Barwick-in-Elmet and the Civil War Back to the Main Historical Society page
Back to the Barwicker Contents page

Barwick-in-Elmet and the Civil War


from The Barwicker No.81



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.


    • SERVING ATTESTANTS FROM THE PARISH:
  • 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." which was passed in March 1662 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.

    West Riding
    Summary of the Quarterly War Pension Accounts
    4th Qtr. 1672


    Wapentake No. of
    Pensioners    		 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

    Back to the top
    Back to the Main Historical Society page
    Back to the Barwicker Contents page