & 4th November 1842, 21st & 28th October & 4th November 1848,  10th & 17th Feb, 7th April,  12 & 19th May, 9th & 23rd June 1849, 16th Feb 1850; Oxford Journal 20th October 1849; Reading Mercury 16th September & 28th October 1848. All these via the BNA. 

The Times 21st August 1848. 

The Victoria County History of Buckinghamshire 1925. 

© MarlowAncestors

 

Bateman's Grocers West Street

 Below, on the right, see the premises as they appear today of George and Elizabeth Bateman's Victorian era shop.

George and Elizabeth moved here from Hambledon Buckinghamshire where George was farming on a modest scale. Even before the move he was a property owner in Marlow, sufficiently so to be eligible to vote back in 1831 and the couple had earlier used the parish church at Marlow for the baptism of their daughter Charlotte and her subsequent burial as a teenager.

Circa 1851 George began a tea dealership in these premises, taking over from grocer Joseph Cockman and his wife Sarah. George died not too long after the move to Marlow and Elizabeth continued the shop as a grocery business. George has owned the building and in his will left that and all the rest of his worldly goods to his wife for her life. In the will he still defined himself as a yeoman.

Elizabeth died in her 80s.

Prior to grocery shop use the site  was the home of Thomas Bowen senior, retired landlord of the Red Lion. His will is transcribed on this blog here. More on the Red Lion and the Bowens here.

More posts about historic West Street businesses and people indexed here.

Marlow will transcription index here

Post by Charlotte.

©Marlow Ancestors.

Sources:

Will Of George Bateman 1851, National Archives, Kew. Transcribed by me Charlotte Day.

Post office directory of Berkshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, with Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Huntingdonshire. United Kingdom, n.p, 1854. Via Google Books.

A poll of the freeholders of the county of Buckingham at the election of two knights of the shire to serve in the parliament... taken at Aylesbury... 1831. (1831). United Kingdom: (n.p.).

Slater, I. (1852). Slater's, late Pigot & co., royal national and commercial directory and topography of the counties of Bedfordshire, Berkshire. United Kingdom: (n.p.).

1861 census Great Marlow, transcribed by Jane Pullinger from microfilm.

This Lock Keeper Is A Lady

 People are sometimes surprised to find their female ancestors working in traditionally male occupations. One of those relevant to our blog area is that of lock keeping. Today's subject is Hambledon Lock Keeper Martha Lomax, who was married to Marlow born John. 

Martha was not the first or only female pound keeper at Hambledon (as they were often known in her day, refering to the newer pound style locks). Like most of her fellow Victorian women working in this role, she had taken it on after her husband who had previously performed the task died. Officially the Thames Commissioners had declared it "undesirable" for females to be appointed to pound keeping duties from 1831, but this was not enforced entirely as you can see. It's worth noting that descriptions of journeys up and down the Thames during the Victorian era also include notes of a woman physically operating a lock, eg Temple, even though she was not technically the lock keeper herself. It might be the wife, daughter or other relative for example. Some of these recognise the women as a familiar figure in charge so their help was more than occasional. And of course a woman becoming a lock keeper could not just learn to do it overnight - if they inherited the job they already needed to know how to handle themselves. A lock keeper, male or female, could pay an assistant of course but far better to keep it in the family and get some free help from any children considered old enough! 

A DANGEROUS ROLE

Martha was born in Bray. Her husband was a former soldier who had been in receipt of a pension since the age of just 18.  John (born Great Marlow c1820) and Martha (nee Butler) married in 1861 and settled in Gun Lane, Marlow [Demolished, now Trinity Rd]. They lived initially with John's widowed mother Deborah, a laundress. After spending some time away from Marlow, John won the role of Hambledon Lock keeper in around 1868. Unfortunately he died in 1873, after a period of illness. And so Martha, with 4 children to care for, stepped into his shoes. She had already operated the lock during his period of sickness. But tragedy had not yet finished with poor Martha. 

In the same year, Martha's little boy, age just 4, was drowned at the Lock. An unfortunate number of lock keepers children have died at home in our local area, and not to mention lock keepers themselves*. At the time, the lock had been entirely closed a short while so that it could be entirely rebuilt.  (And not before time many said**.) The work was still ongoing although the lock was scheduled to be re-opened a week before. Young John was playing outside with 10 year old brother Henry on a therefore fairly quiet Saturday afternoon. Henry went inside but John hung back in the garden. After a few minutes his mother asked Henry to get John in, but the younger boy was not to be found. Henry sadly caught a glimpse of his brothers body in the water and shouted for help. Afterwards he would say he believed John was already dead. His cries were heard by three workman working on the lock who ran to assist. John had now sunk out of view beneath a tied up punt, so the workman dived in. After several attempts they bought the little boy up, lifeless. He was carried into the lock house and attempts made to revive him by slapping and rubbing him as was the usual way. But Henry's fears were confirmed. John was already gone. The inquest was held at the lock house with the child's body laid out to view. Verdict was accidental death by drowning. It was believed that the boy had attempted to get into the punt, as he had done before alone but sadly it appeared that he had slipped and fell in the water. 

LIFE AT THE LOCK

Many accounts can be found of jolly punting and picnic parties passing through Hambledon Lock. They tend to extoll the beauty of the riverside scenery and the prettiness of the surrounding countryside. Life on the river bank was not always quite so romantic however. In the year after Martha's double tragedy, a letter appeared in The Times calling attention to the primitive sanitation arrangements of the Hambledon Lock Keepers cottage. It was singled out as an example of rural toilets that drained directly into the river, resulting in pollution of the water. It was not the only source to suggest you could sometimes smell Hambledon Lock before you could see it. While sewage might find its way into the water, a set of rules for lock keepers from 1867 states that keepers should at least endeavour to keep the lock free of dirt, weeds and dead animals. And they should neatly mow the grass about the lock too.  

On the other hand, we have descriptions of the lock in Martha's time that mention the pretty garden, with a profusion of lavender. She also had a little orchard. An account of a river trip from 1876 mentions only pleasant sights and smells at the lock. This included a little kitten called Bob who scampered across the grass.  He probably belonged to the surviving Lomax children William, Martha, Jane and Henry. Also mentioned is a tail less dog called Tiny who barks at every barge passing through the lock. 

In the late 1860s it was prohibited to put up notices at the Lock advertising the fact you could offer refreshments. This was a traditional side line, and doesn't seem to have come to an end, advertised or not. Martha probably offered these too. She was after all a good cook, as was her daughter Martha. (See below) What she definitely offered was an occasional bed for the night for the weary rower or fishermen. The lock keepers were banned from taking in lodgers in 1871 but occasional occupation of rooms by guests was tolerated. We know that Martha's busy time for this was around Henley Regatta when no beds could be found in that town or any nearer. 

Other parts of Martha's role other than the winding up of sluices and opening of gates included taking tolls and issuing tickets, and working with other lock keepers to relieve flooding as required. People would shout "lock! lock!"when they wished to summon her or an assistant.  Vessels with goods loaded upon were supposed to be given priority over pleasure craft or empty trade craft. At certain times such as when Henley Regatta was held, the numbers of boats put into the lock at once sometimes caused complaint. It was so before and after Martha's time in charge too. But Martha had the  problem of being female and any quibble at how the lock was managed were too often put down to that. Suggestions were made several times that she should be moved to a quieter lock but she resisted this until finally being relieved of her position in 1882. She had held on for nearly 10 years. 

AFTERWARDS

When Martha lost her job, she also lost her home. Eventually she settled in Reading, working first as a charwoman, then as a cook. She retired to an almshouse and died there in 1907 age 76. Daughter Martha, born at the lock, would also enter service as a domestic cook, working for example in Kensington and Reading. Son Henry would go on to to have the interesting occupation of  attendant on the insane at Montsford Asylum, Oxfordshire. 

*Some children to drown at the locks include 8 year old James Johnson at Hurley Lock, Grace Simpkins and Ellen Lawrence Wood, both daughters of Temple Lock Keepers, and in 1868 the 8 year old son of Marlow Lock Keeper Thomas Coster.  See below. 

**A few years before the repair was made Hambledon Lock was described as having gates that looked as though they might "drop of their hinges" and roll their "battered timbers into the water at any moment". It was "dilapidated". It had had several repairs before - it was considered in "imminent danger of collapse" in 1865. Another remembered it to be so leaky it look a very long time to fill. 

Written and researched by Kathryn Day. 

Further information:

Other lock keepers children to drown are mentioned here

For other posts related to the River Thames see the list of posts here

Georgian pound keeper at Marlow - here

Our focus is Great Marlow Parish but we cover a few people from nearby places. To see other posts on Hambledon and around, see this here

To find every mention of a person of family here, check the A-Z Person index in the top drop down menu - there's now over 6,000 individuals listed there. 

SOURCES

Rules for Lock Keepers 1867, Thames Conservancy. 

Reading Mercury August 1873. 

Berkshire Chronicle August 1873. 

Census 1841, 51, 61, 71 and 81 - courtesy of Jane Pullingers transcript from the microfiche. 

United Kingdom, Chelsea Pensioners' Service Records, 1760-1913," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:V5H1-S8V : 9 March 2021), John Lomax, ; from "Chelsea Pensioners' Service Records 1760-1913," database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing WO 97, The National Archives, Kew, Surrey.

Leslie, John Dunlop. Our River. (Bradbury, Agnew & Co 1881)

Pask, Arthur Thomas. From Lock to Lock: A Playful Guide (Judy publishing office,1882) Digitised by Google and accessed March 2010.

Sterry, Joseph Ashby - Tiny Travels (Tinsley Brothers 1874)

Stirling, A M W - William De Morgan and his wife. (H Holt &Co 1923)

Thacker, Fred S - The Thames Highway Vol 1&2, 1914. 

The Illustrated Sporting And Dramatic News September 1876. (Vol 4)

The Little Anglers Annual 1884. (G Little, William Cate 1884)

© GreatMarlowAncestors

The Smiths and Gammons Of Duchess Place

Duchess Place in Marlow consisted of a shop on the corner of Victoria Road and Dedmere Road plus 9 cottages and (in 1896 a "studio") adjoining that could be accessed from both streets. The buildings exist still but Duchess Place is no longer a separate street address.

George Gammon was a carter for a flour mill. As such in 1905 he was fined for driving his cart after sunset without having a light. He grew up in Hambledon. Before coming to Marlow he had been a baker. His wife Sarah had a laundry business at home of which George was also involved in the management of. They lived in Duchess Place from 1897 until circa 1901 when they moved to nearby Station Rise. By 1907 George was again calling himself a baker and but must have still considered himself a partner in his wife's laundry business as in that year George accused his employee Elizabeth Smith of stealing a child's dress which he had put in a parcel and asked her to send to Shepherds Bush from the post office. This will have been clean laundry returned to a customer. Good laundresses were seen as gold dust and households were happy to send important laundry miles to have it carefully done.

Elizabeth sold or gifted, it was unclear, the dress to Amelia White to whom she also sold some lace and a petticoat. In the same court Elizabeth stood accused of stealing a pig's head from a High Street shop. She pleaded in her defence a sincere desire to act honorably but admitted that she could not stop herself taking things. 

This wasn't the first time that the Gammons had accused an employee of stealing from them. Two years previously Sarah's charge against Hetty Bitmead for allegedly taking an apron from them was dismissed from lack of evidence. They certainly were robbed of a shirt front and collar on another occasion at Duchess Place.

Elizabeth Smith was sentenced to a month's hard labour which is a pretty light sentence given that she had 4 previous convictions for theft. Elizabeth was 31 years old and had lived with her father William at number six Duchess Place for at least 16 years. Relations were clearly sometimes strained between the two as in 1899 William took out an ad in the South Bucks Standard warning shopkeepers and others that he would no longer honour any debts which she contracted. It was probably already just the two of them left at home. Elizabeth's mother Ann AKA Annie had died at Duchess Place in 1894 aged only 51 and her brothers had certainly left home by the time of the 1901 census.

It was four weeks after that their next door neighbour at number seven, Mrs Gammon, advertised for a good laundress to live in with them. I had wondered if that ad just might have what provoked the financially pressed Elizabeth Smith to begin her employment with the Gammons but no, Elizabeth was a needlewoman not a laundress and still living with her widowed father in 1901. William was then a rag beater at the paper mills down by river but earlier was described as an engineer at the mills . By 1911 he and his daughter had moved to South Place in Marlow. There was a 2 year old boy William in the household listed as William's grandson. There is a fair chance that this is an illegitimate child for Elizabeth though he could also be the son of one of her brothers, William or Augustus. William her brother served as a soldier.

Researched and written by Charlotte Day. 

To see what else we have on Duchess Place or surrounding addresses in old Marlow see this index.

To find all mentions of someone on this blog see the A-Z Person Index.

See:

South Bucks Standard 2nd June 1899 and 25th October 1907.

Census 1891 and 1901. 

G.R.O death registrations.

Rochford of Hambledon Grave Marlow

 In the churchyard of St Peter's Roman Catholic Church in Marlow.

Anne beloved wife of Thomas Rochford of Hambledon. Died 1873. Age ?32?.

By Charlotte Day.

More grave photos for Marlow, Little Marlow and Hurley plus a few for Bisham indexed and linked here

You might also be interested in these posts: 

Early history of the Catholic church in Marlow and it's construction here which talks of some of the prejudice and trouble contemporary Marlow Catholics faced.

Biography of the Smith family of Beaufort Cottage who were prominent Marlow Catholics here

©Marlow Ancestors. You are very welcome to reuse this content with credit for family or local history purposes.

Higgins Grave St Peters Roman Catholic Church, Great Marlow

 Mary Alicia Higgins of Hambledon d. Dec 20 1901

©Marlow Ancestors. Reproduction welcome with credit.

We aim to photograph as many currently readable graves, or partially readable ones, as possible in all burial places in Marlow. 

Rachel Hall The Butcher

Born according to the census in Hurley as Rachel Thatcher somewhere between 1782 and 1791, Rachel married her butcher husband Robert, a widower by license in Medmenham. They then moved to his native Marlow. After his death in 1823 Rachel ran the butcher's shop herself. It was located in West Street on the same side as the Ship Inn, about half away along the road. Rachel would go on to run the shop for some 30 years.

On the 1833 parish assessment her premises consisted of a house, shop as part of that, stables, slaughterhouse, yard, sheds, a garden and offices (as in the old meaning of the word - places for the fulfillment of those domestic chores or business functions requiring their own space).

Both her step sons William and Robert became butchers. William assisted Rachel for at least a while, as did Rachel's niece in law Alice Hall. Robert operated his own business in Hambledon. Relations between him and his step mother were not cordial it seems. He was engaged in lengthy litigation against her for unknown reasons according to a report in the Windsor and Eton Express 1842. Dissatisfied with the speed at which the case was progressing Robert junior walked into Marlow, dragged his legal representative into the street and gave him a good shaking. For this he was arrested and bound over to keep the peace. The lawyer is not named in reports. There were several in Marlow at the time. If the injured party was Ralph Spicer who lived and worked in premises close to Rachel's shop in West Street Rachel likely witnessed the event.

Relations with his step mother may have deteriorated following Robert being kicked off the list of Marlow men eligible to vote. At the time you needed to occupy a certain amount of proper in order to register as a voter. Robert had claimed to be in partnership with Rachel, who owned her shop. This wasn't deemed sufficient property qualification and his voting rights were removed. Rachel may have been blamed for this if she denied to investigators he had any part of the Marlow business. This was nothing but the truth, but still.

Her husband's will was unequivocal, the business went to Rachel for life as long as she didn't remarry. After her life or if she remarried the property, and others he owned, was to be divided equally between his children. If Rachel decided she wanted to give up the business before her death or remarriage then son Robert got it. He was not made a partner in the business otherwise.

Robert senior also gave Rachel for life two houses in St Thomas's Street Marlow (now called Spittal Street).

In 1832 Rachel's shop was broken into and a saddle of mutton, 4 ribs of beef and a shoulder of veal were stolen. She offered a reward for the apprehension of the guilty party but I find no evidence that he or she was found.

Twelve years later Rachel had a leg of mutton stolen from her shop and six years after that 31bs beef disappeared. In the latter case the thief was caught. Keziah Godding  received a sentence of 14 days. She was apprehended immediately on leaving the shop by parish constable Thomas Walker, with the meat hidden under her apron. The shopman Thomas Webb Anthony said he had only sold her a shillings worth of mutton, which was also beneath her apron. 

Rachel was suffering no particular targeting of her premises- thefts from shops were common in Marlow and elsewhere.

Whatever difficulties Robert junior and Rachel had they were forgiven at least on Rachel's side by the time of the writing of her will in 1852.

She herself had three properties to leave: a cottage in Lane End left to Robert junior, a cottage in Spittal Street with all it's encumbrances (debts secured upon it or mortgages or annuities drawn upon their rents) to son William and a further cottage in West Street. This latter, in the occupation of Ann Plumridge, was to go to the will's executors Robert Maddox (who lived in the High Street) and James Thomas Lovegrove (a plumber in West Street who lived a few doors from Rachel ) to sell. The money raised was to be used to pay her debts and funeral expenses and to help pay off some of the encumbrances on the property she was leaving. Any money left after that was to be equally divided between Robert junior and William. In 1853 William advertised the butchery business for sale, along with immediate possession of the premises it was carried out in. 

Josiah Smith and Robert Howard later ran their own butchery businesses on the same premises. Robert Howard was also a dairyman.

More posts like this can be found on the menu under Biographies Of Individuals menu option here.

More West Street shopkeepers and other residents are listed on the menu under "Specific Shops, Streets...Etc" option here

Looking for more Hurley related people? See Other Places on the menu, which has a Hurley section here

For all mentions of an individual on this blog search the Person Index.

Sources:

Wills of Rachel Hall and Robert Hall senior. Obtained from the National Archives, Kew and transcribed by me.

Reading Mercury 16th April 1832 [theft from Rachel].

Windsor and Eton Express 20th August 1842 [Robert junior duffs up his legal representative] and 10th October 1840 [Robert's voting problems].

All newspapers accessed October 2020 via the BNA online. Copies held at the British Library archives.

Judicial records research of Jane Pullinger. Thanks Jane!

1841 and 1851 censuses my transcription from microfilm.

Medmenham parish records 

Post ©Marlow Ancestors. You may reuse it for family or local history purposes if you credit this blog and link here so that my sources remain credited for information they provided.

 

The Adult Scholars of Regency Marlow

 The building that gives it's name to Institute Road now hosts the library. In it's former guise it provided entertainment and education for many of your Marlow ancestors. Before we deal with the Literary and Scientific Institute, I'd like to give credit to Marlow's very first Institute. While this is now almost entirely forgotten, it had a huge effect on the lives of hundreds of local working class people in the early 19th century because it taught them to read. 

There were several groups active in Marlow who gave out Bibles to the poor. But the trouble with this was a great number of labourers were completely unable to read them. Marlow gained their National schools for children in around 1812 but what about the adults who were too old to attend? This question bothered a group of local clergyman who decided to form an Adult Institution, centred on Marlow. The first meeting was held in 1814 in Maidenhead Town hall, when the details of the clergymen's plan was thrashed out. The objective was initially to teach reading to both men and women over the age of 16, with the overall aim of getting them to be able to read the Bible independently. The hope was to establish as many evening schools as possible, not forgetting rural areas. Their system would use central funds and organisation, and would be paid for by public donations. They hoped that there would be enough donations in the towns to pay for provision in the more rural areas around Marlow. 

It may seem an innocuous aim but there was still local opposition. These critics are anonymous and their arguments summarised later by the Institution's supporters. It seems some people could not see why the working classes would really need to read, and others were worried that while the aim may be to teach the workers to read a Bible, what if they used this new ability to read something more seditious? Rev. Goddard replied that it would be wrong to neglect those "whose labour the society to which we belong is supported." The Institute managed to secure a number of high profile patrons and supporters regardless. A few months after the first meeting, follow ups were held at Marlow Town Hall and Lord Grenville became the President and no less a figure than the Prince of Wales became it's patron with a £100 donation. The General Secretary was Rev. Charles Goddard of High Wycombe, and it's he who would seem to have done the most to get the classes going. Although 15 clergymen representing parishes fanning out from Marlow were initially invited to take part, the group later aimed to expand to work throughout Bucks and Berks, and indeed hoped even to become a national institution.

The number of schools they managed to establish in the first year is a testament to Goddard's "zeal and energy." 57 were in place, teaching 1045 adults and youths. The intention had been to pay teachers to give instruction where the local ministers or other trustworthy individuals could not do so. I have not been able to find out for certain who performed this role in Marlow. This decision to employ teachers was also contentious. The Sunday School Repository, reporting on the plans for Marlow's "Adult School Society" (an early alternative name) said that in order to successfully teach adults, only those motivated purely by an earnest desire to educate should do the work. It required "that degree of patience, of perseverance, of kindness, and of attention to feeling and even to the prejudices of the scholars" which could not be expected to be forthcoming from those motivated only by a pay packet! The Institute also considered using the older pupils of Borlase to provide instruction (in return for money). 

Teachers did not work in dedicated premises. Instead the Institute expected them to host classes at their homes, or in Sunday School rooms where they existed. Classes ran 3 days a week during the winter and early spring, with men and women attending on alternate days, from 6-8pm. Why only in the winter and spring? Most of those attending were outdoor labourers who could not work in the dark, and so their evenings were more likely to be free in the shorter days of those seasons. The regular classes were expected to cease each year when longer hours of daylight and the demands of the corn harvest and hay making made evening classes difficult. Instead of a set term, it was recommended that local teachers should try and keep classes going for as long as their local industry demands allowed, with most ceasing between May and June. As many parishes as possible were encouraged to offer Sunday Evening classes throughout the year, and Hambledon was one of the places that did just that. The starting age of 16 was quickly lowered to 10 because it became apparent how prevalent illiteracy was amongst older children. There were rumblings about bad behaviour in lessons amongst some of these younger students and the teachers were told to maintain order, with the help of a magistrate if necessary! 

Although the donations received in the first flush of enthusiasm were substantial, the following years did not produce such levels of support and costs were rising. Initially the Institution offered support and a teacher for anyone that wanted to set up a school. But by 1816 they had to consolidate some of the smaller school groups. They did however decide to offer financial bonuses to some of the paid teachers for maintaining high levels of attendance, including at Lane End. 

In 1816, of the 1,062 adults attending classes, 522 learners had began without any knowledge of their letters at all. Yet many left the classes able to read well enough to follow the Bible. The Institution published details of their methods and experience in order that other groups could follow their example. But their hopes to be the centre of a national body for adult education came to nothing. Funds were too low to pay for so many teachers and the need to pay to hire of school rooms in some places added to the burden. Gradually mentions of the Institution faded away and by 1820 it seems to have ceased to exist in organised form. But some classes probably continued with volunteer teachers where they could. In Marlow, the more wide ranging Literary and Scientific Institution was formed in 1853 and from approximately 1856 there was a night school for men ran by the Vicar of All Saints with his curates and Sunday school teachers as assistants.  (The school was largely instigated by Rev Frederick Bussell who died in 1861. You can read a biography of him here) It catered mostly for agricultural labourers, who could pay a half penny per session. This  included the use of a slate and pencil but not a a copy book or pen. Classes ran on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 7pm. The term was from October to March. Those who had attended at least 20 sessions qualified for the free end of season supper, which in 1862 was followed by a magic lantern show. This was paid for by well wishers. 50 students attended that - a number down on previous years - which shows how many had been learning to read and write there. 

*A night school for boys running on Sundays only, was also instigated in November 1890. About 80 boys were  credited as attending in the first couple of months. 

Researched and written by Kathryn Day. 

*To find all mentions of your ancestor, use the A-Z person index in the drop down menu. For other Marlow history posts, see the General History Post option in the drop down menu* 

For a list of schools in Marlow (70+) see this post here

Life for boys attending the Blue Cost School (Borlase school) in the 1830s-50's -here

And for other education related posts, see our listing here which also covers posts about every day life in old Marlow. 

Sources

An Account of the origins, principles and results of the Adult Institution - Goddard, Charles. R Griffiths, 1817

The Sunday School Repository, Vol 1, issue 8. (William Kent, 1813)

Monthly Review, Volume 63. Griffiths, George Edward, Griffiths, Ralph (Editors) 1817

The nature of the recent calls on public benevolence in the neighbourhood stated and explained by a member of the Adult Institution South Bucks district - "Nature", 1815

Night School reports. The Church Journal, Vol 2. (Guild of St. Albans,1861, 1862)

Windsor and Eton Express, 25 December 1814, British Library Archive, accessed via the BNA. 

Berkshire Chronicle, 15 June 1861. As above.

Slough, Eton and Windsor Observer 16 December 1890. Slough reference library. 

©Marlow Ancestors. 

Hooks Farm Occupiers

Historic Occupiers list:

Note: historically part of Marlow Manor holdings.

1607- Katherine Rance. Occupier.Widow. Jorden family were the owners.

1658 - John Jorden, yeoman. Later in this year owned or leased by John Moore the brewer. Later purchased by the Guise and Etheredge families. 

1687- 1717 (at least) Richard Corby "Corbee" rented arable land at Hooks. Occupied the farm house too by 1689 at which time his holdings at Hooks and nearby amounted to 110 acres.

1783 - stock and implements sold after death of gentleman owner William Clayton of Harleyford. 

1833- John Fenner. Farm owned by the Claytons. 192 acres. John died that year age 87. He seems to have actually lived in Bisham, Berkshire. The Reading Mercury 25th November 1833 [British Library Archives] said John had been "a true specimen of the Old English Farmer, plain in his manners, and dress" not to mention always punctual and honest. John was farming in Marlow in 1821 but I can't say for certain he was at Hooks then. There was a younger John Fenner farmer of Marlow who moved to Stoke Poges and became a beer seller and ultimately went bankrupt in 1853. Presumably a relative.

1843- William and John Hewett or Hewitt. Their lease on Platts Farm Marlow expired late 1839 so they may have come straight to Hooks then.  They were later at Hambledon and at Blounts alias Blunts Farm, Marlow. In 1840 John was considered lucky not to have lost a leg after being run over by a load of hay. In the end he had a toe amputated only. 

1850-60 Thomas Frost. Wife Elizabeth. Thomas sold off his stock and left town 1860. In 1850 Henry Finch was jailed for stealing two bushels of barley from him. [Bucks Chronicle 5th January 1850, British Library Archives].

1861- 81 James Fountain. In 1861 turnips stolen from his field and in 1864 twelve fowls were taken. As was traditional on most farms these were in the care of his wife. Note that their daughter married in a Congregational church so the family as a whole may have been Congregationalists.

1900- Executors of Henry William Cripps who had died the previous year sold off farm stock. He was a lawyer by trade so someone else must have ran the farm for him. Survived by wife Julia.

1901-06 Abraham Newton Pratt. Moved into the farm Autumn 1901 having come from a farm at Swallowfield, Berkshire. Wife Emily. She bred turkeys on the farm, 6 of which were stolen in 1905.

1908 - Francis Warne.

1911- James Fountain mentioned as farming here which is puzzling as Francis Warne seems also to have been there then.

1913- F Warne and Sons

1915 Messrs "Warnes and Sons"

1916- Francis Warne who died suddenly that year. He was originally from Cornwall. See here for his grave and that of other family members and more on them.

* For Hooks farm use during World War 1 see here

To read posts about everyday life in old Marlow, see the post listing here

Farm occupants are found by me by studying property records, censuses, adverts, court cases, letters, trade journals, wills and more.

To seek someone on this blog use the Person Index on the menu. Hundreds of people are referenced on this blog.

To seek other farms use the "Specific Shops, Streets Etc" option on the menu.

©Marlow Ancestors. You are welcome to use this research for family or local history purposes if you credit this blog and link here. Thanks. 

The Unhappy Marriage of Richard and Sarah Bye

In 1833 a 38 year old widow, Mary Hawkins, married publican Richard Bye. Mary had a daughter Sarah from her first, 14 year marriage to John Hawkins who had also been a publican. She was née Hewitt.

Richard was (approximately) nearly 20 years older than his bride. He ran the Two Brewers in St Peter's Street right by the River Thames. He perhaps hadn't been there long as only the year before he had been running Abbey Farm in Little Marlow but gave it up and sold all his stock and equipment by auction. Mary's first husband was the previous licensee of the Two Brewers. It may be that Richard married Mary to take over the business. I do not mean that the marriage was especially selfish or mercenary on his part. Marriage was very often in those days more of a financial practicality than a romantic adventure. Help running the pub would have been just as important to her. At the time of the marriage she hadn't yet been to prove her first husband's will.

In John Hawkin's will Mary inherited all his possessions for life while she remained his widow. As soon as she remarried all those goods went to their daughter Sarah. This was a necessary precaution as marriage robbed women of property rights. Mary's goods if left absolutely to her would have become any new husband's goods instead and could be sold by him, used up, given away or left to someone unrelated to John Hawkins or the daughter he wanted to be his eventual heir and there would be no legal remedy for that.

In the Spring of 1835 Mary, in position of his executor, sold many of these possessions including luxury mahogany furniture, feather beds and a pony and trap. Whether this was legal or not I am unsure. It is my understanding she could sell the property with the next heir's consent but Sarah was not legally yet an adult able to give it.

Did Sarah receive the money raised? It's doubtful for reasons given below, however her mother may have been acting in desperation if there were already problems in her home and she felt the need to leave. Certainly the goods had already been removed from Mary's home to Platt's farm where her mother was living "for convenience". Mary perhaps had in effect already left her second husband.

Certainly by July Mary had permanently removed herself from Richard Bye.

Richard reacted by taking out notices in the local press calling her departure illegal and warning tradesman that he would not pay any bills she accrued for food, shelter or other necessities so they shouldn't give her any such. As her husband he was legally obliged to settle any bills she contracted. In cases of separation it was believed by some that such a newspaper warning could get around that obligation though this seems to have been seen as legally debatable, and not in any case honourable regardless of the circumstances behind it.

Later in the 1800s a form of separation though of course not divorce could be agreed upon. A husband would agree to pay a set amount of weekly support to his wife and she in turn formally agreed not to claim her legal right to live under his roof and under his protection. Judicial records covering Marlow show such cases being agreed in the courts multiple times, but the period of Mary's unhappiness was too early a one in date for this solution even if her husband would have been amenable.

The way Richard expresses himself in the press suggests that he thought she might be trying to organise things for herself but she did have family locally.

The year after Mary left Richard her mother Ann Hewett of Marlow left her half her clothes and an annuity of £10. This legacy was no more or less than Mary's sister received so feels like no sign of disapproval. Mary's daughter Sarah is also remembered in the will.

By 1841 census (if not actually before) Mary was living with her brother William, his wife Susan and other brother John at Marlow Mills.

Richard had left the Two Brewers and was staying at the Three Tuns Inn in West Street Marlow with the Muspratt family.

Sarah Hawkins was working as a servant at the house of Wadham Wyndham of Beech Lodge. This makes me think she did not have the benefit of the money from the sale of her father's possessions. Sad to see she was not also taken in by her Hewett uncles. Theirs was a crowded household it must be admitted, and perhaps Sarah preferred financial independence.

Mary cannot be found by me on the 1851 census. Richard Bye was lodging then at Chapel Street Marlow. He defiantly described himself as married and a retired victualler. He died 1860.

Mary's brothers had moved together to nearby Hambledon, where William was farming. 

Sarah Hawkins worked as a servant away from Marlow in another household. That is the last time I see her in records.

Post researched and written by Charlotte Day.

Sources:

My transcriptions of the wills of Ann Hewett and John Hawkins, copies at National Archives, Kew.

Census my transcription from microfilm except 1851 Hambledon which was from Familysearch. Intellectual Reserve Inc. Ran by the LDS church. Accessed online November 2020. 

Great Marlow Parish Registers, my old transcriptions.

Reading Mercury 3rd August 1835. Copy at British Library, accessed via the BNA online November 2020.

GRO death registration index, online. 

Property records held by my family.

©Marlow Ancestors. 

Related Posts:

To find every mention of someone on the blog use the Person Index option on the menu. There is also a Pub Related option for more pub history content. 

Landlords listing for the Two Brewers: here

History of Abbey Farm: here

General Great Marlow history posts: here

So far this blog contains mention of approx:

4,000

people from or associated with Marlow.