Tag Archives: Putney

Putney and Fulham – Bridges, Church and Thames Stairs

8 Replies

Walks

Before getting into the post, an update on my walks. As usual I am late getting these started, and am working on a new walk which should be complete in the next couple of months. Until then, I have dates for some of my existing walks:

Next Sunday, the 3rd of May is the 75th anniversary of the ceremonial opening of the Royal Festival Hall, as part of the Festival of Britain. Part of the opening ceremony involved the King and Queen attending a concert, and to mark the exact day of the 75th anniversary, there will be a special post on the Royal Festival Hall, and I have two walks on the day. The morning walk sold out soon after putting it on Eventbrite, an afternoon walk is now available, for details and booking, click here.

I also have the following walks now available (click on each one for details):

Exploring the Lost Streets of the Barbican on Saturday 16th of May.

In the Steps of a Woolwich Docker – From the Woolwich Ferry to the Royals on Saturday 23rd of May.

The Lost Landscape and Transformation of Puddle Dock and Thames Street on Sunday 31st of May.

I hope to set up additional dates during the coming months, and for early notification of their availability, follow me on my main Eventbrite page, here.

Now to head to Putney and Fulham:

A couple of week’s ago, I wrote a post about the Putney Debates at St. Mary’s Church in Putney. Whilst there, I also wanted to find the location of some Thames stairs, as part of my long running attempt to visit the site of all the river stairs on the tidal Thames.

It was also an opportunity to have a walk around the area, and after arriving at Parsons Green station on the District Line, I headed south as I wanted to cross the river by a route I had not taken before, the walkway along the side of Fulham Railway Bridge:

The walkway is along the eastern side of the bridge, and brings back memories of the walkway that once ran along the side of Hungerford railway bridge, however this walkway looks to be better maintained.

From the walkway there is a good view of the river to the east. The large building on the left is one of the large blocks of flats which seem to be a feature of this part of the north bank of the river around Fulham, and the trees on the left are part of the grounds of the Hurlingham Club:

The bridge was built to allow the extension of the District Railway, and the following report from the St. James Budget on the 19th of January 1889 provides a wonderful description of how places like Putney were being transformed, and it starts with a reference to the Civil War debates:

“THE NEW WIMBLEDON AND FULHAM RAILWAY – Saturday, September 18th, 1647 – ‘After a sermon in Putney Church, the great General Cromwell, many great officers, field officers, inferior officers, and adjutators met in the church; debated the proposals of the army towards a settlement of this bleeding nation; altered some things in them; and were very full of sermon which had been preached by Mr. Peters’. So it is recorded in authentic history.

Ten years ago it was not difficult to imagine Putney as the headquarters of Cromwell. Ten years ago the District Railway had not been extended to Fulham and quant old relics of the past had not been pulled down. Ten years ago Fairfax House, in which Queen Elizabeth used to lodge, was still standing, and the straggling old high street, with its curious cottages, had not disappeared. Ten years ago the ‘early clerk’ was a rara avis in Putney, and ‘villadom’ had not become aggressive. But the opening of Putney Bridge Station inaugurated a new style of things, and the old Putney was well nigh improved off the face of the earth.

Since that a further extension of the railway has been in progress, and the early part of this year will see Wimbledon in direct communication with the aristocratic west and with all parts of the District and Metropolitan system. The present terminus to the District Railway in the south is at Putney Bridge, on the Fulham side of the Thames; but the opening of the new branch will carry the rails across the Thames to Putney proper, where a station is being established to serve the purpose of both the District and South-Western systems. Thence the line will pass through West Hill and Southfields in the Wandsworth District, and, skirting Wimbledon Park with its expansive lake, will for the present come to a stop at Wimbledon Junction.”

This article is interesting for several reasons. I really like the historical links, it demonstrates how what had been villages around London were being rapidly transformed in the later part of the 19th century, and it highlights the part played by the rapidly expanding rail network.

I also like the term “villadom” which probably describes the suburban houses that were rapidly taking over what had been the fields surrounding Putney and Fulham.

There is a plaque on the bridge alongside the walkway that records the construction and later refurbishment of the bridge:

The bridge was designed by William Jacomb, who had been an assistant to Brunel, and Jacomb created a rather graceful structure across the river, however the large concrete cutwaters around the central columns, which were added later to protect the bridge against any accidental collisions, slightly detract from the architect’s original intentions:

Just to the west of the railway bridge is Putney road bridge:

As with so much of the river, there was a reasonable amount of industry along the banks, and on the north, Fulham bank of the river, there was Swan Wharf and Draw Dock, which was used by the local corporation as a place where barges could be loaded with rubbish and transported down river to landfill sites around Rainham. The Draw Dock is highlighted by the red arrow in the following map, with Swan Wharf to the left (‘Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland“):

To the right of the Draw Dock was the granite, marble & mosaic works of Fenning & Co.

Whilst the corporation yard and granite works have been replaced by residential, the entrance from the river to the Draw Dock remains, although it extends no further back than the cut in the embankment seen in the centre of the following photo:

From the location of the above photo, I walked up to the church featured in the previous post on the Putney Debates. Directly opposite the church, on the approach road to the bridge, is a rather magnificent late 19th century pub:

This is the Grade II listed White Lion Hotel and Public House, which dates from 1887.

The date of construction is within the same couple of years as that of the railway bridge and the extension of the District railway to Putney, and is another example of how Putney was being transformed.

An 1888 advert for the White Lion provides an overview of the business when it opened:

“THE NEW WHITE LION HOTEL, PUTNEY – The above Newly Built Hotel when completed will afford unusual accommodation for Boating Parties, Families and Commercial Gentlemen. It contains Sixteen Spacious Bedrooms, Three Bathrooms, and Sitting Rooms, Magnificent Billiard Room with Two of Messrs. Cox and Yeoman’s Tables, fitted with the latest improvements, Bowling Saloons, Spacious Dining and Grill Room and also a Large Room for Banquets and Public Dinners.”

There are not that many pubs where you can see two large Caryatids supporting the upper floors:

The White Lion was built on the site of a previous pub with the same name, as being at the southern end of the bridge, and opposite the church, was a good location.

There are plenty of references to the pub going back to the early years of the 18th century, and it would be interesting to know if it was here when Cromwell was in the church opposite.

As is still the case, it is generally only bad news that makes the media, and the following example of a tragic accident in the White Lion in January 1750 again highlights the almost casual nature of death across London in previous centuries:

“On Tuesday last a melancholy accident happened at the White Lion at Putney, where some Officers being quartered, a Pair of Pistols belonging to one of them lay on the table where two Sons and a Daughter of Mr. Barnsley were playing; one of the Boys, about six years old (who was the eldest) taking up a Pistol, clapped it to his sister’s forehead, saying ‘I’ll shoot you’, and so indeed he did.”

I have left out the rest of the description of the accident as 18th century newspapers did not leave out any graphic details. There was no report of any action against the Officer who had left a loaded pistol out in a public space and it was just regarded as a tragic accident.

At the top of the building there is a large White Lion, and the date of construction:

I cannot find when the White Lion closed. It has been through the chain pub branding of Slug and Lettuce and Litten Tree. It has been an Australian themed bar and a sports bar, but the building seems to have been empty since 2012 / 2013.

The Historic England assessment record states that it is in poor condition, of medium vulnerability, there is slow decline and no solution for the building is agreed, so not a very promising future.

It is the type of pub that Wetherspoons would typically take over and restore, however there is already a Wetherspoons, the Rocket, in a brand new building just to the east of the church.

Hopefully there will be a future use for this wonderful building.

One of my aims was to visit two Thames stairs listed in the Port of London Authority records of access points to the river. I have highlighted them in the following map. The red arrow is pointing to Bishops Park Lower Stairs and the green arrow to Bishops Park Upper Stairs (‘Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland“):

Seen from Putney, Bishops Park Lower Stairs are on the left of the following photo. The church on the right is All Saints, Fulham:

A close up of Bishops Park Lower Stairs:

As I mentioned in my last past on the Putney Debates, churches are often seen adjacent to important crossings or boundaries, and at either end of Putney Bridge, there is All Saints Fulham and St. Mary’s Putney, as shown in the following photo:

The first bridge across the river was opened in 1729, but there had been a ferry crossing here for many previous centuries, so whilst today the churches are at either end of the bridge, they would previously have been at opposite ends of the ferry crossing, when perhaps it would have been important for a quick prayer before braving a crossing by water.

The first bridge was of wooden construction. There was much opposition from the watermen operating the ferry, as the bridge would have destroyed their business. Compensation and pensions were needed to address the waterman’s complaints.

The churchyard of St. Mary’s was originally much larger than we see today. When the wooden bridge was built, the road curved around the larger churchyard to access the bridge, as can be seen in the following print, which was published in 1783 and titled “Putney Church from the White Lion”, again confirming the existence of the pub long before the 1897 building we see today:

(© The Trustees of the British Museum. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence.)

The Port of London listing does not include any access points along the Putney side of the river, which is strange as there are a number of slipways, although some are quite recent such as the slipway in the following photo. Where the slipway reaches the higher point, which then extends into the river, was one of the construction sites for the Thames Tideway Tunnel:

The point in the river opposite the Tideway Tunnel site is where the University Boat Race starts.

Looking towards Putney on a busy Putney Bridge:

The view in the opposite direction towards Fulham:

In the early 18th century, there were no bridges between London Bridge and Kingston, so if you needed to cross the river, you would have needed a Waterman.

In 1726, the organisation to construct the bridge was put in place, as reported in the Flying Post on the 19th of May, 1726: “London, May 19. Above 180 Persons of the Nobility, Gentry &c. are particularly named to be Commissioners, or a Body corporate, for building a Bridge cross the Thames, from Fulham in Middlesex to Putney in Surrey.”

The references to Middlesex and Surrey recall the original counties that much of modern day Greater London were once part of.

Construction began in March 1729 as reported: “The building of the new Bridge over the River Thames from Fulham to Putney was begun yesterday in Presence of the Commissioners appointed for that work, and the Scaffolding in Fulham side was great part finished, as was that on the Side of Putney this day; and the first pile is to be drove tomorrow; several hundred men are employed in the great undertaking.”

The bridge was in use by the end of the year, and on the 11th October, the Kentish Mercury was reporting that: “The New Bridge over the River Thames from Fulham to Putney is so near finished that the wood work almost joins the brick and stone-work at each end; and the top being for the most part covered, several persons passed over yesterday; and ’tis reckoned that before Christmas, coaches and carriages may pass. ‘Tis no small surprise to see so great a Work complete in so short a time.”

The Putney end of the bridge:

(© The Trustees of the British Museum. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence.)

The wooden construction of the bridge:

(© The Trustees of the British Museum. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence.)

The bridge was a toll bridge. The following print shows the toll gate at the Fulham end of the bridge. There also appears to have been a toll gate at the Putney end:

(© The Trustees of the British Museum. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence.)

I cannot find a list of the tolls, but did find the following report on the lengths that the staff of the toll gate would go to, in order to bring those who tried to avoid the toll to justice. On the 3rd of June, 1754:

“Yesterday morning, about Four o’clock, two Gentlemen in a Coach attempted to go through the Toll-Gate at Fulham Bridge, without paying the Toll, but were prevented by the Toll-Man, upon which one of the Gentlemen jumped out of the coach, ran up to the man, and with great Imprecations swore he would shoot him, at which time he snaped a Pistol against the Man’s Breast, and afterwards beat him over the Head with the But-End of it in a barbarous Manner. Mr. William Low, master of the Gate, seeing his Servant so cruelly used, pursued the Gentlemen to London, where he had one of them apprehended, and being carried before Henry Fielding, Esq. he was by him committed to New Prison.”

View of the Fulham end of the bridge, with the toll gate looking a bit smaller than in the previous print. It is easy to work out which end of the bridge is shown, as the church at the Fulham end had a small turret protruding above the tower:

(© The Trustees of the British Museum. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence.)

It is interesting to see in these prints how the river had a natural foreshore leading up to the land, long before we built large embankments to hold back to river.

In the above print there are a couple of horses drinking in the river. Just above and to the right of the horses is what I thought may have been a gallows, but looking closely at the print there is a sign hanging from the wooden structure, so this may have been the sign of a pub alongside the Fulham end of the bridge.

The first wooden bridge survived for a remarkably long time, and was not replaced by the current stone bridge until 1886, when the Sir Joseph Bazalgette designed bridge of Cornish granite opened.

At the centre of the bridge:

Where a plaque shows the 1886 date of the bridge and the boundaries of the two parishes of Putney and Fulham:

Close to the northern end of the bridge is All Saints, Fulham:

One of the comments to my post on the Putney Debates mentioned All Saints, and that it was a location from the film the Omen, for the scene where the vicar is spiked by the lightning conductor.

On the bright spring day of my visit, the church did not have any of the sinister atmosphere of the Omen.

The church tower still retains the small turret seen in many of the prints of the bridge:

The church tower is the oldest part of the church. The first mention of the church dates from the 13th century, and the dedication to All Saints appears in the mid 15th century when the tower was being built.

In the 1880, the same decade as the railway was extended across the river, that the White Lion Hotel was being built, and the author of the earlier newspaper article complained about the aggressive “villadom“, the church was considered too small for the growing population, and was also subject to flooding from the Thames, so the original church was demolished (except for the tower), and a new, much larger church built to a design by the architect Sir Arthur Blomfield.

The interior of the 1880 church:

There is a mix of memorials in the church, including ones from the current version of the church, such as the tablet erected for Alfred Bassano, who must have had a fascinating life in military service:

Along with memorials which must have come from the original church, including that of Sir Thomas Kinsey, who was an Alderman of the City of London and who died on the 3rd of January 1696 at the age of 60. He must have grown up during an interesting time in London, with the Civil War and the restoration of Charles II when Thomas Kinsey was aged 24:

To prevent flooding, the new church was built three feet higher than the original church, so I wonder whether the floor level of the interior of the church is the same or also raised by three feet.

These memorials in the floor pre-date the current church, so either the interior floor level is the same, or these have also been raised by three feet:

Back outside and this is Bishops Park Lower Stairs:

I can find very little about these stairs, both Bishops Park Upper and Lower Stairs.

The name Bishops Park refers to the park around Fulham Place, the home until 1973 of the Bishops of London.

In the following extract from Rocque’s map of 1746, the original Putney Bridge (labelled as Fulham Bridge), can be seen to lower right. Fulham Palace is the area with the enclosure to the upper left of the bridge:

The names of both Fulham Bridge and Putney Bridge were both used to name the bridge, with Putney winning out in later years.

There are no obvious stairs shown in the map along the whole of the river.

I would have assumed that the Bishops of London would have made considerable use of the river as a means of travelling to and from Westminster and the City of London.

In the following extract from the same map, there are two breaks in the enclosure around the palace facing on to the river, but there is no indication that there were any stairs facing these openings.

There had been an embankment along the river to prevent flooding, and the large river wall that we see today, and along which there is a walkway that follows the river, was built by Joseph Mears between 1889 and 1893, so perhaps the stairs date from this period.

The lack of any obvious early stairs may have been because the previous embankment provided a more accessible way of reaching the river rather than a large, stone river wall, so the two stairs were added to provide access. I just have no proof, one way or the other.

The Port of London Authority listing provides no information as to their age.

Looking back to Putney Bridge:

Continuing further along the walkway, and I reach Bishops Park Upper Stairs:

These are of the same design as the Bishops Park Lower Stairs, and again must have been part of the original construction of the river wall.

Both sets of stairs are surrounded by railings, and have a locked gate to the stairs facing the park:

Both are substantial, wide sets of stairs, and are in good condition:

Frustrating that I could not find any detail as to the age or use of the stairs, but it is good to see that these large flights of stairs down to the river are there, and in good condition.

From here, I continued my walk to Hammersmith Bridge, as there was one more set of Thames stairs to find, and there is much to discover along this part of the Thames. The subject of a future post.

St Mary’s and the Putney Debates of 1647

20 Replies

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.