Back to the Main Historical Society page
Back to the Barwicker Contents page
In January 1642 at the Wetherby Quarter Sessions of the West Riding, the court
considered an application from a "Roberte
Wright" of Grafton "a soldier being prest
for his Majesties service at Barwicke, was there
lamed, and is not able to labour or work as formerly". The court asked the
Justices of the Peace "att the next general
quarter sessions of peace to be holden at Pontefracte, to take into consideracon
the said Robert Wright, and allow such pencon towards
his reliefe as they in their discrecon
shall thincke fitt".
The statement raises more questions than we can answer. Who was in Barwick
"pressing" men into service? The event took place before the start of
the Civil War. After much dissension and acrimony the start of the civil war
was on 22nd August 1642 when King Charles I raised his Standard at Nottingham
Castle. The press-ganging of strangers at Barwick-in-Elmet took place because
of events which led up to the start of the war. There were three possible
occasions which might have been the cause of the press-ganging - the Rebellion
in Ireland in 1641 or the two Bishops' Wars in 1639 and 1640.
The most likely of the three is the second Bishops' War in 1640 when England
was invaded by the Scots. We know Sir Jacob Astley
led 2,000 reinforcements from Yorkshire to aid the troops from Newcastle at the
battle of Newburn on the River Tyne. The Scots easily
routed the English and captured Newcastle. The King had insufficient troops to
oppose the Scots and peace was signed at Ripon. There was probably quite a
panic when the Scots invaded a lightly defended north of England and no doubt
local landowners would have responded by raising local troops in any manner
necessary.
On the outbreak of the civil war itself there was no clear-cut division of the
population into the side of the King and the side of Parliament. Local
landowners and the aristocracy were in general royalists even more so those who
were Roman Catholics. It was quite normal for parliamentarians to call the
Royalists "Papists". In the case of Barwick, the local landowners of
influence, the Gascoignes and their neighbours, the Vavasours of Hazlewood (Sir
Walter Vavasour raised a regiment) were Roman
Catholic and were undoubtedly firmly in support of the King. They had the
ancient feudal responsibility for providing soldiers for the monarch. The
humble tenant had little excuse to avoid being called to arms by the lord of
the manor. In areas of Yorkshire where the medieval manorial system had broken
down or was weak, such as in the commercial towns of the West Riding, e.g.
Leeds, Bradford and Halifax, matters were different. Therefore at the outbreak
of hostilities York and rural Yorkshire were generally royalist and the towns
of the West Riding and Hull supported Parliament.
There were of course exceptions. The Fairfax family, a large land-owning family
in Wharfedale and near York with military experience,
supported Parliament. They formed a link between Hull and the West Riding towns
in the early stages of the war. This link drew the parish of Barwick-in-Elmet
into the war when territory and river crossings along the lower Wharfe between Wetherby, Tadcaster
and Selby became strategic targets for both sides. At one point there was a
royalist army estimated at 10,000 men stationed on Clifford Moor, barely a mile
from the parish boundary. The parish could hardly have escaped providing them
with food and fodder. There was fighting between Tadcaster
and Seacroft which brought the parish briefly into the front line. A further
article will go into this matter in more detail.
Until recently we knew nothing of the involvement of parishioners in the war.
The parish registers were not kept at the time for at the outbreak of
hostilities our rector, John Scot, was a debtor and was in prison. However, as
a result of the computerisation of the county archive's catalogue we now have
some details of some of the men involved in the conflict.
There are a number of documents in the West Yorkshire Archives relating to
Barwick-in-Elmet which can cast more light on these questions. Some years after
the restoration of the monarchy, parishioners petitioned the quarter sessions
on behalf of those parishioners who had fought in the civil war on behalf of
the King who were loyal, maimed and poor. They were awarded pensions once one
of the current pensioners in the Skyrack wapentake had died. The documents consisted of applications
by the potential pensioners themselves or by the parish to the court and
attestations provided by former commanders of the applicant or, if no
commanders were still alive, a panel of men of standing in the county who
interviewed the applicants. There are no documents of unsuccessful appellants,
possibly because there would not have been any concomitant financial
implications.
The documents provide evidence of some of the men in the parish who served on
the royalist side (either the applicants or men who served and could provide
verification), where they fought, some indication of their wounds and who they
served under. Most of them served under Yorkshire commanders and with few
exceptions fought in the north of England. The parishioners listed in the
documents who served on the royalist side are:
|
PENSIONERS · Thomas Cowpland · John Haigue · Martin Prince · Robert Prince · George Bollonds · Martin Hague · Alvary Daniel -
No detail - listed as a pensioner who had died, thereby releasing a pension. · Robert Dineley Corporall to Sir Rich: Hutton · John Prince "Being in the same troup" as Thomas Cowpland |
The detail of the service records of the pensioners will be subject of a
further article.
Not much has been written about the legislation which provided the pensions but
sufficient remains about how they were provided. The pensions were provided
under an Act of Parliament, "An Act for Relief of poor and maimed Soldiers
and Officers, who have faithfully served His Majesty and His Royal Father in
the late Wars." <a href=”#15”>which was
passed in March 1662 (15) nearly two years after the restoration of the
monarchy. It expired in April 1679. Under the bill each wapentake
was responsible for funding its own pensioners. There does not seem to be any
pattern as to how much should be paid or how many pensioners should be paid at
one time.
There is a petition from the parish of Great Ouseburn
appealing to the wapentake of Claro that they had no
pensioners and yet had to share in the cost of the pension scheme. One set of
accounts survives for the whole of the West Riding for the fourth quarter of
1672. It shows that there were just over 300 pensioners in the county and that Skyrack had only 18 pensioners. Claro seems to have rather
a disproportionate share of the total, possibly the reason for Great Ouseburn's dissatisfaction.
The amount paid by each wapentake varies considerably
and does not seem to be on any rational basis. It also shows that the King
intervened and used the scheme to make a (one off?) payment to a woman,
possibly a widow.
|
Wapentake |
No. of |
Payment |
|||||
|
Highest |
Lowest |
£ |
s |
d |
|||
|
Staincross |
40 |
13/4 |
5/- |
17 |
9 |
10 |
|
|
Claro |
70 |
10/- |
3/4 |
16 |
19 |
2 |
|
|
Skyrack |
18 |
£2-10-0 |
9/- |
10 |
8 |
0 |
|
|
Barkston Ash |
28 |
£1 |
6/8 |
10 |
13 |
5 |
|
|
Agbrigg & Morley |
48 |
6/5 |
6/5 |
15 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
Osgoldcross |
31 |
15/- |
10/- |
8 |
12 |
9 |
|
|
Staincross |
22 |
13/4 |
5/4 |
6 |
14 |
4 |
|
|
Strafforth & Tickhill |
44 |
£5-0-0* |
10/- |
26 |
8 |
8 |
|
|
Total |
303 |
7/4 average |
112 |
11 |
8 |
||
*A (one off?) payment
"By order of his Majesty" to Mrs. Gwen Partington
The parish documents show that the principles of the act were clearly followed
locally in that the pensioners had to be seen to be loyal throughout the
hostilities, maimed and poor. There were clearly others who had served loyally
but were neither maimed nor poor e.g. Robert Dineley.
There was only one pensioner, Martin Prince, from the parish in 1672. The wapentake was generally even handed in the amounts awarded
but there were exceptions e.g. Thomas Naylor of Harewood
received over five times the normal pension.
The pensioners for the Skyrack Wapentake
and the quarterly amounts received were:
|
£ |
s |
d |
|
|
Anthony
Sawyer (Horsforth) |
0 |
10 |
0 |
|
Henry
? (Rawdon) |
0 |
10 |
0 |
|
Thomas
Naylor (Harewood) |
2 |
10 |
0 |
|
James
Hopton (Leeds) |
0 |
8 |
6 |
|
Christopher
Baycliffe (Leeds) |
0 |
9 |
0 |
|
Alexander
Part--?(Leeds) |
0 |
9 |
0 |
|
Henry
Hoarnby (Leeds) |
0 |
9 |
0 |
|
Thomas
Smurthwaite (Leeds) |
0 |
9 |
0 |
|
Anthony
Wilson (Yeadon) |
0 |
9 |
0 |
|
George
Hall (Swillington) |
0 |
9 |
0 |
|
John
Staincliffe (Chapel Allerton) |
0 |
9 |
0 |
|
William
Walker (Rawdon) |
0 |
9 |
0 |
|
William
Barwick (Poole) |
0 |
9 |
0 |
|
Thomas
Bursthwaite (Horsforth) |
0 |
12 |
6 |
|
Martin
Prince (Barwick) |
0 |
9 |
0 |
|
William
Tetley (Ilkely) |
0 |
9 |
0 |
|
Christopher
Thwaite (Leeds) |
0 |
10 |
0 |
|
Thomas
Wright - Leeds |
0 |
9 |
0 |
The
table shows that in spite of the generalisation that the commercial towns
supported Parliament, one third of the wapentake's
pensioners were from Leeds.
What of the parishioners who were maimed and made poor because they fought for
the Parliament? There are no records of them in the West Riding. When
parliament was sitting under the Commonwealth, there were quarterly payments
approved for maimed soldiers. If any records are found, it will be interesting
to see how many were from the parish.
HAROLD SMITH
References:
(15) House of Lords Journal Volume 11 12 March 1662 Bill for Relief of
Officers, &c. maimed in the King's Service.
Back to the top
Back to the Main Historical Society page
Back to the Barwicker Contents page