Tag Archives: Civil War

St Mary’s and the Putney Debates of 1647

In the middle of the 17th century, Putney was a small village to the west of London with a population of around 900. A bridge had not yet been built across the Thames, but a regular ferry did provide a means of crossing between Fulham and Putney. Close to the river and ferry crossing was a church, the parish church of St. Mary’s, and in 1647 the church was the location of one of the many key events of the Civil War.

Rather than the violence of battle, St. Mary’s was the location of a debate, between members of the Army Council and representatives from within the Regiments of the New Model Army. A debate that became known as the Putney Debates, an event that would probably have been a footnote in the history of the mid-17th century, had it not been for the actions of one man in writing down the first three days of the debates, and a chance find of this record almost 250 years later.

St. Mary’s Putney in March 2026:

A church has been here since at least the 13th century, when there was a written mention of the church in 1292, and the location follows the historic trend of locating churches next to key crossing points.

You can see this around the City of London, with the number of churches located next to the old gates of the City wall such as St. Giles Cripplegate and St Botolph Without Aldgate, as well as river crossings where St Andrew, Holborn is alongside what was the approach from the west, to the crossing of the River Fleet.

The following map shows St. Mary’s (red circle) adjacent to the current bridge (the second bridge at the site, and also close to the earlier ferry crossing), with a second church in a similar position on the opposite bank of the river; All Saints Fulham (dark blue circle) (© OpenStreetMap contributors):

By 1647, the Civil War appeared to be over, with the New Model Army’s victory at the Battle of Naseby in June 1645, the Siege of Oxford in April 1646, with Charles I managing to escape and joining a Scottish Army, who handed Charles I back to Parliament in January 1647 in exchange for an initial £100,000.

The first half of the 17th century was a time of radicalism, religious dissenters, new ideas and thought about the role of Parliament, the Monarchy, individual liberty, religious toleration etc. and many of these streams came to a head by 1647.

There were Levellers (whose views included religious tolerance and equality of all before the law), and Fifth Monarchist Men, a stream of Protestants who believed that the Kingdom of God would arrive at the end of four earlier kingdoms, the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman kingdoms, with the execution of Charles I signalling the end of the Roman kingdom.

There were those who wanted Charles I to be brought to trial, and there were those (including Cromwell), who wanted an agreement that was more compatible with the King, where he would continue to have a role, although much reduced.

Charles I was being held captive at Hampton Court and there were many discussions about what to do with him. Cromwell was communicating with the King to try and find a way forward, but this led to complaints from the Army that Cromwell was more in favour of Charles I than his own soldiers.

Parliament was also concerned about the continued existence of the New Model Army. The army would require continued funding, and could also become a threat to Parliament, as the army was a more radical organisation.

Regiments within the Army included agitators who would spread and campaign for radical causes. Many of these were aligned with prominent radicals in the City of London.

In October 1647, agitators within five cavalry regiments of the New Model Army published “The Case of the Armie Truly Stated”. The document criticised senior officers within the Army (including Cromwell), for negotiating with Charles I, and also demanded what at the time were radical causes; democracy, equality before the law, extension of the vote, and for soldiers to receive the pay that was owed to them.

A sense of the contents of the document can be gained from the title and opening paragraph:

“The case of the Armie truly stated,: together with the mischiefes and dangers that are imminent, and some suitable remedies, humbly proposed by the agents of five regiments of horse, to their respective regiments, and the whole Army. As it was presented by Mr. Edmond Bear, and Mr. William Russell, October 15. 1647. unto his Excellency, Sir Thomas Fairfax. Enclosed in a letter from the said agents : also his Excellencies honourable answer thereunto.

Whereas the grievances, dissatisfactions, and desires of the Army, both as Commoners and Soldiers, hath been many months since represented to the Parliament; and the Army hath waited with much patience, to see their common grievances redressed and the rights and freedomes of the Nation cleared and secured; yet, upon a most serious and conscientious view of our Narratives, Representations, Ingagement, Declarations, Remonstrances, and comparing with those the present state of the Army and Kingdome, and the present manner of actings of many at the Head Quarters, we not only apprehend nothing to have been done effectually, either for the Army or the poore oppressed people of the nation, but we also conceive, that there is little probabillitie of any good, without some more speedy and vigorous actings.”

A large contingent of the Army were based around Putney, and the church had already been used for meetings. Churches were good for meetings because they offered a large space, and were also a religious building, and prayer was often a key part of meetings and debates held by members of the Army and the radicals.

Today, access to St. Mary’s is via the new building to the side, which has a café on the ground floor. Walking through the café and turning left into the church provides the following view:

On walking into the church, was I looking at the same church that Oliver Cromwell would have seen back in 1647?

Unfortunately not. The church was enlarged and substantially rebuilt in 1836, and in 1973 an arson attack destroyed much of the church, requiring a significant rebuild, which was completed nine years later when the church was re-hallowed on the 6th of February 1982.

Although it is a very different church, it is still the place where the debates where held, and a place where Oliver Cromwell, senior officers and members of the New Model Army, religious and political radicals, argued and debated on the future direction Parliament and the country, religious freedoms and the fate of the King.

Inside the church, looking back towards the café entrance:

One of those involved in the debates was Colonel Thomas Rainsborough.

Rainsborough was born in Wapping in 1610, the eldest son of William Rainsborough who was a member of the Levant Company, who gained their charter from Elizabeth I in 1592, with the right to trade with the Ottoman Empire, and neighbouring states in the eastern Mediterranean.

Thomas Rainsborough would also become a member.

At the start of the Civil War, Rainsborough was appointed Captain of one of the ships of the Navy. The Navy had sided with Parliament, and during the Civil War, the Navy’s main roles were supporting coastal towns and cutting off supply routes to Royalist forces, and one of his successes during this period was the capture of a ship carrying supplies and reinforcements to the King.

He transferred to the Army and in May 1645 became a Colonel in the New Model Army and was part of a number of battles and sieges, including the siege of Oxford, the base of Charles I which surrendered in June 1646, and the siege of Worcester, which surrendered the following month.

Rainsborough was a supporter of the Levellers, and also opposed negotiations with the king. In the Putney Debates he was frequently in opposition to the views of Oliver Cromwell and Henry Irelton, a Major-General in the New Model Army, supporter of Cromwell, and who was married to Bridget Cromwell, Oliver Cromwell’s eldest daughter.

A quote from one of Rainsborough’s arguments at the Putney Debates is above the entrance to the church from the café, as can be seen in the above photo, with a close up shown below:

The phrase (in bold) is from the following part of one of Rainsborough’s arguments:

“I desired that those that had engaged in it [might be included]. For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it’s clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under; and I am confident that, when I have heard the reasons against it, something will be said to answer those reasons, insomuch that I should doubt whether he was an Englishman or no, that should doubt of these things.”

A very clear argument for equality and democracy, and good to see these words from Thomas Rainsborough are on display in the church where the debates took place, with the caveat that it was a view of equality and democracy in the mid 17th century.

There was no argument for equality of men and women, or for women to be able to vote on who represented them in Parliament, and the debates also included arguments for how far democracy should go, for example that the poor and servants should be excluded. As representatives of the army, there was general agreement that soldiers should be given the vote.

Whilst we should not compare the middle of 17th century with today, the Putney Debates were a step in the right direction.

The interior of the church today – a very different place to when Rainsborough was part of the Putney Debates, Cromwell was here, along with other senior members of the army and representatives and agitators from the regiments:

The church is Grade II* listed, and the following from the Historic England listing provides an idea of just how much the church was changed in 1836 and 1837:

“This involved alterations to the tower, widening the nave, the addition of expanded aisles in yellow stock brick and the addition or replacement of windows in the Perpendicular Gothic style. In addition, the galleries in the aisles and west end of the church which had originally been installed in the early part of the C17 were replaced, a single-storey vestry added in the south-east corner and the Bishop West chapel moved from the south to the north aisle.”

The rebuild after the 1973 arson attack further changed the church, as follows:

“As well as installing a new roof, Sims moved the altar and sanctuary to a central location on the north side of the nave, installed a glazed meeting room in the former chancel and added an organ loft in a gallery in front of the tower. The C19 pews were replaced with chairs.”

17th century benefactors to the parish are recorded in the church, and these included Elizabeth Offley, who in 1664 gave a regular sum of money to be distributed to the poor on St. Andrew’s Day, the sum was charged on the Union Brewhouse in Holborn, and was paid in at Drapers Hall, and in 1669, John Powell gave a sum of £10 per annum, charged on a public house in Westminster:

The following plaques in the church record the 1836 rebuild and enlargement of the church (top), and the lower plaque records the rebuild after the 1973 fire:

The fact that Thomas Rainsborough’s argument, as well as a record of the rest of the first three days of the Putney Debates survives is down to the original record, and a later discovery.

The Putney Debates were recorded by William Clarke, who probably had the help of a number of assistants with recording the live debates.

The Clarke Papers, published by the Camden Society in 1891 provide some background:

“William Clarke who was probably born about 1623, was admitted a student of the Inner Temple in 1645. When the New Model Army was organised, John Rushworth was appointed Secretary to the General and Council of War, with William Clarke and another assistant as subordinates. Clarke acted as secretary to the commissioners who negotiated the surrender of Oxford in June, 1646, and to those who tried to arrange terms between Parliament and the Army in July 1647. He seems to have taken part in the invasion of Scotland in July 1650, and from the autumn of 1651 to the Restoration was Secretary to to Army of Occupation in Scotland.

Not long after the Restoration, Clarke was knighted and, on 28th January 1661, appointed Secretary at War. Sir William Coventry described him to Pepys as one of the ‘sorry instruments’ by whom Monck was lucky enough to effect great things.

Clarke accompanied Monck to sea in 1666, and was mortally wounded in the battle with the Dutch off Harwich on the 2nd of June 1666. He was buried in the chancel of Harwich Church.”

Following Clarke’s death, his books and papers were left to his son George Clarke, who preserved the archive, and would go on to bequeath his father’s archive along with his own library to Worcester College, Oxford.

And there they remained until the later years of the 19th century when a young historian by the name of Charles Firth, who would later become the Regius Professor of History at Oxford University, found a set of manuscripts laying in a cupboard at Worcester College.

Firth edited the manuscripts for the Camden Society (now the Royal Historical Society), and they were published, almost 250 years after the original debates, with Clarke’s record of the arguments of radicals, agitators, the commanders of the New Model Army, and those with opposing views on the future of King Charles I.

Another view of the church, looking towards the organ loft above the door, which was part of the post 1973 fire restoration:

The views of many of the agitators influenced the Putney Debates, but they would grow as the Civil War ended, the Commonwealth was established after the end of the Second Civil War and the execution of Charles I resulted in the country becoming a Republic, with Cromwell being given the role of Lord Protector, with the considerable powers that the role included.

To show how agitators viewed the evolution of the Commonwealth and the role of Cromwell, we can look at the role of Edward Sexby, one of those at the Putney Debates.

Sexby served in Cromwell’s regiment at the start of the Civil War.

During his time in the army, he helped to spread Leveller ideas, and helped to set up the Council of Agitators, which brought together like minded representatives from across the army with a view to petition for soldiers rights.

Sexby was the main representative of the Leveller contingent at the Putney Debates, where he argued for the rights of all men, and strongly argued against Cromwell’s dealings with Charles I.

During the Commonwealth, Sexby viewed Cromwell’s role as Lord Protector as being against the principles on which the Civil War had been fought.

Sexby tried to organise with those he viewed would be against the Protectorate. He was nearly arrested in 1655, but escaped to Europe. He was involved with plots to assinate Oliver Cromwell, and also published a phamplhet titled “Killing no Murder”, in which he argued that the killing of a tyrant (as he viewed Cromwell), was justified.

The plots to assassinate Cromwell failed, and Sexby returned to England in 1657 to try and organise new conspiracies against Cromwell, however he was arrested, imprisoned and interrogated in the Tower of London, where he died in January 1658 of fever, before he could be brought to trial.

Part of the church that probably would still be recognised by those who attended the Putney Debates is Bishop West’s Chantry Chapel:

Bishop West was Nicholas West, who was born in Putney in 1461 to Katherine and Robert West who may have been a fishmonger.

He attended Eton College and Cambridge, became chaplain to Henry VII, was Dean of Westminster in 1510 and Bishop of Ely in 1515.

His legacy to the church in the village of his birth was the chapel, built at some point between the years 1515 and 1530.

The chapel was originally on the south side of the church, but as part of the 1836 rebuild and restorations, the chapel was moved to the north.

The arms of Bishop West, which include a Bishop’s Mitre and the Tudor Rose:

Looking along the north side of the church:

There are not that many monuments in the church, presumably the 1836 rebuilt and the 1973 fire resulted in the loss of many of these.

The monument to Sir Thomas Dawes (died 1655), and his wife Dame Ivdith Dawes (died 1657):

Sir Thomas Dawes was an important land owner in Putney, but lost most of his lands, and suffered imprisonment and heavy fines during the Civil War and Commonwealth.

The 17th century clerics heads are the only items remaining from the monument to Robert Gale who died in 1659:

Robert Gale was chaplian to the Countess of Devonshire, who was a supporter of the Royalist cause.

In her house at Roehampton, she arranged meetings with other Royalist supporters, and also wrote letters in code to Royalists in exile in Europe (Robert Gale was one of those who helped her with her letters), and on the restoration of the monarchy, Charles II was a visitor to Countess Devonshire at Roehampton.

A look towards the south of the church, with the entrance / exit to the café in the centre:

There is a small exhibition about the Putney debates in the alcove behind the two doors to the right of the above photo, and at the top of each column is the figure of an angel. There is no mention of these figures in the Historic England listing so I have no idea of their age:

A final view of the interior of the church, an unusual layout with the altar in the centre, towards the northern side of the church. I suspect that this layout would have been approved by many of those attending the debates. There were no alter rails around the alter, or any other form of separation with the congregation and the act of service would have been visible to all:

The main issue that the army command and the agitators within the regiments failed to agree on was how far across society should the ability to vote be granted.

The Leveller position put forward by the agitators was that all freeborn English men should be granted the vote, whilst the army command, including Cromwell, went only as far as land owners being given the vote.

A compromise was reached that all soldiers who served in the army and had fought for Parliament should be given the vote. Maintaining army discipline seems to have been the main reason why the army command agreed to this compromise.

The Putney Debates also seem to have changed Cromwell’s opinion regarding Charles I. The agitators did not agree that negotiations should continue with the king, and argued that he should be put on trial. Again, to keep the army onside, after the Putney Debates, Cromwell appears to have hardened his attitude towards Charles I.

The “Agreement of the People” that came out of the Putney Debates was to be put to a mass meeting of the army, however Cromwell along with other senior members of the army were concerned about the growing influence of the Levellers within the army, so they disbanded the Army Council before the mass meeting could be arranged, and ordered the agitators and other representatives of the soldiers to return to their regiments.

Three separate, smaller meetings were then arranged with the regiments, however all these plans were thrown into disarray when Charles I escaped from Hampton Court, an action which brought together the New Model Army against a common enemy, and which would lead to the Second Civil War.

Although St. Mary’s is now a very different church to the one in which the Putney Debates were held due to the 1830s restoration and enlargement and the rebuild following the fire of the 1970s, it on the original site.

During my visit, whilst the adjoining café was busy, for the time that I was having a good look around the church, I was on my own, and it was easy to imagine a smaller church, full of the victors of the first civil war, each expecting the outcome of the previous years of fighting to be the opportunity to progress their own deeply held views.

Whilst Cromwell asserted his control over the army, his position during the Commonwealth as Lord Protector was seen by those who were agitators as almost becoming like a king.

Many of the ideas about the freedom to vote, religious tolerance and rule by an elected Parliament rather than a hereditary monarch would come into being over the following centuries and the 17th century began the transition from a late medieval to the modern world.

William Clarke’s record provides us with a view of how these ideas were being discussed and argued, in a church by the Thames in Putney.

Resources

William Clarke’s text of the Putney Debates can be found by clicking here.

I have read a number of books over the last months about the Civil War, and the ideas that were part of the radical thinking of the period. Three excellent books that cover Cromwell, the Civil War and the Levellers are:

The Leveller Revolution by John Rees:

Along with The Making of Oliver Cromwell and Commander in Chief Oliver Cromwell, both by Ronald Hutton:

I will feature more books in future posts about this fascinating period in history.

The Treachery of Sir George Downing

8 Replies

Along with streets and places such as Piccadilly, Leicester Square, and Oxford Street, Downing Street is probably one of the more recognisable London street names, not just in the United Kingdom, but across the world, given the number of tourists who peer through the gates that separate Downing Street from Whitehall.

Number 10 Downing Street has been home to the Prime Minister (or more correctly the First Lord of the Treasury) since 1735, when the house was given to Sir Robert Walpole.

There have been many gaps in occupancy by Prime Minsters, however a central London house was considered a benefit of the role. It was only in the early 20th century that it became a full time residence of Prime Ministers.

Security has long been an issue. It was not so long ago that the public could walk down the street, with the street finally being closed to the public in 1982, and in response to ever growing threats, security measures such as physical defences and armed police have been added and enhanced.

So today, this is the best view of the street for tourists and members of the public who do not have official business in any of the buildings and institutions that line Downing Street:

The street has seen so many Prime Ministers, newly elected, arrive in an atmosphere of enthusiasm and expectation, only to leave having been rejected either by the electorate, or through the actions of their former colleagues.

For a rejected Prime Minister, perhaps the most difficult way to leave is when you have been rejected by former colleagues. Those who once supported and worked with you, and with whom you had a shared vision of the future.

Whilst this must be incredibility frustrating, it is not as bad as the treachery of the person who was once the land owner and who gave his name to the street, who through his treachery, condemned former colleagues to the worst death penalty that the State could impose, convicted of being a traitor and being hung, drawn and quartered.

For this, we have to go back to the Civil War, Commonwealth and Restoration of the 1640s, 1650s and early 1660s to explore the work of Sir George Downing:

The source of the above paining is from the Harvard Art Museum, and the image title is “Portrait of a Man, probably Sir George Downing (1624-1684)”. It is often difficult to be absolutely certain of those depicted in paintings of some age (see my recent post on the Gresham’s).

The record for the painting states that on the stretcher is written “Sir George Downing Bart./ born August 1623–Embassador [sic]/ to the States General 1659-Son of/ Emmanuel Downing & Lucy Winthrop/ 4th daughter of Adam Winthrop-/ The nephew of John Winthrop/ Governor of Massachusetts–His/ diplomatic services…[illegible]… are well known to history.”, which does add some confidence that this is Sir George Downing.

George Downing was born in Dublin around 1623 or 1624, His father was Emanual Downing, a Barrister and Puritan, and his mother was Lucy Winthrop, the sister of John Winthrope who was the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, an English settlement on the east coast of America which had been founded in 1628.

This family relationship with Massachusetts resulted in the family moving to the colony in 1638, where they settled in Salem.

Harvard College had been founded by the Massachusetts Bay Colony on the 18th of October 1636, and was the first college set-up in the American colonies.

The name Harvard comes from John Harvard who was an English Puritan minister and benefactor of the college, which included leaving his library of 400 books and half of his estate to the new college.

George Downing attended Harvard College, and was one of the first group of nine who graduated from the college in 1642.

After Harvard, Downing moved to the West Indies where he became a preacher, and in the early 1640s he returned to England, where he found the country in the middle of a Civil War, and he quickly aligned with the forces opposing King Charles I, joining the regiment of Colonel John Okey as a chaplain.

Downing was fully supportive of the actions of Cromwell and the New Model Army in the defeat of the Royalist cause, and he was recognised and promoted quickly to become Cromwell’s Scoutmaster General in Scotland, a role that was basically the head of a spying and intelligence operation, attempts to infiltrate Royalist plots and to turn Royalist supporters to the Republican cause.

During the years of the Commonwealth in the 1650’s, Downing’s skills became valuable in the diplomatic service, and he became the Commonwealth’s ambassador to the Netherlands, where he also developed a network of spies, and passed information on Royalist plots back to John Thurloe, who was Cromwell’s main spymaster.

The later part of the 1650s were a difficult time for the Commonwealth, the main issue being what would happen to the Commonwealth after the death of Oliver Cromwell. Who would succeed Cromwell, how would such a decision be made, could Cromwell take on the role of a monarch and make the head of the Commonwealth a hereditary title?

Downing supported and urged Cromwell to take on the role of a monarch along the lines of the old constitution that had existed before the execution of King Charles I.

To those holding senior positions in the army and the Commonwealth, it must have seemed that the Commonwealth was in a strong position, the country would remain a Republic. Monarchist plots and uprisings had been supressed, and the future King Charles II seemed to be in a weak position in exile on the Continent.

It was then surprising how quickly after Cromwell’s death, that the whole structure of the Commonwealth collapsed so rapidly, and King Charles II was restored as the monarch of the United Kingdom in 1661, just three years after the death of Oliver Cromwell.

George Downing had been watching how sentiments towards the monarchy were changing and started to plan how he would survive and prosper after the restoration.

This involved actions such as ingratiating himself within the court of the future Charles II, passing information on to the Royalists and claiming that he had been drawn in to the Republican cause rather than being an active initiator of the Civil War and the execution of King Charles I.

Whilst Downing had supported the trial and execution of the former king, he was not a judge or participant in the trial, and did not sign the execution warrant of the king:

Source: See page for author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Which is an important lesson if you are involved in any plotting or support of a controversial cause – never leave anything in writing.

Despite his involvement and support of the Republican cause, Downing’s efforts to show support for the monarchy were such that after the restoration of the monarchy, he was knighted, and continued in his role as the ambassador to the Netherlands, and it was in the following couple of years that he was to really show his ruthless streak and what he would do to further his own power, position and wealth.

Regicides

After the restoration, the monarchy turned their anger on those who had been involved in the trial of King Charles I, who had signed his execution warrant, or who had had a significant role in his execution.

Known as the Regicides, those who had been responsible in some way for the execution of the King were exempted from the Indemnity and Oblivion Act of 1660, an act that gave a general pardon for all those who had committed a crime during the Civil War and the Commonwealth (other than crimes such as murder, unless covered by a licence from the king, witchcraft and piracy were also not covered by the general pardon).

A number of the Regicides had already died, including Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton. Others gave themselves up in the hope of a fair trial and avoidance of a traitors death, whilst others fled abroad in fear of their lives.

Three of those who fled, and who would meet their deaths through the actions of George Downing, were:

John Okey

Creative Commons Licence – after Unknown artist, published by John Thane line engraving, published 1794 NPG D27161© National Portrait Gallery, London

John Okey had been born in St. Giles, and like many others who were part of the Parliamentary / Republican / New Model Army forces opposing the king during the Civil war, Okey had enlisted in the army, rising through the ranks to become a major, then a colonel, of a regiment of dragoons (mounted infantry).

George Downing had joined Okey’s regiment as a chaplain, and was well known to Okey.

When Charles I was brought to trial, Okey was one of the 80 who were actively involved in the trial, and attended on most days, and the action that would infuriate the restored monarchy was that he was one of the 59 who had signed the warrant for the execution of the king.

Miles Corbet

Creative Commons Licence – after Unknown artist, published by William Richardson
line engraving, published 1810 NPG D30024© National Portrait Gallery, London

Miles Cobet was the MP for Yarmouth and also a Lawyer.

The print of Corbet shown above has the abbreviation Coll. in front of his last name. This may have been an honorary titles, as he did not serve during any military actions during the Civil War. He was though one of the founders of the Eastern Association, which was a military alliance formed to defend East Anglia on behalf of the Parliamentary forces, and he also served as an army commissioner in Ireland, responsible for overseeing the affairs of the army, and with allocation of land within Ireland to soldiers as reward for their service, and often in lieu of wages.

His role in the trial of Charles I was as part of the High Court of Justice, and as one of those who signed the execution warrant.

John Barkstead

Creative Commons Licence – after Unknown artist line engraving, published 1810 NPG D9319© National Portrait Gallery, London

John Barkstead was originally a goldsmith in the Strand, but who joined the Parliamentary forces, becoming a captain of a foot company in the regiment of Colonel Venn. He was Governor of Reading for a short time, commanded a regiment at the siege of Colchester, and was appointed as one of the judges at the trial of Charles I.

He also signed the Warrant for the Execution of Charles I.

He was appointed Lieutenant of the Tower of London, but used this position to further his own wealth by extorting money from prisoners and generally running a cruel regime.

He was rumoured to have hidden a large sum of money in the Tower of London, and in 1662, Samuel Pepys wrote in his diary that he was busy in a discovery for Lord Sandwich and Sir H. Bennett of the cellars of the Tower for this hidden money.

By signing the warrant for the execution of the King, Okey, Corbet and Barkstead had also signed their own death warrants, as this would be their fate – a public traitors death in London.

Escape and Capture

In fear of their lives, with the restoration of the monarchy, Okey, Corbet and Barkstead fled to Europe, with Okey and Barkstead making their way to Hanau in Germany, where they were accepted by the town and given a level of protection. Corbet had made his way to the Netherlands where he was in hiding.

For Barkstead, Hanau seemed a natural, long term home, as the town was well known for the manufacture of jewellery, and Barkstead’s background as a goldsmith in the Strand would come in use.

As Hanau seemed to be a long term home for Okey and Barkstead, they wanted their wives to join them, and a plan was put together for them to meet their wives in the Netherlands, from where they would all travel back to Hanau.

They believed that they would be safe in the Netherlands and had assurances that Downing had not been given any instructions to hunt for them. The Netherlands was also known for tolerance and for putting commerce before any other concern.

They travelled to Delft, and met up with Corbet, who was keen to meet with some friends after his time in hiding.

Downing meanwhile had been putting together plans for how he would find and capture any regicides that were living or passing through the Netherlands. He was worried about the repercussions of capturing any regicides and transporting them back to London without the approval of the Dutch, and he had problems with getting an arrest warrant from the Dutch authorities.

After much persuasion, Downing received a blank arrest warrant, which he would be able to use against any of the regicides that he could discover in the Netherlands, and it would soon be put into use.

Through Downing’s network of spies, he discovered that Okey, Corbet and Barkstead were all in Delft, and just as they were about to split up, Downing and his men pounced on the house, and found the three sitting around a fire, smoking pipes. and they quickly rounded up the three regicides. They had their hands and feet manacled and were thrown in a damp prison cell, whilst Downing finalised their transport back to England.

Whilst they were in captivity, the three were visited by Dutch politicians who assured the three that they would be freed, however Downing used his skills to threaten and bully the Dutch on the possible consequences of such actions, and the Dutch conceded, and let Downing continue to hold the three and arrange their transport.

Another challenge was the Bailiff of Delft who was not cooperative and threatened to derail Downing’s plans. Downing’s response to this was another indication that he would do anything to have his way. He made inquiries about the bailiff and learnt that “he was one who would do nothing without money”, so Downing offered him a bribe – a reward if he would keep the prisoners safe until they were finally in Downing’s hands.

There were other problems. The magistrates of Amsterdam sent a message to the authorities in Delft that they should “let the Gates of the prison be opened and so let them escape “.

The bailiff warned Downing that the “common people might go about to force the prison and let them out”, and the authorities in Delft made efforts to provide counsel for the regicides.

Downing finally received an order from the Dutch authorities addressed to the bailiff in Delft to release the prisoners to Downing. The bailiff was concerned that there would be a rising “if there were but the least notice of an intention to carry them away”.

Downing had already arranged for an English frigate to be available, and with the aid of some sailors from the frigate, and a small boat, he:

“resolved in the dead of the night to get a boate into a litle channell which came neare behinde the prison, and at the very first dawning of the day without so much as giving any notice to the seamen I had pro
vided . . . forthwith to slip them downe the backstaires . . . and so accordingly we did, and there was not the least notice in the Towne thereof, and before 5 in the morning the boate was without the Porto of
Delft, where I delivered them to Mr. Armerer . . . giving him direction not to put them a shoare in any place, but to go the whole way by water to the Blackamore Frigat at Helverdsluice.”

The Frigate Blackamore carried the three prisoners back to England, where they were imprisoned in the Tower awaiting a trial, which was not really a trial as in the view of Parliament and the Monarchy, they had demonstrated their guilt by fleeing the country. The trial was a formality to confirm they had the right people.

Having been found guilty of treason, on the 19th of April 1662, the three men were transported from the Tower to Tyburn, each tied to a separate sledge as they were drawn through the crowds, with much mocking abuse from Royalists. Barkstead left the Tower first, a place where he had once been the Lieutenant, and raised his hat to his wife who was waving from a window.

On arriving at Tyburn, each man gave a speech to the crowd, and were then put on a cart under the gallows. When they were ready, the cart was pulled away, and they hung for 15 minutes, before being taken down, and were then drawn and quartered, all in front of a large crowd.

Barkstead’s head was placed on a spike overlooking the Tower of London, mocking his former role at the Tower.

Before his death, Okey had sent a message of obedience to the restored monarchy, and as a reward for this, his family were allowed to bury his mutilated body in a vault in Stepney, however a large crowd gathered around Newgate where his body was being held, and fearing that this was a show of support for a traitor, the King swiftly changed his mind, and Okey’s body was hastily buried in the grounds of the Tower of London.

After the Regicides

Downing appears to have shown very little if any remorse or regret for his actions in the capture and execution of his three former colleagues, especially Okey, in whose regiment Downing had once served during the Civil War.

He acquired large estates and properties across the country and in London. He was one of the four Tellers of the Receipts of the Exchequer. He inspired the Navigation Act: “the foundation of our mercantile marine, and consequently of our navy, and consequently of our colonies and spheres of influence. He was also the direct cause of the Appropriation Act, an Act indispensable in every session, for government at home and one which has been appointed by all our self-governing colonies,” and he was instrumental in persuading the Dutch to exchange New Amsterdam, their colony on Long Island, for the British colony of Surinam in South America. New Amsterdam was then renamed as New York.

George Downing owned land near Westminster, and when the leaseholder died in 1682, Downing developed a cul-de-sac of more than twenty plain, brick built, three storey terrace houses, and he petitioned Charles II for permission to name this new street Downing Street.

Royal approval was granted, but he did not live to see the completion of the street as he died in July 1684 when he was 60, two years prior to work was finished.

The general view of Sir George Downing was that whilst clever, quick to action, ambitious and a very hard worker, he was also self serving, would shift his allegiance depending on changes in political and royal power, and as demonstrated with Okey, Corbet and Barkstead, this would also include the betrayal of his former friends and colleagues.

After the restoration, there were many who recognised Downing’s true character. After the capture of the regicides, Samuel Pepys’s wrote in his diary:

“This morning we had news from Mr. Coventry, that Sir G. Downing (like a perfidious rogue, though the action is good and of service to the King, yet he cannot with any good conscience do it) hath taken Okey, Corbet, and Barkestead at Delfe, in Holland, and sent them home in the Blackmore.”

Downing – a name associated with self perseveration to the extent that former colleagues and the cause for which they all worked, were betrayed, and now recorded in the name of the street where the Prime Minister resides.

Sources: I have been reading a number of books about the Civil War recently which I will list in a future post. My main source for the actions of Downing in the Netherlands and the capture of Okey, Corbet and Barkstead is from “Sir George Downing and the Regicides by Ralph C. H. Catterall in The American Historical Review, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Jan., 1912), and published by the Oxford University Press“.

Resources – The World Turned Upside Down

As today’s post is the first of a new month, it is a post where I cover some of the resources available if you are interested in discovering more about the history of London.

As today’s post has been about the fate of three of the regicides involved with the trial and execution of King Charles I, and George Downing, who supported both the Parliamentary cause and then swiftly converted to support the monarchy, today’s resource is a brilliant website full of resources covering everything Civil War, and events in London played a very significant role, not just during the Civil War, but the lead up to, the causes of the war, the Commonwealth and Protectorate, the people, politics and religion, the restoration and later impact.

The website is The World Turned Upside Down:

The name of the website comes from the title of an English ballad published in the mid 1640s, when Parliament was implementing policies that tried to ban the more traditional celebrations of Christmas that the more Puritan and to an extent Baptist members of Parliament believed were associated with the Catholic religion, and that Christmas should be a more solemn event, without the drinking, feasting and joyous elements of the traditional Christmas:

Source: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The standout feature of the website are the podcasts. There are currently 112 on the site with more being gradually added (you can sign up for alerts). Each podcast explores a different aspect of the Civil War and is by an expert in the subject.

For each podcast there is also a transcript, glossary, timeline, maps and further reading.

The first four podcasts in the list are shown in the screenshot below:

There is so much in the news about the destructive elements of social media, AI and the Internet, but the World Turned Upside Down is one of those sites that restores your faith in what the Internet can deliver when a community of real experts put together such a resource – which is freely available.

Even if you have only a passing interest in the mid 17th century and the Civil War, the site and podcasts are well worth a visit, and again, the link to click for the site is: The World Turned Upside Down

On The Road To Stratford-Upon-Avon

5 Replies

Having left South Wales for last week’s post, this week I am back in England and on the road to Stratford-upon-Avon. Not using the M40 which was many years in the future when my father took these photos, rather following the lanes that threaded through Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire.

I can track the route he took as I have many of the Ordnance Survey maps that he used and marked with the routes taken, although there is one map missing for this journey.

Cycling out from London, along the A4 through Slough and Maidenhead, then taking the lanes to Henley-on-Thames and through Watlington to reach the first photo of a monument at Chalgrove in Oxfordshire.

This is the monument to John Hampden, probably born in London in 1595, he became one of the Parliamentarians who resisted Charles I’s demands for payment of the Ship Money Tax in 1635 and later demanded that the King handover control of the Tower of London to Parliament. He fought on the side of Parliament during the English Civil War having raised a regiment from his tenants in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire.

In June 1643, the Royalist and Parliamentary forces faced each other across the Oxfordshire countryside with the Royalists based in Oxford and the headquarters of the Parliamentarians in Thame.

Prince Rupert, the nephew of Charles I, had word that a pay wagon was travelling to Thame and saw an opportunity to inflict damage on the Parliamentary forces. He left Oxford on the 17th June 1643 with a force of 2,000.

Skirmishes with small Parliamentarian outposts at Tetsworth and Postcombe were followed by a victory at Chinnor where 50 Parliamentarian soldiers were killed and 120 captured. The rumored pay wagon had heard the fighting and headed away from the town.

The Parliamentary army was gathering to the south and met the Royalist forces at Chalgrove in the fields surrounding the monument. John Hampden was shot and seriously wounded not far from where the monument now stands and was taken back to Thame where he died of his wounds on the 24th June. The Royalists achieved a significant victory at Chalgrove and Prince Rupert returned to Oxford.

The monument was unveiled on the 18th June 1843, two hundred years after the battle. Paid for by subscription, the names of the subscribers are recorded on the monument along with an effigy of John Hampden and his coat of arms.

I found the monument late one evening when it was getting dark. There is some light industry in the area now, however at this time in the evening it was quiet, and looking over the fields on a summer’s evening it is hard to imagine the fighting that took place here on a summer’s day in 1643.

The monument is well-preserved in the centre of a road junction and is surrounded by iron railings and a large ditch.

Leaving Chalgrove, the route then disappears onto Ordnance Survey map 158 which I do not have, before returning onto map 145 covering the area around Banbury, where we leave Banbury on the A422 to head to Stratford-upon-Avon. Passing through the village of Wroxton, we find the Wroxton Guide Post at the side of the road.

The Guide Post dates from 1686 and is a marker on one of the routes from Wales and the west to London. Allegedly used by salt merchants, the route follows the A422 down to Wroxton where is breaks from the road and heads to the south of Banbury. The 1946 edition of the Ordnance Survey one inch map for the area shows the Salt Way marked.

The top of the guide post was originally a sundial and around the middle of the post are carved hands pointing to the towns along the adjacent roads. If you look at my father’s photo you can see that the guide post was in need of some repair with initials being carved on the stone as well as general deterioration.

The guide post was restored in 1974 and still looks in good condition with the directions and carved hands clearly visible.

The Wroxton Guide Post today:

Directions are given on three sides of the post. I do like the two hands pointing to London and Stratford-upon-Avon (thereby just maintaining a tenuous connection with London for this week’s post). The fourth side records the name of Mr Francis White who, although very little is known about him, was responsible in some way for the funding or provision of the guide post.

Photo of part of the 1946 edition of the Ordnance Survey one-inch map, the Banbury edition, number 145. Banbury is the edge of the town seen in the lower right edge with Wroxton just to the left on the A422. The Salt Way is as the very bottom right corner, my father drew two red circles around this and there is a note of XP in purple ink pointing to the Guide Post just to the left of Wroxton. There are also purple arrows showing the route he and his friends cycled on the way to Stratford-upon-Avon.

The A422 is the road that runs from Banbury at lower right up towards the left. If you follow the A422 away from Wroxton, there is a sharp turn to the left, followed by a sharp turn to the right then passing a place called Sun Rising. This is Edge Hill where the height drops dramatically, I can imagine the name is due to the view of the light across the land as the sun rises as the view from here is impressive.

My father took the following photo from the point at the top of the hill where the road is just about to turn to the right and the view is of flat land stretching away towards the north-west and towards Stratford-upon-Avon.

Although the road today follows exactly the same route, I did not stop to take a comparison photo. There are no paths or walkways along the edge of the road which is up against the walls on either side. The road is also very busy and standing on the road at a bend was not the wisest thing to do. Also, trees have now grown which sadly completely obscures the view.

Another view from the top of Edge Hill on a summers day in 1949.

Edge Hill has also given its name to another battle from the Civil War. This was the first skirmish between the Royalist and Parliamentarian forces and took place on the 23rd October 1642. The Royalist forces was based at Edge Hill with the Parliamentarian forces on the plain below. The Royalists attacked from Edge Hill and the battle took place across the land in the above photo.

If you look back at the extract from the Ordnance Survey map, the marker for the battle on the map is ringed in blue and red circles. Much of the land where the battle took place is today owned by the Ministry of Defence and so is not easy to visit.

Leaving Edge Hill, the A422 runs directly to Stratford-upon-Avon.

Known around the world as the birthplace of William Shakespeare, Stratford-upon-Avon is now a major tourist destination with 4.9 million visitors each year and generating £28 million for the local economy each month, and being in Stratford-upon-Avon on a summer’s weekend it is easy to see how.

Stratford-upon-Avon is also the home to the Royal Shakespeare Company, with the Royal Shakespeare Theatre being a major landmark alongside the River Avon. Two of my father’s photos showing the theatre with a couple of small boats passing on the Avon.

The view from roughly the same position today. The theatre went through a major rebuild between 2007 and 2010 which accounts for the changes to the theatre. The boats on the Avon are also a little different.

If you are a tourist in Stratford-upon-Avon you head to the birthplace of William Shakespeare.

John Shakespeare was a glover, but also traded in wool and corn. He bought the main part of the house which is now the birthplace in 1556. John was married to Mary Arden and their eldest son, William Shakespeare was baptised on the 26th April 1564 (his date of birth is not known but must have been a few days earlier).

Shakespeare’s birthplace in 1949:

And from exactly the same position in 2016:

Stratford-upon-Avon is much busier today:

A short walk away from Shakespeare’s birthplace, at the junction of Wood, Windsor, Greenhill and Rother Streets was the Old Thatch Tavern:

And here it is today, still a pub, with the same name and looking much the same, although the door on Greenhill Street has disappeared along with the plaque above which would have been interesting to read. The pub is Grade II listed and dates from 1470.

This is Harvard House at 26 High Street:

Dating from 1596 when the house was built by Thomas Rogers, the grandfather of John Harvard who was one of the benefactors of Harvard University in the US. John was one of the members of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 17th century and on his death left a considerable sum of money and his library of books to the colony’s college which was renamed in his honour. The house is now owned by Harvard University, and is cared for by the Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust. Note the small stars and stripes symbol on the left of the building in the above photo.

That also explains why the American flag is hanging from the building today.

View down Church Street:

And the same view today:

The buildings to the left of the above photos and in the photos below are Shakespeare’s Schoolroom and the Guildhall, where Shakespeare went to school and saw actors performing at the Guildhall.

And the same view today:

If you look at my father’s photo above, there is a sign at the side of road in front of the entrance. The sign reads “No waiting this side today”. Although the sign has gone, on the wall of the building to the left there is still the following sign. No idea why you could not stop here on even dates, but good to see this sign is still here which is probably associated with the sign on the road in 1949.

Stratford-upon-Avon is full of well-preserved timber-framed buildings. There is hardly a street in the centre of town without examples:

I started this post with a reference to the English Civil War with the John Hampden monument and the battles at Chalgrove and Edge Hill. Stratford-upon-Avon also records the impact of the Civil War across this part of the country with this plaque on the side of the Town Hall.

The Town Hall also has a very interesting ghost sign running along the front of the building just below the flower boxes, the outline of the original painted words of “God Save The King”. The King in question was George III who was the monarch at the time the new town hall was built and the sign dates from this time.

And here we finish a brief journey from Chalgrove, through Wroxton, along the A422 to drop down over Edge Hill and into Stratford-upon-Avon.

While the story of Shakespeare is well-known and with major tourist attractions both in Stratford-upon-Avon and Bankside in London, it was interesting to discover more about the Civil War through the Hampden monument in Charlgrove and Edge Hill – this period in British history does not get that much attention these days. The guide post in Wroxton is also a wonderful reminder of the old roads and tracks that crossed the country.

Again, another post that has just scratched the surface, but hopefully has provided an insight into the road leading to, and the town of Stratford-upon-Avon.

And finally…..on the same strip of negatives as the Stratford-upon-Avon photos are the following two photos which I have been unable to locate. I assume they are in the same area as the architectural style is right, however being on the same strip of negatives does not guarantee this. In the window on the right of the entrance door in the photo below, there is still the wartime sign “Air raid precautions volunteers enrol here”. Any information as to the location would be really appreciated.

alondoninheritance.com

A London Inheritance

A Private History of a Public City

Tag Archives: Civil War

St Mary’s and the Putney Debates of 1647

Resources

The Treachery of Sir George Downing

Regicides

John Okey

Miles Corbet

John Barkstead

Escape and Capture

After the Regicides

Resources – The World Turned Upside Down

On The Road To Stratford-Upon-Avon

Resources

Share this:

Regicides

John Okey

Miles Corbet

John Barkstead

Escape and Capture

After the Regicides

Resources – The World Turned Upside Down

Share this:

Share this: