Previously I wrote about how Henry Marten criticized the Earl of Essex for keeping his army in winter quarters at Windsor in December 1642. It took a whole post just to establish what Marten (probably) said. But did he know what he was talking about, and was the criticism fair?

Henry Marten had no military experience before the outbreak of the First Civil War. That didn’t automatically mean that he was going to be inept. Oliver Cromwell had no previous experience of war either, and he turned out to be very good at it (as I pointed out here, not a super-special genius, but he could hold his own against professional soldiers of similar rank). Marten seems to have been strongly opposed to the monarchy and the House of Lords from very early in his political career, and in 1642 he was a very active supporter of the parliamentary war effort. He used his inherited wealth to pay spies, which along with his extravagant personal spending eventually bankrupted him (Barber, Revolutionary Rogue, 4-5, 36, 39-40). His first military command was as governor of Reading but he abandoned the town without fighting when the King’s army approached in November 1642 (Waters, Henry Marten, 17). This fact alone makes it look a bit hypocritical of him to complain about Essex not fighting, but that wouldn’t undermine the point if it was a good argument.

Marten’s basic facts were correct: there was action in Yorkshire and Devon while Essex’s army was inactive at Windsor. But he wasn’t comparing like with like. Most of the forces which were fighting in the north and west were very new. Cornwall wasn’t secured for the King until the Cornish rising in early October, and Hopton’s first (failed) attempt to invade Devon was only made in November (Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers, 40, 43). Lord Fairfax, Parliament’s commander in the West Riding of Yorkshire, had agreed to a neutrality pact in September and didn’t start raising his army until October. Newcastle’s ‘popish’ army didn’t invade Yorkshire until 1 December (Hopper, Black Tom, 26-8, 36). These forces were only just starting their first campaigns when Essex had finished his. Parliament had started raising its main army in June 1642 and appointed Essex as general in July. He set out with the army in September, advancing to Worcester and fighting a cavalry skirmish at Powicke Bridge. On 23 October Essex’s army fought the King’s main army at Edgehill in the first major battle of the First Civil War. After a few days of rest at Northampton, Essex rushed his army south to block the King’s approach to London. He arrived just in time, and although some of his infantry were wiped out by Prince Rupert at Brentford, the main body of the army linked up with the London Trained Bands at Turnham Green. The King decided not to fight when the weight of numbers was against him and retreated to Oxford. It was only after this that Essex settled at Windsor. His army had been on campaign for three months, fighting battles before the northern and western forces had done anything, or even before they existed. A period of rest and recovery in a safe place was probably necessary.

Even when they were completed, the armies fighting in Yorkshire and Devon were significantly smaller than the main armies in the Thames Valley. The best recent calculations put both armies at Edgehill at similar strengths with about 10,000 infantry and 2,500 cavalry each (Graham, ‘Earl of Essex‘, 282, 288-9). They also had large artillery trains. Newcastle’s army was the most comparable, but at 8,000 men in total was still only 2/3 the size. The remaining forces were even weaker. Hopton’s Cornish army was only 3,000 strong, and Lord Fairfax had only 2,000 men (Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers, 43; Hopper, Black Tom, 36). Moving and quartering were much easier with a small army than with a big one, especially when rain made the roads muddy and cold made it more necessary for soldiers to sleep indoors. Transporting heavy artillery was a particular problem if there was too much mud. So why not leave it behind? Essex and the King had both made their winter quarters in strong defensive positions. Essex’s headquarters were at Windsor castle, and the King was at Oxford, safely situated between two rivers. If either army advanced it would need heavy artillery if the other wouldn’t come out and fight in the open. Since advancing, especially with an artillery train, was very difficult it made sense for both armies to stay in their winter quarters and prepare for the next year, which is what they did. It’s also possible that Essex’s army was suffering from desertion and shortages of money and horses (although the jury is still out on Parliament’s financial situation after Edgehill), but even without that there was no good reason to expect the army to advance in the middle of winter.

On 5 December 1642 Henry Marten (MP for Berkshire and a well-known radical extremist) made a speech in the House of Commons which criticized the Earl of Essex, commander of Parliament’s main army, which was in winter quarters at Windsor. But what did he say? Several books in my collection mention the incident but they don’t always say the same thing.

Here are the references and quotes. References in square brackets are the sources cited by the author:

J. H. Hexter, The Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, MA, 1941), p. 110 [British Library, Harleian manuscript 164, f. 243]:

The cry without the walls found echoes in the House of Commons, as some of the fiery spirits began to cry down the Lord General. Martin attacked him openly, contrasting the military successes in the north and west with the Earl’s immobility near London in December. “It is summer in Devonshire, summer in Yorkshire and only winter at Windsor,” where the general was in quarters. Hoyle seconded Martin hinting that Essex’s slowness and carelessness would ruin the kingdom. Suspicions of the Earl’s integrity, groundless as they were, “had already taken birth”…

Vernon F. Snow, Essex the Rebel: the Life of Robert Devereux, the Third Earl of Essex 1591-1646 (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1970), p. 349 [Hexter, King Pym, p. 110]:

The war party in the Lower House and London disapproved of Essex’s reluctance to take the initiative and give battle. Radical Henry Marten disparaged Essex when he asserted, “It is summer in Devonshire, summer in Yorkshire and cold winter in Windsor.”

Ivor Waters, Henry Marten and the Long Parliament (Chepstow, 1976), p. 17 [nothing]:

Essex delayed in Windsor, and on December 5th. Henry Marten stood up in the House to describe the royalist victories all over England and attack the dilatory Captain-General who, he alleged, “would have it was summer in Devonshire, summer in Yorkshire, and early winter at Windsor”.

Sarah Barber, A Revolutionary Rogue: Henry Marten and the English Republic (Stroud, 2000): doesn’t mention the incident at all, which is kind of strange for a biography of Henry Marten.

Ian Gentles, The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms, 1638-1652 (London, 2007), p. 159 [BL Harl. 164, f. 243]:

The almost unrelieved gloom induced by these despatches from the north, south and south-west prompted the hard-line war party member Henry Marten, ‘whose custom it was to bark at everybody’, to voice the first public dissatisfaction with the Earl of Essex’s leadership. Referring to his stationary presence at Windsor Marten declared rhetorically ‘that all these miseries proceeded from his slowness… It was summer in Devonshire, summer in Yorkshire and only winter at Windsor; and therefore desired that we might speedily send to the Lord General to move forward.’

Harleian manuscript 164 is the diary of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, MP for Sudbury in Suffolk. He usually took a moderate conservative position and opposed anything to do with fighting the civil war. This is my transcript of the relevant passage:

Mr Henry Marten stood upp whose custome it was to barke at everie bodie & fell upon the Earle of Essex Lord generall being at windsor: saying, that all these miseries proceeded from his slownes, that wee saw it was summer in Devonshire, summer in yorkeshire & onlie winter at Windsor; & therefore desired that wee might speedelie send to the Lord General to move forward. Alderman Hoile of yorke seconded him; & saied that unless the saied Lord Generall used more care & speed the kingdome would be ruined: but S[i]r Gilbert Gerrard & others excused him that what hee did was by advise of a councell of warre & soe the matter was laied aside for the present

So Ian Gentles wins for quoting D’Ewes most accurately. The way Hexter put the phrase in speech marks and changed the tense of the verb made it look like a direct quote of Marten’s actual words when it wasn’t. Snow followed Hexter but changed ‘only winter’ (which was correct) to ‘cold winter’ for no apparent reason. Waters changed it again to ‘early winter’ (or were these typesetting errors that were missed at the proof stage?). We can correct these errors by comparing with what D’Ewes wrote, but we still don’t have direct access to the words Marten actually used. Other sources don’t help with this.

The incident is also mentioned in the diary of Lawrence Whitaker, MP for Okehampton in Devon (British Library, Add. 31116, f. 14v). After recording reports of atrocities committed by the Cornish army, he wrote:

It was Ordered [tha]t these Relac[i]ons should be sent to [th]e Lo[rd] Gen[er]all, & to desire him to Consider whether it were not high time for [th]e Army to move, w[hi]ch now was, & for a fortnight had beene lying still at Windsor

The Commons Journal never records speeches so there’s no trace there. According to my notes, Walter Yonge’s diary (BL, Add. 18777, f. 81v.) doesn’t add much to the Commons Journal, although his writing is extremely difficult to read (I’m usually good at palaeography, but everyone has their limits).

Every historian I’ve looked at prefers D’Ewes’s account, which is understandable because he gives more detail than Whitaker. But they all omit one part: according to D’Ewes, Essex was defended by his ally Sir Gilbert Gerard. Leaving this out gives the impression that Essex was more unpopular than he actually was. He had friends as well as enemies. Hexter and Snow were generally sympathetic to Essex, and the quote from Hexter above asserts that the aspersions were ‘groundless’, but they both left out some evidence that would have supported their views. As Gentles points out, this was the first time that Essex’s competence had been questioned by someone on the parliamentary side. At this time it was still quite unusual.

Overall this isn’t a very important point but it shows that if something is in quote marks in a peer reviewed publication that doesn’t guarantee that it’s an accurate quote, and if it is an accurate rendition of the quoted text, there might be something interesting next to it in the source that it came from. Footnotes (or other methods of citing sources) don’t automatically give a claim authority, but they make it possible to check. That’s why they’re important.

1. Richard Cust and Ann Hughes, eds., The English Civil War (London, 1997).
2. Ian Gentles, Oliver Cromwell: God’s Warrior and the English Revolution (Basingstoke, 2011).
3. Clive Holmes, The Eastern Association in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1974).
4. Clive Holmes, Why was Charles I executed?, (London, 2006).
5. Mary Leys, Catholics in England, 1559-1829: A social history, (London, 1961).
6. J. S. Morrill, The Nature of the English Revolution (London, 1993).
7. Diane Purkiss, Literature, gender and politics during the English Civil War (Cambridge, 2005).

I’m so looking forward to being able to buy and read a book that has absolutely nothing to do with the book I’m writing. Will it ever happen? I’m also trying to write as little as possible about Cromwell because there’s way too much literature to deal with.

Anyway, no more blogging for me until at least September as the book deadline is coming up and I’m getting too busy for anything else.

A couple of weeks ago I posted about a building (or buildings) called the White Bear in Cornhill, London. This post is about one of the people who lived and worked there. It starts with the same entry in the list of horses contributed to the Earl of Essex’s army (TNA: PRO SP 28/131 part 3 f. 55r, 16 August 1642):

Valentine Stuckly of the white Beare in Cornwall vint[ner] listed one browne bay geldinge, his rider John Courtnye armed wth Carabine a Case of pistolls a buffe Coate and a sword valued in all at £21

I’ve found that his name was spelled lots of different ways, but he seems to have preferred Valentine Stuckey. This narrative of his life is still hypothetical because the record linkage isn’t absolutely certain. I might well have conflated details of two or more men with the same name, but what I’ve written seems probable, and at the very least it makes a good story.

Let’s start in the parish of St Clement Danes in the western suburbs of London. The parish registers record these events (I’ve taken all baptisms, marriages and burials from IGI unless otherwise stated):

• 27 Feb 1602: Androw Stucky married Elsabeth Boyse
• 24 Sep 1609: Vallantyne Stukye son of Androw Stukye baptised
• 18 Nov 1610: Androw Stukye son of Androw Stukye baptised
• 15 Oct 1617: John Stucky son of Andrew Stucky baptised

That could be our man baptised in 1609. Of course it might not be, but the case gets stronger as it goes along. Next there’s a marriage licence:

May 26 1637 Valentine Stuckey, of St Michael’s, Cornhill, Linen Draper, Bachelor, 27, and Anne Cowrtman, of St Bennet’s Gracechurch, Spinster, 21, daughter of Andrew Cowrtman, of the same, Linen Draper, who consents; at St Leonard’s, Bromley, Middlesex

He’s the right age to have been baptised in 1609, and he lives in St Michael Cornhill, so it’s looking good. The only problem is he’s a linen draper, not a vintner, but that’s not necessarily a problem at all. George Willingham was described in the horse list as a painter stainer, but that was his livery company and he was actually trading as a merchant.

Luckily the parish registers of St Michael Cornhill were published in print in the nineteenth centur and are now on the internet archive, so I don’t have to rely on IGI for this bit.

• p. 127, bap 8 May 1638: ‘Wallentin Stupke [Valentine Stuckey], son of Wallentin Stvpke [Valentine Stuckey] & Anne his wife’
• p. 129, bap 26 July 1639: ‘Edward Stukee [Stuckey], son of Wallentine Stvkee [Valentine Stuckey]& Anne his wife’
• p. 130, bap 6 Aug 1640: ‘Elsabeth Stokke [Stuckey], dau. of Wallintine Stokke [Valentine Stuckey] & Anne his wife’
• p. 237, bur 28 Dec 1640: ‘Edward Stukee, son of Walletine Stukee [Valentine Stuckey] & Anne his wife’
• p. 131, bap 13 Sep 1641: ‘Anddro Stokkee [Andrew Stuckey], son of Waulertin Stokkee [Valentine Stuckey] & Anne his wife’
• p. 132, bap 2 Sep 1642: ‘Ann Stkke [Stuckey], dau. of Waulintine Stkke [Valentine Stuckey] & Ann his wife’

So they lived in St Michael Cornhill for a few years, including the date covered by the horse list, and had at least five children, at least one of whom died in infancy. Note the variety of weird spellings. If the nineteenth-century editor hadn’t added regular versions I probably wouldn’t have found this information so easily, or at all.

On 16 April 1649 a Vallentine Stuckye married Mary Charlewood at St Clement Danes. Valentine junior who was baptised in 1638 is still much too young to be getting married so I’m assuming this is his father’s second marriage. It would help if I knew whether this groom was a bachelor or widower. This is the kind of crucial information that’s often entered in original parish registers but routinely missing from IGI. The other problem is that I can’t find a burial for Anne anywhere. She definitely wasn’t buried in St Michael Cornhill, but it’s hard to be sure about other parishes because IGI seems to have particularly poor coverage for burials. But my hypothesis is supported by a couple of other entries for St Michael Cornhill:

• p. 137, bap 6 July 1650: ‘Daniell, son of Valentine Stuckey & Marye his wife’
• p. 243, bur 8 July 1650: ‘Daniell, son of Valentine Stuckey & Marye his wife’

The fact that the baby was called Daniel could have some significance later…

In 1652 some forfeited land of the Earl of Derby at Isleworth was given to a Valentine Stuckey (Lancashire Record Office). On 17 September 1662 Samuel Pepys mentioned meeting ‘Mr. Stucky, of the Wardrobe’.

Meanwhile the surviving children from Valentine’s first marriage were growing up. Here’s another marriage licence:

March 13 [1664] John Johnson, of St Martin’s in the Fields, Middlesex, Carpenter, Bachelor, about 23, & Anne Stuckey, Spinster, about 22, daughter of Valentine Stuckey, of St Anne Blackfriars linen draper, who consents; at St Benedict Pauls Wharf

This pretty much has to be the Anne who was baptised in 1642. It also shows that Valentine had moved away from Cornhill by 1664.

Now let’s move on to Mary’s family. Daniel Charlwood, a gentleman of Egham in Surrey, made his will on 31 August 1671, and it was proved on 12 April 1672 (I haven’t transcribed this one yet, and the PDF has a page missing, but it does contain the information I needed). He left huge tracts of land to his grandson Charlwood Lawton and his daughter Mary Stuckey. This makes it very likely that she’s the Mary Charlewood who married Valentine in 1649. There were also bequests to Mary’s daughters, Jane and Hannah. The link with Egham is an important lead. Charllwood Stuckey, son of Valentine and Mary Stuckey, was baptised there on 17 February 1672. There seems to be a family tradition of the daughters keeping the surname going by turning it into a christian name.

Valentine made his own will on 20 September 1687 and it was proved on 8 March 1688. He didn’t give an address but described himself as ‘Cittizen and Vintner of London’, which is clearly referring to his company membership. He made his wife Mary sole executor and residual legatee. The will also mentions these people:

• sons:
  • John Stuckey
  • Charlewood Stuckey
• daughters:
  • Jane Berenger
  • Hannah Stuckey
• relationship not stated:
  • Elizabeth Daintry
  • Anne Johnson
  • Susan Noggins

I haven’t found any other record of John, but Jane and Hannah tie in with Daniel Charlwood’s will, and Charlewood Stuckey was born after it was made. Anne Johnson is probably the daughter from Valentine’s first marriage who was married in 1664. Elizabeth could be the daughter who was baptised in 1640, but I’m not sure. Susan Noggins is a complete mystery. Valentine junior must have been dead by this time, and I’ve found no record of him after his baptism (unless I’m wrong about the record linkage and this is actually his will, but I don’t think that’s likely because he was too young to marry Mary Charlewood).

The really interesting things about the will is the revelation that Valentine was owed £5,700 by Charles II. At first I thought he must have been fabulously wealthy, but actually he had already assigned £3,800 of it to his own creditors which suggests that his financial situation wasn’t too good. He carefully divided the remainder among his family, but did they have any hope of getting it?

Mary Stuckey made her will on 26 November 1688, when she was living in St Martin in the Fields, and it was proved on 3 January 1689. She didn’t mention the royal debt but named her children as Charlewood Stuckey, Hannah Stuckey and Jane Berenger, married to Simon Berenger. She left lands in Egham and in Middlesex. Charlewood was made executor but as he was a minor, Gilbert Wharton was appointed as overseer. Hanna Stuckey married John Wharton on 4 February 1689 at Saint Bride Fleet Street. There’s a will from 1692 for Gilbert Wharton, apothecary of St Paul Covent Garden, which mentions a son called John.

That’s not the end of the story, because the Calendar of Treasury Books shows that Charles II’s debt continued to cause trouble for the next generation of the family. Charlwood Stuckey petitioned the Lord High Treasurer on 23 December 1702 asking for payment, but nothing much seems to have happened. In 1714 there was another petition from ‘Charlewood Stuckey, son of Valentine Stuckey, linen draper to Charles II, praying employment in the Queen’s service on the merit of a debt of 20,074l. 14s. 3d. to his father stated in the Wardrobe and in view of the necessity of selling an estate of 400l. per an. to pay his father’s debts’. Charlewood died without being paid, and in September 1723 his widow Sarah sent in another petition, which was rejected. Charlewood and Sarah had at least two children (again with some weird spellings in the parish register):

• Elizabeth Steeckley daughter of Cheriwood and Sarah Steeckley born 27 Apr 1705 and baptised 15 May 1705 at St. James, Westminster
• Charlwood Stuckey son of Charlwood Stuckey baptised 13 May 1708 St Luke Chelsea

So that’s as much as I know about the long life of Valentine Stuckey. There’s a kind of symmetry here: by contributing to Parliament’s army in 1642 he helped to bring down Charles I, but in turn he was ruined by Charles II.

From now until 30 August Cambridge University Press is offering free access to all articles published in its journals in 2009 and 2010, and you don’t even have to sign up for an account. That includes Historical Journal as well as lots of other titles in history and other disciplines. These are a few picks for English Civil War enthusiasts:

• Aaron Graham, ‘Finance, localism and military representation in the army of the Earl of Essex (June-December 1642)‘
• Tom Crawshaw, ‘Military finance and the Earl of Essex’s infantry in 1642 – a reinterpretation‘
• Elliot Vernon and Phil Baker, ‘What was the first agreement of the people?‘

Coming tomorrow: the promised biography of Valentine Stuckley/Stuckey.

Nick Poyntz is right about the serendipity of digital searches. This weekend chasing up a fairly minor point for my book took me on a web search adventure with lots of interesting tangents. It all started with an entry in the lists of people who contributed horses to the Earl of Essex’s army, dated 16 August 1642 (TNA: PRO SP 28/131 part 3 f. 55r):

Valentine Stuckly of the white Beare in Cornwall vint[ner] listed one browne bay geldinge, his rider John Courtnye armed wth Carabine a Case of pistolls a buffe Coate and a sword valued in all at £21

I’ve always assumed that it means Cornhill in London, not the county of Cornwall, but some proof would be nice. These days names like the White Bear are associated with pubs, but in the seventeenth century pretty much any kind of business premises could be identified with a sign like this. Kathleen M. O’Brien has compiled a list of sign names from seventeenth century tradesmen’s tokens, including ones which combine a colour and an animal. The list mentions three White Bears, but not in Cornhill. It seems to be a very common name: the horse lists also include White Bears in Bread Street, Fenchurch Street, Distaff Lane and Lombard Street. The one in Lombard Street apparently later became the famous Lloyd’s coffee house.

The earliest record I can find of a White Bear in Cornhill is in the early 1620s, when the printer Thomas Jenner was based there (and he sometimes spelt it Cornewall). By 1624 he had moved to the Royal Exchange, at the west end of Cornhill on the north side of the street. The exchange was destroyed by fire in 1666 and 1838 but the current version was rebuilt on the same site and with the same layout. Jenner still sometimes called his new premises the White Bear, or sometimes just gave his address as the ‘South Entrance of the Royal Exchange’ (perhaps it was on the very spot where Agent Provocateur now stands). Jenner stayed at the exchange until his death in 1673, after which John Garrett took over the business and premises.

The idea that Jenner moved out of the original White Bear could be supported by an Ordinance of Parliament passed in 1649, which lists property confiscated from the dean and chapter of Westminster Abbey. Under Birchin Lane in the parish of St Michael Cornhill it lists:

George Dawson, for the White Bear, Two shillings six pence.

Birchen Lane runs from Lombard street in the south to Cornhill in the north, coming out just to the east of the exchange. Even if this building wasn’t actually on the street called Cornhill, it was in the parish of St Michael Cornhill and in Cornhill ward, so could plausibly be described as ‘the White Bear in Cornhill’. And as I found with George Willingham, early-modern London addresses could be quite fuzzy. The entrance of the exchange would probably have been a more desirable location, which could explain why Thomas Jenner would want to move his business around the corner.

Samuel Pepys wrote in his diary for Saturday 8 October 1664, ‘after dinner abroad, and among other things contracted with one Mr. Bridges, at the White Bear on Cornhill, for 100 pieces of Callico to make flaggs’. From internal evidence it’s not clear whether Bridges had his premises there or whether they met in a tavern to discuss the deal, but it doesn’t seem to be Thomas Jenner’s print shop. Specifying ‘on Cornhill’ could imply that it’s not the same as the White Bear in Birchen Lane (unless it was on the corner), or it could be referring to the actual hill rather than the street named after it.

A collection of documents in the Buckingamshire archives includes a marriage settlement from 1781 which mentions the ‘Pensilvania and Carolina Coffee House (formerly the White Bear) in Birchin Lane, Cornhill, London’.

That’s all I’ve found so far. There could be up to three buildings called the White Bear in the same parish at the same time, and there was almost certainly one other than Jenner’s new address at the exchange. If only they’d had geocoding in the seventeenth century…

Coming soon: a brief biography of Valentine Stuckly, which will raise as many questions as it answers. Also on Sunday 10 July I’ll be posting an interview with Andrew Hickey about his experiences with self-publishing.

[Just had an exhausting week in the archives but I found this old half-finished post on my hard drive:]

This week [actually last November] I’ve been reading Wallington’s World by Paul Seaver (probably no relation to the unknown stuntman). It’s all about Nehemiah Wallington (not to be confused with Nehemiah Wharton), a mid-seventeenth-century London wood turner who wrote lots of notebooks, some of which have survived. The notebooks are mostly about Wallington’s puritan faith, but they also include lots of incidental details of his life and family. Seaver analysed the surviving books to see what they could tell us about London tradesmen, puritanism and the English Civil War. Today his approach looks quite dated, but maybe that’s not surprising for a book published in 1985. In the introduction there’s a lot about “inward thoughts” and Wallington’s “mental world”. Although there’s no direct mention of Collingwood, his idealism seems to be a big influence on Seaver’s assumptions: that historians can and should find out what people in the past “really” thought. Stephen Greenblatt’s Renaissance Self-Fashioning had already been published five years earlier, but I don’t think it was required reading for historians at this time. Greenblatt discussed the difference between inward and outward selves, but also argued that the very idea of the authentic inner man was constructed through writing. Even writing a private diary is an external act which doesn’t necessarily give us access to the author’s mind. Dan Todman pointed out in The Great War: Myth and Memory that a person’s memories can change every time they’re rehearsed. Therefore the act of writing down our experiences can influence our memories of them rather than just neutrally recording them.

In my forthcoming book I’m trying to get away from worrying about what people “really” thought by concentrating almost entirely on external actions (which includes speech and writing). I’m using horses as a case study to show how material objects and actions could be used to construct parliamentarian identities, arguing that it was actions which made the civil wars happen and that opinions without actions aren’t all that important, even if we could find out about them. Wallington makes an interesting case study here because his writings are all about the theory and practice of puritanism. By traditional definitions he was “a Puritan”. But he doesn’t seem to have done very much to help the parliamentary war effort other than paying his taxes. This was partly because he didn’t have much spare money and partly because he seems to have lacked the confidence and social skills to play an active role, but his writings don’t tend to advocate violent revolution. His puritanism seems to have been orthodox, conservative and introspective. While he criticized the cavaliers, he wrote that parliamentary armies were just as bad, and used phrases like “this uncivil war” and “world turned upside down”. His use of the latter phrase and his criticism of Independents and sectaries are surprisingly similar to John Taylor, whose writings were often conservative and favourable to the King. As Nick at Mercurius Politicus points out, trying to classify writers as royalist or parliamentarian can be tricky and counter-productive. Wallington’s writings also suggest that puritanism wasn’t a straightforward cause of the English Civil War. Although Wallington eventually represented himself as assured of elect status, he never represented himself as God’s instrument in the way that Oliver Cromwell did. He took an obsessive interest in God’s punishment of sinners, but apart from a few passive-aggressive letters to his neighbours he didn’t take much direct action against sinners himself. Wallington’s notebooks make quite a contrast with militant preacher Stephen Marshall’s bloodthirsty sermon Meroz Cursed, in which he insisted that everyone had to fight against the enemies of the true church or be cursed.

[Apparently I was going to write something about gender and sexuality here but I can't remember what. Half my readers will be disappointed and the other half will be relieved!]

Party on, Nehemiah…

1. S. Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-fashioning: From More to Shakespeare, New edition. (2005).
2. Stephen Marshall, Meroz cursed, or, A sermon preached to the honourable House of Commons, at their late solemn fast, Febr. 23, 1641 by Stephen Marshall … (London, 1642).
3. Paul S Seaver, Wallington’s World: A Puritan Artisan in Seventeenth-century London (London, 1985).
4. Dan Todman, The Great War: Myth and Memory (London, 2007).

I’ve just started to appreciate another advantage of taking digital photos of documents in the National Archives (a.k.a. PRO): comparing original signatures. That’s not exactly a revolutionary discovery, but I actually used it this week and it was quite exciting. I’ve mentioned John Gower before in posts about my work on saddlers. I had two collections of facts which I thought probably refer to the same person, but I hadn’t conclusively proved it.

The archives of the London Saddler’s Company show that a John Gower was a freeman of the company, and was admitted to the livery in 1640. The will of John Gower, citizen and saddler of London, was written on 18 October 1644 and proved by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury on 9 May 1645. This will mentions that John’s wife was called Jane, and that they lived in the parish of Saint Katherine Creechurch. Jane Gower went on to sell saddles to the New Model Army in 1645.

Financial records of the Essex county committee and the committee of the Eastern Association at Cambridge show that they bought lots of saddles from a John Gower. He is sometimes described as Captain Gower, and in at least one case money was received on his behalf by his ensign. It’s quite likely that this is the same Gower who commanded a company in the Earl of Manchester’s foot regiment.

On the balance of probabilities and assumed that these records all related to the same man but I wasn’t absolutely certain. This week I was sorting out some photos from my last research trip, including warrants issued by the Essex committee (SP 28/227). I noticed that John Gower had signed receipts on some of them. I already had photos of his original will (PROB 10/648) so it was easy to compare them.

This is a receipt for money for saddles bought by the Essex committee:

And this is part of the will:

They look pretty similar to me so now I’m fairly certain that it is the same man. The signature on the will looks very shaky, presumably because he was terminally ill when he wrote it.

As well as the practical benefits of record linkage, this is also a way of connecting with the reality of the past. If the same signature appears on two different documents belonging to different organisations and created at different times, the most parsimonious explanation is that John Gower was a real person who signed the documents in the course of his life. His home must have been destroyed in the great fire, if not before or after, and as far as I know none of the saddles that he made survives today. Saddlers Hall was destroyed by fire on more than one occasion, and nearly all of the company’s 17th century plate was sold or lost. These signatures are probably the only remaining physical traces of John Gower.

1. Daniel C. Beaver, Hunting and the Politics of Violence before the English Civil War, 1st ed. (2008).
2. Douglas Brunton and Donald H. Pennington, Members of the Long Parliament (Hamden, Conn., 1968).
3. Ben Coates, The Impact of the English Civil War on the Economy of London, 1642-50 (Ashgate, 2004).
4. Derek Hirst, The Representative of the People?: Voters and Voting in England Under the Early Stuarts (Cambridge, 1975).
5. William Hunt, The Puritan Moment: The Coming of Revolution in an English County, Harvard historical studies (Cambridge, Mass, 1983).
6. Mary Frear Keeler, The Long Parliament 1640-1641, a Biographical Study of its members (Philadelphia, 1954).
7. Brian Manning, The English People and the English Revolution, 1640-1649 (London, 1976).
8. Jason Peacey, Politicans and pamphleteers : propaganda during the English civil wars and interregnum (Aldershot, 2004).

I’ve already looked at a couple of these before but owning copies will be more convenient. Don’t want to gloat too much, but having a 35% discount on Ashgate books is nice. Brunton and Pennington has a really condescending quote from R. H. Tawney on the front! Also acquired some documents from the Essex Record Office thanks to their detailed online catalogue and efficient reprographics service, and for much less than a train ticket to Chelmsford (but I guess I won’t get to meet Aulus or Badvoc…).

Nehemiah Wharton was a servant from London who joined the Earl of Essex’s army at the start of the English Civil War. From August to October 1642 he sent a series of letters addressed to his master, George Willingham, a merchant at the Golden Anchor in St Swithin’s Lane. These letters have survived (although how they ended up in the State Papers is anyone’s guess) and were published in the 19th century (no free online version available, but the British Library has published a reprint as part of their digitization project). I’ve been looking at them for evidence of horses and social status. Wharton mentions another of Willingham’s servants, usually referred to as Davy (or Barry in one place, but I’ve assumed it’s the same man), who was serving in the army with a horse. The letters don’t give any further details of the man and horse, but it seems likely that Willingham had voluntarily contributed a cavalry horse under the scheme known as the Propositions and sent his servant to ride it. The UK National Archives have an account book of cavalry horses listed on the Propositions (SP 28/131 part 3), and as it’s a very important source for my work on horses, I’ve made a transcript of it. There is an entry for George Willingham, on 15 July 1642 (folio 19):

George Willingham of Londonstone painter stainer entred one gray horse, his rider David Avyes armed wth a Carbine, a case of pistolls a buffe coate and a sword all valued by the Commissaryes at 27 – 00 – 00

This is close but there are a couple of potential problems because the address and occupation don’t quite match. This doesn’t rule him out completely. London stone was just around the corner from St Swithin’s Lane in Cannon Street, so they could be referring to the same place (see the Agas map). Although London citizens tended to be identified by occupations, their trades could change, and the company through which they were admitted to the freedom of the city didn’t necessarily have anything to do with the trade they were pursuing. George Willingham could be a freeman of the Painter Stainers Company and trading as a merchant. What we need is another source to confirm or deny the link between Wharton’s letters and the Propositions list.

British History Online has a published list of London citizens from 1638, but it doesn’t cover St Swithin’s parish, which is where St Swithin’s Lane and London stone were. But the National Archives do have a will for a George Willingham, Painter Stainer of Saint Swithin, City of London, proved in 1651. That looked very promising, so I downloaded it (if I’d known I was going to need this last time I was at Kew I could’ve printed out there and saved £3.10). I’ve put a transcript of the whole thing on the Your Archives wiki. In the will, Willingham describes himself as “Cittizen and Paynter stayner of London”, so he was free of the Painter Stainers Company, but not necessarily following that trade. He mentions having children called John, Samuel, Ebenezer, Hannah and an unnamed daughter married to John Colyer. Wharton mentions Elizabeth, Anne, John, and Samuel in his letters, which roughly coincides with the children in the will. According to IGI, George Willingham married Anne Eaton at St Dunstan, Stepney, on 21 September 1624. They had these children baptised at St Swithin’s London Stone:

• John Willingham, 28 February 1629

• Ana Willingham, 24 June 1627
• Ebenezer Willingham,11 October 1642

Therefore Ebenezer wasn’t mentioned in Wharton’s letters because he hadn’t been born yet (the last letter is dated 7 October 1642). I can’t find a baptism for Samuel, but IGI isn’t complete. Given the wild variations in 17th century spelling, Ana and Hannah are probably the same person. The will also includes a bequest to “Mr Abraham Moline my deere and approved freind”, who could be the Mr Molloyne mentioned in Wharton’s letters.

The details in the will are enough to link the letters to the Propositions list and resolve the ambiguities. On the balance of probabilities, all three documents relate to the same person. Without the will it would be hard to link the other two documents together and reconcile the differences between them. This all adds up to proof that David Avyes was a servant and that his horse and arms were supplied by his master. (It doesn’t prove that he was decayed, or that royalist cavalry were any different. See my post about Cromwell and Balfour for some problems with the “decayed serving men and tapsters” myth.) Willingham must have been very rich. He bequeathed £700 to each of his three sons and left the residue of his estate to his daughter Hannah, explicitly stating that he intended her to have at least as much as the boys. That kind of wealth is consistent with trading as a merchant. He could easily afford to give away a horse and arms worth £27. The value of his contribution and the early date (July was a long time before contributions became compulsory) suggests that he was quite enthusiastic about the parliamentary cause. His will has some strong hints of puritanism. He asked for his body to be “decently buried without pompe and ringeing”, and bequeathed a book of sermons and a confession of his faith to his daughter. There’s no mention of any servants in the will, so it doesn’t help to solve the mystery of what happened to Nehemiah Wharton. Since his letters stopped in October 1642 he could have been killed at the battle of Edgehill, but as far as I know there isn’t any definite proof.