Chapter Three:
Prosperity and Crisis: Shakespeare to Civil War and Fire (1576 to 1690)
“ALL THE WORLD’S A STAGE” - are the plaques the actors?
Attached to the side of the former "Tudor Tea Rooms" at the entrance to Russell Square, in the High Street, is adorned
the plaque to William Shakespeare’s company, the Lord Chamberlain's men. It reads,
THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN’S MEN
(SHAKESPEARE’S COMPANY)
PERFORMED IN THE COURTYARD
OF THE WHITE HART
THROUGH THIS ARCHWAY
IN THE 1590’S
“ALL THE WORLD’S
A STAGE”
The impression is given that if Shakespeare had come to Marlborough he would have taken tea in the "Tudor Tea
Rooms". The image implies that the Marlborough of Shakespeare's time was not very different from the Marlborough
of today at least as far as the picturesque is concerned. Marlborough must have been middle class and full of literary
connections for Shakespeare to come here. That is the hidden message on the plaque. The past is seen here as a
kind of inverted continuation of the present. It flows backwards and, through doing so, visualises a past Marlborough
with the same presented images of gentility and cultured sensitivity as is currently being seen to be presented in the
town. Retrospective projection of the ethos of the blue plaque and the "Tudor Tea Rooms" serves to illustrate the
sameness of the present with the past so that the images, engendered by the plaques, appear to be a natural and
authentic representation of Marlborough's character.
The facts, however, are very different. It is known that the Chamberlain's Men toured in 1596 and 1597. It is also
known that the company toured in August and September 1597 in Faversham, Rye, Dover, Bristol, Bath, and
Marlborough; probably in that order. 1 Payment of 6s 8d was given to the company by Marlborough Corporation. The
reason for this tour is clear. On 28th July 1597 all London theatres were closed because of a scandal brought about
by a play called “The Isle of Dogs” that had been performed at the Rose theatre. There was an intention by the Privy
Council to raze the London theatres to the ground but, in fact, this did not happen and the theatres were reopened on
11th October. The trouble meant that stage players had to travel in order to reach audiences that could keep their
companies going. These strollers, as they were known, took to touring when there were bad outbreaks of the plague
in London but touring did not happen very often because of the practical transport problems and associated costs. The
players had to attract large audiences to make money. Their visits to Bristol with an estimated population of 12,000
(London, 200,000) would have made some sense, but visits to Marlborough with an estimated population of 2 to 3,000
would have been economically nonsensical. The obvious reason why they came here was, like Pepys, as a stop en
route from Bristol and Bath to London and vice versa. Certainly the Chamberlain's Men did not come to Marlborough
for any literary reasons or for an appreciative and cultured audience. There is evidence that Marlborough audiences
were hard work. Stage plays were actually banned by the Town Corporation in 1602 because of violence and damage
done both by the players and their audience. An item in the Chamberlain's Accounts for March 28th 1601 reads,
Received of the stage players, March 28th, towards mending of the table board and glass windows of the
Guildhall, 3s.2
Comparisons can be made with football hooliganism today. The occasion of a visiting stage playing company was one
of potential trouble. Yet, according to Peter Davison, more companies visited Marlborough than Bristol or Bath. He
argues that the performing en route argument is an inadequate explanation and that the real reason why Marlborough
was so frequently visited, even after the trouble at the Guildhall, was through the patronage of the Earl of Hertford and
the Countess of Pembroke. He writes,
1
Information from Peter Davison Will Shakespeare's Economics - With A Lesson For Today published in The Economic
Research Council Britain And Overseas Vol. 24 no.4 Winter 1994
2 Quoted in Christopher Hughes Marlborough - The Story Of A Small And Ancient Borough Published by C W Hughes, 35
Kingsbury Street, Marlborough 1953 p48
1
It might be argued - it has been - that small places such as Marlborough would be simply visited en route. We
don't have records for all those towns in 1597, but we do for many: Maidstone, Canterbury, Folkestone (a very
popular venue), Lydd, and New Romney. Not one mentions a visit by the Shakespeare and his colleagues.
Then, concentrating on Marlborough, Bath, and Bristol, I discovered a curious fact. More companies visited
Marlborough (37) than either Bristol (31) or Bath (29) in a period of fifty years up to the closure of the theatres
in 1642. Even more curious, even though Marlborough could afford to give so much less to visiting companies
than Bath or Bristol, only two companies in fifty years visited all three towns, one being Shakespeare's
company in 1597, and only seven companies visited both Bath and Bristol, although they are only thirteen
miles apart and the journey could be made by river. There clearly had to be a special reason for so many
companies visiting such a small town as Marlborough. So, another question - why? It is impossible to be
sure, but the answer may be hinted at from the year companies stopped coming to Marlborough: 1622. The
Earl of Hertford then had a castle at Marlborough, its site now occupied by Marlborough College. Hertford had
his own company of players and thirty miles away lived that great patroness of the arts in Elizabethan times,
the Countess of Pembroke; the Pembrokes also had an acting company. Both Hertford and the Countess
died in 1621, and Marlborough town fought for the Commonwealth in the Civil War and so, temperamentally,
may have been opposed to drama. That combination could have been enough to ensure a chilly reception for
travelling players after 1621. 3
It would seem, then, that the townspeople were not too keen on these strollers. The 6s 8d, recorded as being given to
the Chamberlain's company, was a pitiable sum out of the total amount of payments of £59 3s 11d for that year.
Without substantial patronage, Marlborough could not economically have been visited, even en route.
Marlborough's presented connection with Shakespeare's company is false and spurious. The company came to
Hertford's house rather than the "Hart". The company's performance in the inn-yard was a sop to the people of the
town. The town corporation spent £2 12s 5d on sugar loaves for the Earl of Hertford in 1597, eight times more than on
the stage players. That the stage players performed at all in the town itself, rather than the Earl's house, could be seen
as a public- spirited act of benevolence on the part of the Earl. The violent behaviour exhibited at stage plays in the
town could readily be seen as signs of the Earl's unpopularity; discontent being expressed through his hirelings.
Marlborough and the Civil War
The war, which broke out in 1642, was the result of a process of evolution that had begun with the religious reforms of
King Henry VIII. The break with Rome, which Henry had initiated, led to the establishment of the Church of England.
No reference was made in the Bible to a Pope. Statues of the saints and the elaborate rood screens and lofts, which
divided the people’s part of the church from the priests, the nave from the chancel, were removed in churches across
the country with unaccustomed zeal. This was justified by the fact that the Ten Commandments in the Bible expressly
forbade idolatry. The Bible was published in English and a Book of Common Prayer introduced. The priest was no
longer to be separated from his congregation in the chancel revealing the mysteries of God from his inner sanctum.
Instead the altar was replaced with a table in the nave emphasising the union between priest and people. The priest
became more of a preacher co-ordinating the worship of God rather than God's grace being transmitted through him.
The Protestant ideas of Martin Luther, Calvin and Zwingli took hold on an increasingly puritan nation. However, while
people were generally agreed on what was seen to be wrong with Roman Catholicism, there was plenty of
disagreement on what was to replace it. In an increasingly secular age it is difficult for us today to appreciate the
power that religion exercised on the hearts and minds of 17th century men and women.
Economic factors too were behind the turmoil of the 17th century. The Elizabethan Age with the defeat of the Spanish
Armada in 1588 and the beginnings of the British Empire in the Americas and elsewhere, brought wealth on an
unprecedented scale. Parliament's traditional role in raising money for the Monarch and the role of the Monarch
himself ruling absolutely by divine right was beginning to be questioned.
The first of the Stuarts, King James I, Charles I’s father, had not ruled as wisely as Queen Elizabeth. The Wiltshire
broadcloth industry collapsed in 1616 leading to half the county's looms lying idle 4. The combination of this with corn
shortages turned a period of municipal prosperity at the beginning of the century into one of increasing social distress.
Persistent outbreaks of the plague served to exacerbate the situation. Marlborough Corporation had increasing
numbers of destitute children on its hands. A system of apprenticeships was set up to provide young people with
homes and work. Large sums were paid for conveying old, infirm and unemployed people from the town to the parish
where they were born. The borough beadle earned 2d a time for whipping beggars. A reference to beggars being
3
4
Davison op cit p14
Stedman A Marlborough and the Upper Kennet Valley Butler and Tanner 1960 p132
2
conveyed out of town occurs in 1607 5. In 1617 John Martyn as an incorrigible rogue was burned on the left shoulder
with the letter R and whipped. In 1624 fourteen persons, including six women, were convicted of petty larcenies and
openly whipped until they bled6. In 1630 a House of Correction was built in the Marsh, now known as the Parade, next
to the Grammar School. In 1634, this town workhouse was extended 7.
Ominously there is no record of the ringing of church bells in Marlborough on the accession of King Charles I in 1625,
which was normal practice on royal accessions. Taxes levied by Charles I, served to worsen a bad situation. By
stealth the ship money tax levied on coastal towns to build ships for the navy was extended to all towns. In 1633
Marlborough's assessment for ship money was set at £100, an unprecedented high figure and second only to Salisbury
in the county. In 1635 the Royal Mail, hitherto the monarch’s private postal service, was opened up for the use of all
who could afford to use it: in effect another way of raising money for the king without recourse to parliament.
Charles adjourned parliament in March 1629 and did not call another for eleven years. Marlborough returned two
members to the Long Parliament of 1640: they were Sir Francis Seymour, brother of William Seymour, Marquess of
Hertford, and John Franklyn both residents of the town. We can be reasonably sure that most of the people of
Marlborough at the time favoured Parliament in its attempts to curb the power of the King. Waylen refers to both
members as, "the avowed enemies of monopoly". However, there was in Marlborough a pro-Royalist tradition
evidenced by the previous Royalist M.P.s William Carnaby and Henry Piercy. Although from a leading aristocratic
family, Seymour was one of 24 M.P.s who signed the Grand Remonstrance against King Charles I. In the events that
were to follow,
Divided though the inhabitants of Marlborough might be in sentiment, they were co-sufferers, perhaps to a
greater extent than any other community in the kingdom, in the calamities of the war. 8
In his History of the Great Rebellion, the pro-Royalist Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon described Marlborough as, "a
town the most notoriously disaffected" and its people as full of, "obstinacy and malice". When war became inevitable,
Seymour could not stomach the prospect of fighting King Charles. Betraying Parliament he went over to the Royalist
side being created Baron of Trowbridge as a reward. Philip Smyth, who remained loyal to Parliament throughout the
war, succeeded him as MP. In April 1642 Seymour travelled to York on the King's command. In June of that year the
people of Marlborough collected £600 as a loan to Parliament. On 11th June John Franklyn was ordered to thank
Marlborough for this. On 12th July Marlborough was encouraged to prepare itself for conflict. On that day it was
ordered by Parliament,
That licence be given to convey the magazine of powder and match now in Marlborough, to such places as the
mayor of the said town, with the consent of any two of the deputy-lieutenants of the county, shall appoint 9.
The King responded to Parliament's moves by directing Sir Francis Seymour's brother, William Seymour, Marquess of
Hertford, who was also Lord Lieutenant of Wiltshire and Somerset to raise forces by putting in execution the royal
commission of array. A counter commission was made by Parliament by sending their own man Lord Pembroke to
Wiltshire. As a result we learn that,
From Marlborough, on the 18th of this present July, the militia was put in execution, at which place there met
about 400 foot completely armed, under the command of Captain Diggs, Captain Daniell and others; about 100
volunteers from the town of Marlborough. These men have made gallant expression of their intentions to
spend their lives and fortunes in the defence of the King and Parliament 10.
It is interesting that at this stage Parliament still believed itself to be acting in the King's interests. By August things had
deteriorated to the point where the Marquess of Hertford, fearing for his own personal safety, fled to Somerset leaving
his family behind at his mansion. His house was on the site of "C" House now Marlborough College next to the castle
mound.
The first major battle of what was to become known as the First Civil War (1642-46) took place near the village of
Kineton near Banbury on October 23rd 1642. The battle was inconclusive partly as a result of a reckless cavalry
charge led by the King's nephew, Prince Rupert, which pursued off the battlefield broken sections of the
5
Hughes C Marlborough: The Story of a Small and Ancient Borough 1953 p48
Stedman A op cit p132
7 ibid, p133
8
Waylen J A History of the Town of Marlborough John Russell Smith 1854 p148
9 Ibid p155
10 ibid, p156
6
3
Parliamentarian army led by Robert Devereaux, Earl of Essex. By the time Rupert's forces had regrouped the battle
had become a stalemate.
Essex withdrew to London, reaching the capital by 8th November. Charles took Banbury on 27th October, moving on
to take Reading by 4th November. A Royalist force overwhelmed the Parliamentary garrison at Brentford on 12th
November but a stand-off was reached at Turnham Green the following day helped by the formation of a new
Parliamentary army consisting of 24,000 men including 6,000 members of the London Trained Bands. With the
opening campaign inconclusively over, the King retired to Oxford, which became his new headquarters. By the end of
November the winter had arrived in earnest. Large-scale campaigning was now put off until the following spring.
Instead the King turned his attention to smaller targets. In particular, targets within easy striking range of Oxford. The
first of these targets was the town of Marlborough, which was now to face its deadliest threat.
Despite the inclement weather, Lord Digby, a courtier and close advisor to the King, led a force of 400 cavalry out of
Oxford on 24th November to take Marlborough for the King. Sir Neville Poole, one of Malmesbury's two MPs had
arrived at Marlborough to help organise the town's militia numbering at this time around 150. On the 25th Digby's
forces appeared on Marlborough Common. Digby sounded a parley expecting to be handed the town on a plate.
Vincent Goddard, a local Royalist emerged from Digby's brigade as the King's representative. Sir Neville Poole
represented Parliament. Goddard demanded that Marlborough be handed over to the King. Poole replied,
That the King's Majesty, provided he were attended in royal and not in war-like wise, should be as welcome to
that town as ever was prince to people; but as to delivering up the good town of Marlborough to such a traitor
as Lord Digby, or admitting any of his traitorous rabble within their lines, they declared they would sooner die,
not withstanding his threatenings to batter the place with his artillery which he pretended was at hand 11.
Ten of Poole's musketeers then fired shots into the air to emphasise what would happen if Digby tried to attack.
Perturbed by this unexpected rebuff, Digby pondered what to do. He certainly couldn't stay the night on the Common
in the depths of winter. He could hardly quarter his troops in Marlborough. In the event Digby's force attempted to
retire to Aldbourne for the night. Elated with their success the men of Marlborough pursued Digby, capturing Vincent
Goddard and forcing Digby to march on at night to Wantage.
The first attempt to seize the town had evidently failed. The people of Marlborough, however, were under no illusions
as to the seriousness of their plight. An urgent request for help was sent to the commander of the parliamentary
forces, the Earl of Essex who was then based in Windsor. Essex sent two Scottish officers to organise Marlborough's
defence. One of these gentlemen, Colonel James Ramsey, had commanded the Parliamentary left-wing at the battle
of Edgehill. He had led 24 troops of horse, 600 musketeers and 3 guns. He also had experience of constructing
earthwork defences. Under Ramsey's expertise the town entrances were barricaded and horn-works consisting of
pairs of demi-bastions connected by a curtain.
The castle mound was considered as a last post of retreat. In the event Lord Seymour's house was to be occupied by
musketeers. Seymour's wife and daughter were held as prisoners of war. The House of Commons sent instructions
that, "the said prisoners should be kept at Marlborough in safe custody" 12.
Under John Franklyn's prompting provision was made for financial aid to the town. The deputy lieutenants of the
county of Wiltshire were required to,
Issue out so much money, upon account, out of the proposition monies of this countie, to the forces in
Marlborough, as they should think fit; and to make public announcement that all persons willing to deliver
provisions and supplies upon ticket, to the soldiers there serving, should have the assurance of the House for
repayment of the same13.
Having put the wheels in motion in Parliament, Franklyn left London to hasten to Marlborough to defend his
constituents in person.
By now the local population substantially reinforced the militia. The Saturday markets of November 26th and
December 3rd brought a glut of recruits. Royalist elements were seen on Saturday 3rd on the downs around
Marlborough. Digby's undignified arrival in Oxford caused a storm. Henry Wilmot, the King's lieutenant general of
11
ibid pp157-8
Waylen op cit p159
13 ibid, p159
12
4
horse, united his dragoons with Digby's horse to form a combined army of 3,300 men 14. In a letter written to Prince
Rupert on December 1st, Wilmot described himself at Wantage on the way to Marlborough. He complained of the mad
rush in which his men had been sent forward, "without any forecast or design as to quarters" 15. Wilmot's forces were at
the same time to be helped by two regiments of cavalry under Lord Grandison and Colonel Grey sent from
Basingstoke.
Wilmot's forces began to take up position north of Marlborough on the 3rd and 4th December. On Sunday 4th
December Grandison's and Grey's cavalry emerged from Savernake Forest to the south and east of the town. As they
approached the town's defences, a corps of defending musketeers fired on them and a skirmish developed resulting in
the Royalist cavalry retreating and regrouping with Wilmot's forces. The cavalry probably crossed the Kennet near
Mildenhall, and then made their way across country to join Wilmot at Ogbourne.
During the night of Sunday 4th to Monday 5th December Royalist scouts actually got within firing range of Ramsey's
lookouts. A violent exchange of fire followed, resulting amazingly with the deaths of two of the Royalists. Considering
it happened in the dark, it could only be conjectured that they were hit at random. On the following morning a cap, a
gauntlet, and a bloody handkerchief were found at the spot.
On the morning of Monday 5th December Wilmot's legions moved in for the kill. Grandison's and Grey's dragoons
waited for the infantry to form attacking positions. Colonel Blake brought up artillery, which was prepared for a
bombardment of the town.
Even at this late stage the Royalists hoped that Marlborough's defenders would see reason and lay down their arms
before such overwhelming odds. When it was obvious that surrender was not forthcoming, the artillery fired a salvo of
two and three pounder shots. Because the shots were fired from the top of the hill overlooking the town, it would
appear that the cannon-balls passed right over doing little, if any, damage. There is a local story that the north-west
pinnacle of St. Peter's Church tower was knocked off by a Royalist cannon ball. The present pinnacle is different to the
other three being curved slightly rather than straight. A plaque inside the church porch, however, makes it clear that
the pinnacles were repaired or rebuilt in 1707 long after the Civil War. There is no evidence that the story is true but it
remains a possibility.
After the first salvo, heavy artillery was brought up to fire 18 and 20 pound shot over the town. Again, little damage
was done as the balls screamed over to land harmlessly to the south. It seems certain that the Royalists were
practising psychological warfare by displaying their strength through this rather glorified fireworks display.
According to Clarendon's history of the Great Rebellion the Royalists had captured a parliamentarian spy. The spy,
fearing for his life, was shown the strength of the Royalist army and then released on condition that he return to
Marlborough to urge the futility of resistance. In any event, the defenders of Marlborough held firm; there was no
surrender.
There was now no alternative for the Royalists but to storm the town. Ramsey's men defending the earthworks on the
Common soon found themselves under heavy attack from Colonel Blake's infantry and Colonel Grey's dragoons. After
a stormy exchange of fire, the Royalists were forced to retreat with heavy loss. From the north-west an attack by Sir
William Pennyman's and Sir James Pennyman's foot and Usher's dragoons was also held off. This sporadic fighting
continued for about three hours. At this point a barn defended by musketeers was fired along with an adjoining house.
The defenders had no choice but to retreat out of the blazing building. The Royalists burst the lines at this point,
outflanking the parliamentary defence. They stormed into the town through a passage leading to one of the great inns
with the cry, "A town! A town for King Charles!" It is possible that this breakthrough came through what is now the
yard of the "Castle and Ball" hotel. However any of the back passages leading off the north of the High Street could
have been used. "Chandler's Yard", by the "White Horse Bookshop", used to be called "Horse-passage Yard" so it
could have been this way that the Royalists came.
Once the way in was cleared by the infantry, the cavalry charged in. The defenders continued their desperate struggle
around the barricades and by firing from the windows. However, it was now only a matter of time before the Royalists
could claim a victory. Colonel James Ramsey's last stand was from St. Mary's Church where with a group of
desperadoes he fought to the end. The bullet-holes from this shootout can still be seen as spherical indentations in the
walls of the church. In the Churchwardens accounts is a reference to a payment of £6 10s for, "glaseinge St. Mary's
14
15
figure deduced by Young P Edgehill 1642: The Campaign and the Battle The Windrush Press reprinted 1998 p180
Waylen op cit p160
5
Church which was broak by the soldyers"16. At the other end of town, Sir Neville Poole with the halberds and pike-men
retreated to the Castle Mound taking with them Seymour's wife and daughter as hostages. On the top of the mound
they fixed two effigies dressed in white aprons and black hoods and made it clear to the Royalists that they would kill
the hostages if their position were stormed. Such a threat was unnecessary as the Royalists now had control of the
town. Clarendon tells us,
So many were killed out of the window that fire was put to the next houses, so that a good part of the town was
burned, and then the soldiers entered, doing less execution than could reasonably be expected; but what they
spared in blood they took in pillage, the soldiers inquiring little who were friends or foes 17.
Fires followed the Royalist assault. John Hammond, a bookseller, watched helplessly as his books were thrown onto a
bonfire. The Royalist soldiers completely ransacked the town. Clarendon referred to, "the King's half-starved troops".
John Franklyn and 120 others were taken in chains as prisoners of war to the King's capital at Oxford where Franklyn
later died from ill-treatment.
The casualties from the battle are difficult to evaluate. Waylen estimates that, "two hundred at least, had fallen on the
part of the King" 18. Some, he asserts, were buried in the churchyards, some in graves elsewhere and mention is made
of "a considerable number" being thrown down a deep well. The location of this well is unknown. There are
inconsistencies here as one account gives only two deaths on the defenders side which seems highly unlikely if 200
royalists were killed,
On the Town side, the two Scotch-men commanded, and they had but 140 men that fought, of whom there
was not one kill’d, nor any in the whole Town, except two countrymen that were slain as they were running out
of the Town, after it was taken.19
Waylen used Clarendon’s “History of the Great Rebellion”, contemporary newspaper reports, and a pamphlet entitled,
“Marlborough’s Miseries, or England turned Ireland by the Lord Digby and Daniel O’Neale written by T.B., W.B., O.B.,
and J.H. dedicated to all England, 1643”. Such sources were going to be politically biased and would have
exaggerated events depending on the message being put across. The pamphlet certainly singled out Lord Digby and
Daniel O’Neale who was only a captain who served with Digby. However, the fact remains that Marlborough was
attacked and looted and prisoners were sent to Oxford Castle where John Franklyn died the following year. It is quite
possible that the royalist casualties were exaggerated to help glorify Marlborough’s heroic defenders.
Having captured Marlborough at such great cost, the Royalists stayed three days, leaving on Thursday 8th December.
It is possible that they got wind of a relief force sent too late by the Earl of Essex via Newbury. One of the soldiers in
the relief force wrote a letter dated 9th December, the day after the Royalists evacuated Marlborough. It reads,
...on Wednesday...we were upon our march from Oakingham (Wokingham) to Newbury, where we quartered
Wednesday night; and from whence we intended to relieve Marlborough, which had stood out against the
enemy valiantly for three or four days, slaying divers (many) of them, with little loss on their side; nor yielding
the town until it was fired in three or four places; which when the enemy had taken it, they plundered all the
town, and took some threescore (60) of the honest people prisoners, and, like the Irish rebels, most
barbarously dealt with them...On Thursday we heard the town was taken, and that 3,000 of the enemy were
got to Wantage. The same day, about eleven or twelve, we marched towards the town, and drew up in a field
before it, into the ancles in clay. About nine or ten in the evening, we fell in upon them; but not knowing their
strength or fortification, the greater part of them fled, and amongst them the Lord Digby. The night was so
exceedingly dark, tempestuous, and wet, that we could not possibly get intelligence of their strength, till some
twenty of our horse were sent in amongst them, who slew their sentinel, charged a whole troop, and safely
returned with the loss of only one man. Then six or seven companies of dragoons were sent in, who, every
step went up nearly to the tops of their boots; and yet went on with such courage and cheerfulness, though
exceedingly wet, weary, and dirty as though they had been in the most delightful garden-walks. After them
some troops of horse; but before this could be done, the most part of the enemy escaped away. We slew five
or six men, took a captain and about thirty prisoners, whom we released on coming back, to save being
troubled with them.
That night we returned back to Newbury; all the night being exceedingly wet and
blustering, so that we had twenty-four hours march and service, such as those that have been twenty years in
16
quoted in A Guide to the Parish Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Marlborough The Parochial Church Council of the Parish of
St. Mary the Virgin, with St. Peter and St. Paul 1982 p3
17
quoted in Waylen op cit p163
18 ibid, p165
19 John Rushworth Historical Collections, Part III, Volume II, pp82-3 London 1692, quoted in Young, P op cit p180
6
services abroad, never had the like. . . we took the Lord Digby's coach and horses, and their carriages, arms
and powder; but were constrained to throw away the powder, and took the muskets; and one of them that was
slain, died with a fearful oath upon his mouth, swearing that he would see the Parliament hanged before he
would yield; and with that one of our dragoons shot him20.
No attack was made on Seymour's house, which was not surprising given that his wife and daughter were being held
hostage. It is possible that it was spared, as it was the property of the Marquess of Hertford, one of the King's leading
commanders. Sir Neville Poole, it appears, escaped unharmed.
Sir Neville Poole must have made his way to London for the Commons Journal for January 17th 1643 has the following
entry,
Sir Neville Poole informed the house of the cruel usage of the poor prisoners taken at Marlborough; and Sir
Neville was ordered to send up two or three of the said men to attest the fact21.
These two or three must have somehow escaped from Oxford.
On 2nd February Cirencester suffered the same fate as Marlborough. A pamphlet printed in London in 1643 entitled
"Relation of the taking of Ciceter" suggested that the Royalists had,
. . grown more skilful in mischief" and "outdid their former cruelties and spoil of Brentford and Marlborough.
They spared not to plunder their best friends; for I can assure you some of the notorious malignants were the
most notably plundered of all the town22.
Malmesbury and Devizes too went over to the King despite strong Parliamentarian sympathies. The examples of
Marlborough and Cirencester had proved what lay in wait if they resisted.
With North Wiltshire taken by the Royalists, things now went from bad to worse for the Parliamentarians.
The Battle of Roundway Down, which followed on 13th July, was an unmitigated disaster for the Parliamentarians. Sir
William Waller, Parliament’s rising star who had earned himself the nick-name “William the Conqueror” had fought the
Royalists under Sir Ralph Hopton to a stand-still at Lansdown outside Bath on 5 th July. Hopton had been injured by an
exploding ammunition wagon and had taken refuge in Devizes where he was soon besieged by the Parliamentarian
army. Despite the capture of Lord Crawford's ammunition train at Beckhampton, the Royalist cavalry was able to
rendezvous with Lord Wilmot, the King's lieutenant-General of Horse who had led the second successful attack on
Marlborough on December 5th 1642. Wilmot had a trigger-happy reputation being described by a contemporary as,
. . a man proud and ambitious, and incapable of being contented23.
Wilmot did not stop long in Marlborough, which must have been a relief to the people of the town having seen one of
their compatriots, hanged in front of them and several others thrown in the castle prison by Lord Crawford. On the
morning of 13th July Wilmot approached Devizes from Marlborough with 1,800 cavalry but no infantry under his
command. He faced an interesting tactical problem for between his cavalry and Sir Ralph Hopton's 3,000 besieged
infantry lay a Parliamentarian force of 2,000 horse and 2,500 foot. If they fought in isolation both Royalist forces would
be outnumbered and their only hope of victory seemed to rest on a combined attack upon the parliamentary army.
Wilmot believed he had to organise a concerted attack on Sir William Waller’s parliamentary army. To do this he had
to somehow communicate with Hopton in Devizes. He had two cannon with him which he decided to use as signal
guns to alert Hopton. Unfortunately, the messenger he sent to Hopton was captured and, in the event, Hopton decided
not to attack suspecting a parliamentary trap.
Waller had advanced most of his army of mixed cavalry and infantry from its besieging positions around Devizes to
meet Wilmot’s advance on the downs north of the town. Waller’s foot soldiers were accompanied by his own mounted
troopers and several squadrons of heavy cavalry, known as “lobsters”, commanded by Sir Arthur Hesilrige. The
Royalist force consisted entirely of cavalry units commanded by Wilmot, Sir John Byron and the earl of Crawford: they
were outnumbered almost three to one by Waller’s army.
20
quoted in Waylen op cit pp166-8
quoted in ibid, p183
22 quoted in ibid, p185
23 quoted in Newman P R Companion to the English Civil Wars Facts On File 1990 p161
21
7
Nevertheless, the three Royalist commanders launched a fierce, almost reckless attack on the parliamentarian cavalry.
It was not for nothing that Byron became known by his opponents as, “The bloody Braggadochio” 24.
The force of the attack caused Hesilrige’s “lobsters” to break and flee, followed by Waller’s troopers. Disaster occurred
when the ground abruptly dropped 100m on the edge of the chalk escarpment. Unable to rein in, many plunged pellmell into the “bloody ditch” at the bottom.
Waller’s infantry, now alone on the battlefield did not have long to wait as Hopton, at last aware that his assistance was
required, sent his 3,000 infantry into the battle. They made short work of what was left of Waller’s army, who
surrendered or fled as best they could. Waller’s reputation as “William the Conqueror” was in ruins and the Royalists
prepared to celebrate what was to be arguably their greatest success in the war.
The defeat at Roundway opened the way to Bristol for the Royalists who captured the city after a bloody siege on 27th
July. Charles was advised at this stage to march on London and bring the war to a conclusion. Instead he marched
on Gloucester, the only remaining city in the region still holding out against the Royalists. This time they were
unsuccessful. Colonel Edward Massey engineered a brilliant defence of the city. Sickened by the appalling butchery
at Bristol, Charles was reluctant to launch a full-scale frontal attack. A relief force sent from London and led by the Earl
of Essex forced Charles to lift the siege at the point where the defenders were down to their last match. A running
series of skirmishes took place as both armies headed for Newbury.
At Aldbourne, near Marlborough, fighting took place. In the middle of the village two of Essex's ammunition wagons
broke down. They were exploded to prevent them falling into the hands of the Royalists. The Marquis de Vieu-ville,
fighting for the King, was captured by Essex's forces. Waylen describes what happened next,
. . while marching away with the officer who had captured him, he suddenly drew out a pistol and shot him.
The wounded officer, collecting all his energies, flew at the perfidious Frenchman with his pole-axe and clave
his head asunder25.
Essex quartered his men in Hungerford and himself in the comfortable nearby Chilton House.
The Battle of Newbury, which followed on 20th September 1643, was inconclusive resulting in the Royalists repairing
to Oxford and the Parliamentarians to London. The war was set to continue for some time.
Sir William Waller lived to fight another day. On 29th March 1644 he inflicted a minor defeat on his old adversary and
personal friend Sir Ralph Hopton at Cheriton near Alresford in Hampshire. As a result several of King Charles’
regiments moved to the Marlborough area having first destroyed the parliamentary fortifications at Reading. They met
at Aldbourne Chase in April and, according to Clarendon, numbered 10,000. The Parliamentary London Papers put
the figure at a more conservative 6,000. King Charles stayed first in Lord Pembroke's House at Ramsbury and then
Lord Seymour's House in Marlborough.
One of the functions of the King's visit was to acquire men for his army. Volunteers were no longer forthcoming so
impressment was used instead. A mandate issued to the Hundred of Potterne and Cannings reads,
Whereas, by virtue of his Majesty's commission under the great seal of England to us and others directed, for
the impressing of 667 able men within the said county of Wilts; and whereas also it is conceived that 21 is a
proportionate number for the Hundred of Potterne and Cannings: These are therefore to will and require you,
and in his Majesty's name straightly to charge and command you that presently upon sight hereof, you impress
within your said hundred the said one and twenty able men, and bring them to us his Majesty's commissioners
at the Devizes, on Friday next, by one of the clock in the afternoon, there to be received. Hereof fail not at
your uttermost peril. Given under our hands and seals this four and twentieth day of April, Anno Domini
164426.
Marlborough gets a further mention in June 1644 when on the occasion of St Peter's Fair, Sir Ralph Hopton arrived in
town with 500 cavalry with the intention of impressing further men for the King's army. Unfortunately for Hopton the
Parliamentarians had had some considerable success in the area following the Battle of Crediton including the taking
of Malmesbury and entering Devizes destroying the Royalist fortifications at the same time. The Parliamentarian
24
quoted in Newman op cit p19
quoted in Waylen op cit p200
26 ibid p205
25
8
Colonel Ludlow unexpectedly broke into Marlborough forcing Hopton to retreat in disorder. 180 of the people at the fair
volunteered there and then for service with Ludlow, who must have been seen as something of a hero, rather than fight
for the King. A biting comment on Hopton appeared soon after in the Parliamentarian "Perfect Diurnal" for the 11th
July,
Sir Ralph Hopton, that sun which first arose in the west, is now in a cloud; and for all his great services done to
the cavaliers, is left to the wide world as an obscure outcast, with some few broked remnants of horse which
now and then make a shift to plunder and rob in Wiltshire – “for the liberty of the subject 27.
This event marked the end of the Royalist control of Marlborough although the King himself was again in the town for
the last time in the following November protected by 600 horse encamped at Fyfield. This must have been soon after
the indecisive second Battle of Newbury on 29th October 1644 at which the King had ineffectively commanded in
person.
In June 1645 the Earl of Essex's successor, Sir Thomas Fairfax, occupied Marlborough on his westward march ending
Royalist raids for good. Before then something of a "wild west" situation had existed as both sides engaged in raids
and counter-raids. In the spring of 1645 Cromwell and William Waller had violently put down the Royalists in Devizes.
In revenge a Royalist party descended upon Marlborough. John Gwyn, a Welsh officer who fought loyally for the King
throughout the war left an account of what happened,
When a party of Waller's horse beat up our quarters at the Devizes, and furiously scoured the streets, giving
no quarter to any soldiers they met, then I ran and leaped across the street of such a sudden by them, as to
escape both their swords and pistols, when they killed Captain Jones with others, and shot Ensign Garroway in
the neck. And to be quits with them, a knot of my own associates, officers, and reformadoes . . . contracted to
make a party to go and fall upon Waller's rearguard, at Marlborough town-end; and, withal, strictly resolved
that not a word should be spoken, after once their swords were drawn, but all to march on in order . . . As they
did, beat the enemy, and pursued them through the town at mid-day, and market-day too; which so rejoiced a
number of loyal-hearted market people, that their loud shouts gave an apprehension as if an army had come to
second them. This strong alarm did so discompose their whole camp, that this small party had time enough to
make good their long retreat; and to bring with them their well deserved prize, they so bravely fought for, of
prisoners, horse and arms without the loss of a man, and but one or two slightly wounded 28.
John Francklyn gave his life for the town he represented as MP. On 7th October 1646 it was reported in the Commons
Journal,
Ordered, That it be referred to the committee of Wiltshire, to provide and supply unto Mistress Francklyn,
widow, the relict of John Francklyn, late of Marlborough in the county of Wilts esquire, a member of this House,
who died a prisoner in the service of the Parliament, the sum of £4 per week, for the present subsistence of her
and her family, to continue until the said committee shall provide some further maintenance and support of her
and her children, in consideration of their great loss, and in acknowledgement of the good affections of the said
Mr John Francklyn to the great cause of liberty and religion, asserted and maintained by the Parliament 29.
Even after the first Civil War and the execution of the King, Marlborough continued to enjoy a radical reputation. In
May 1649 the town harboured a large number of Levellers from the New Model Army who had mutinied in Salisbury
and were making their way to Banbury where another mutiny had taken place. In Marlborough, they wrote to Lord
Fairfax, Parliament’s Commander in Chief, setting out their grievances and demands. They left Marlborough to get as
far as Burford where they were intercepted by Cromwell’s and Fairfax’s troops: three were shot by firing squad in
Burford Churchyard. That they chose to stop in Marlborough reflects the sympathy the town had then for democratic
and egalitarian movements.
The Fire of 1653
In 1653 Marlborough experienced its worst disaster. On 28th April, a fire broke out in the back of Francis Freeman’s
tannery at the south-west end of the High Street where the “Wellington” public house is today. Nearly all of the
buildings in the High Street then were made of wood. A strong wind blew burning thatch across the street where a
general conflagration rapidly grew until the whole of the High Street was ablaze, the fire only burning itself out after
27
quoted in Waylen op cit p209
ibid, p223-4
29 quoted in Waylen op cit p204
28
9
gutting St Mary’s Church. Thomas Bailey, the silk merchant described the fire as, “. . the most furious fire that ever
mortal creature ever saw.” John Keynes, a linen draper, called it, “.. the saddest story that I think you ever heard of a
town, where in three hours time were consumed at least 250 houses.”
John Hammond, the bookseller, who had had his books burnt by the Royalists ten years before, was particularly
unlucky to see his business literally “go up in smoke” a second time. He commented in a letter,
It pleased God to lay his heavy heart by fire on Marlborough which has burned down our dwelling houses: I
have very little saved, not above £8 worth of all my goods and books so that we . . have scarce anything left
but our lives, all burned, the children crying to go home, and I tell them we have none to go to. St Mary’s
Church with the Market House, and all chief houses in the town, both sides of the High Street burned to dust . .
the loss is unspeakable, all being on fire in an instant of time.”
The fire happened during Oliver Cromwell’s Commonwealth. Marlborough had supported Parliament during the Civil
War and Cromwell had not forgotten it. By setting up a national subscription he made sure Marlborough would be
helped,
God’s word and a good conscience says, that he that hath two coats ought to give one to him that hath none. .
It is an old saying that one cannot help a great many but a great many may help one. . All the cities and shires
in England may lend their assistance to relieve the distressed people of Marlborough.
It should be remembered that most of Marlborough High Street, including the Merchant’s House, was rebuilt as a result
of Oliver Cromwell’s subscription. Those 17th century buildings on the High Street are memorials to the proParliamentary radicalism of the people who suffered so terribly at the hands of the Royalists in 1642.
There were Royalist supporters in the town keen to see the restoration of the Monarchy, particularly towards the end of
the 1650s. One such man was William Houlbrook, a blacksmith, who had his forge in George Lane. Suspected of
disloyalty to the Commonwealth he was taken to London where he was interrogated and tortured with irons at Newgate
Gaol in an attempt to extract names of Royalist sympathisers. Unbroken, Houlbrook bravely held out to return to his
forge without giving away any information. A pamphlet described him, “That now he lived in Marlborough town, And
was a man of some renown”.
Marlborough never fully recovered from the disasters of the civil war and the 1653 fire. Devizes took Marlborough’s
place as Wiltshire’s second town. Another fire in 1690 led to an Act of Parliament banning the use of thatch within the
borough boundaries. The use of clay tiles on the front of buildings dates from this time. Tile-hung buildings
characterize the High Street today, as they have done for the last 300 years.
Samuel Pepys and his Picture Postcard
A plaque to Samuel Pepys is on the front of “Ducks” toyshop, once part of the “Hart” inn, where he stayed one night in
June 1668. It reads,
SAMUEL PEPYS
DIARIST 1633-1703
“LAY AT THE HART A GOOD HOUSE
AND THERE A FAIR AND PRETTY TOWN”
ON THE 15th-16th JUNE 1668
PARTS OF THE INN’S GALLERIES
REMAIN IN NEARBY
BUILDINGS
Famous for his diary and graphic description of the 1666 fire of London, Pepys was secretary to the Navy Board and
on his return from a tour of the West Country with his wife. His comments, “Lay at the Hart and there a fair and pretty
town” are interesting but a fuller reading of his diary reveals he was having a hard time with his wife who suspected
him with some justification of having affairs. On return to work at the admiralty he fell out with his boss but as he wrote,
“I cared not a turd”.
The disconnection between “Ducks” and the “Hart” is not resolved by the plaque and the reference to “the inn’s
galleries” is similarly vague leading to the inescapable conclusion that it is Pepys who is being commemorated and not
the “Hart”. Similar plaques could be placed at all the other places Pepys stopped at. The words from Pepys’ diary
read like a postcard: only the words, “wish you were here” are lacking.
10
Samuel Pepys actual diary entry reads,
Before night came to Marlborough and lay at the Hart; a good house and a pretty fair town for a street or two;
and what is most singular is their houses on one side having their pent houses supported with pillars which
makes it a good walk.
The Hart Inn no longer exists but the description of the colonnaded walkway on the north side of the High Street
remains recognizable today. That the town had been nearly raised to the ground by fire only fifteen years before
clearly escaped Pepys as it had evidently been rebuilt. Yet Pepys’ description of Marlborough as “fair and pretty” was
to become very apt in the coming centuries. The 17th century was the town’s highpoint: war and fire were to prove to
be the beginning of steady decline in which the picturesque and the picture postcard image would increasingly come to
represent Marlborough’s future identity.
11