The letters of Sergeant Nehemiah Wharton are now well known to most students of the English Civil War [1] . They offer one of the most valuable accounts of the Edgehill campaign, containing graphic and detailed descriptions of a Parliamentarian foot regiment on active service.

Holies' Regiment

The regiment in which Wharton served, Colonel Denzil Holies' regiment, was raised in London. By the accounts of friend and foe, it appears that it was a regiment of some considerable worth. Holies' red coats performed well at Edgehill and, together with Brookes' regiment, withstood Prince Rupert and his forces at Brentford for several hours, despite a critical lack of powder and match. Of the 200 soldiers of Holies' taken prisoner at Brentford, 140 refused to change sides [2] . This fidelity to the Parliamentarian cause deserves comment; the morale being remarkably high for a regiment which had received two heavy beatings within the space of a month. The quality of the men seems no accident; whereas many soldiers in Essex' army were casually recruited riffraff (and performed accordingly), Holies' regiment appears to have been largely composed of apprentices and journeymen.

Apprentices The Popular image of the apprentice is that of a young shaven-headed yobbo, spoiling for a fight and only fit for swelling the ranks of the London mob. While the concept of "Arsenal v Millwall" portrayed in the Channel 4 series Civil War is not without validity, it is at best a simplistic picture and in the case of regiments such as Holies' very misleading. These were not unemployed punks or youths escaping a dead-end job, but young men with a future as Freemen of their livery companies and citizens of London.

The social status of the apprentice tended to follow the importance of his master's city company, so that many of them, like John Lilburne, could well be gentlemens' sons. The vast majority would have come from what today would be designated the C1 or C2 classes, that is clerical or skilled manual workers. The mere fact that their apprenticeships would have been purchased show that their families had adequate money and influence to attract a master. Those who emigrated to London (a common phenomenon: the mortality rate of the capital annually required thousands of imigrants to maintain its population) would tend to be from yeoman stock, the kind of soldier we later find in Cromwell's Ironsides. In many ways, they would be just the sort of soldier Cromwell requested to replace the tapsters and old decayed serving men.

Apprentices were not snot-nosed brats. In fact, research into records from 1598 to 1619 has shown that the average age of starting apprenticeship was 18.9 years [3] and the evidence indicates that this remained the case until at least the outbreak of civil war. The usual term of apprenticeship was seven years, As the standard regulation of a London livery company stipulated that an apprentice Could not become a Freeman before the age of 24, this Would mean that apprentices of less than 17 years of age would be rare. [4] Many of the apprentices marching in Holles' regiment Would already have served several years of their term. Thus, instead of a gaggle of ill-displined schoolboys, we could expect to see many trained craftsmen aged in their mid twenties.

The literacy of apprentices was also very high indeed. The research of Cressy, whose studies of seventeenth century apprentices found a literacy rate of 82%, is typical. [5]

There were very compelling reasons for requiring a high standard of literacy: "A degree of functional literacy was expected of apprentices in many companics, especially those associated with the city's retail, wholesale and overseas trades, since an apprentice often ran the shop in his master's absence" [6]

In many companies, such as that of the Goldsmiths, literacy was a formal requiremerit for entry as an apprentice.

Journeymen

Given the military rank and demeanour of Nehemiah Wharton, Stuart Peachey's opinion that he was a journeyman i's a reasonabic assumption. Journeymen were craftsmen who had qualified from their apprenticeship, but for various reasons were not yet accredited Masters. On occasion, journeymen would be allowed to set up shop in their own right, but most, as Wharton seems to have done, lived and worked in a Master's household. In the social scale of the apprenticeship system, they can be seen as just slightly below the rank of rural yeomen.

While many men never advanced beyond the rank of journeymen, for others it was a temporary state before being made Free of the Company and accredited a Master. Had he survived, the attitude of Nehemiah Wharton seems to suggest he would have progressed in the company system. Company regulations governing the behaviour of their journeymen could be quite strict, and any Journeyman who wished to get on in life would have been well advised to maintain a high standard of pietv and sobriety. The letters of Nehemiah Wharton suggest that he kept this in mind and may have been the real reason why he took pains to point out to his master "the ruder sort of soldiers, whose society, blessed be God, I hate and avoide." [7]

"Butchers and Dyers"

In his account of the fight at Brentford, John Gwynne refers to Holles' regiment as "butchers and dyers". If this is taken at face value, then we can surmise that a good many of the regiment were apprentices and journeymen of the livery companies relevant to these trades. In this case, they would be the Butchers' Company and the Dyers' Company. It is possible that Gwynne might not have appreciated the difference between dyers and stainers. If there were cloth stainers in the regiment, these would have most likely come from the Painter-Stainers' Company.

Many of the officers might have come from the higher ranks of one of these Companies. Certainly, Peacock cites the possibility that Lieutenant Jo(nathan?) Court might be identified with a yeoman of Warwickshire of the same name. [8] If a yeoman could reach this level, then someone who wore the livery of a city company could do as well or better. It was in the nature of Royalist enemies to present their opponents as base serving men, such as lowly butchers and dyers. In fact, the reality is that a Freeman would be more likely to be a proprietor of a thriving business, training apprentices and employing numbets of journeymen and servants. Many would have had sufficient economic and social status to have gained military commissions for themselves or their relatives. The proof of this theory will entail a search through the archives of the relevant Companies to see if there is any correlaton between the registers of Freemen and the list of Holies' officers. [9]

The Purse Strings

It was not just in the supply of goods that the influence of the City of London was felt, but in economic and political terms as well. The advice of Colonel John Birch in the later revolution of 1688, that lie who controlled London controlled the country, was never more true than in 1642. At this early stage of the war, Parliament needed ready cash to recruit and maintain its army This had to come from the various livery companies that made up the City of London. There was ample precendent for the City financing a war effort; the most recent example prior to 1642 was a loan of £ 50,000 towards equiping the English army for the Scots War of 1640. [10]

In addition to their financial function, the livery companies were the de facto government of London: whatever democratic ritual might be followed, it was they who supplied and appointed the officers of the City, from the Lord Mayor downwards. This political power meant that the companies also financed and controlled the Trained Bands, a fact not lost on the Mug before the wars, or the generals of the New Model in 1647. The control of the militia extended to its physical existence: in even, company hall, powder and shot was stored for the mobilization of the Trained Bands, The servants of the companies made up the largest part of their Mustered strength.

Physical evidence of the importance of the City was provided by the fact that many meetings and addresses given by Parliamentarian leaders such as John Pym were held at the Guildhall rather than at Parliament House. The relationship of Denzil Holies with the livery companies appears to have been very close, and a particularly difficult knot for the leaders of the Armv to unravel as they sought to oust the Presbyterians from control in the manoueverings of 1647-48.

The merchants and craftsmen of the city may have been derided as tradesmen by the aristocratically minded Cavaliers, but they were recognized by both sides as the engine room of Parliament's fortunes.

Wharton's George Willingham

The receipient of the letters of Sergeant Nehemiah Wharton was "the Worthy and his much honored friend mr George Willingham, Marchant at the golden Anchor in St. Swithins. London". [11]

One of Wharton's most pressing problcms was the general dissatisfaction with the regiment's commander, Lt. Col. Henry Billingsley, "a Goddame blade, and doubtless hatche in bell" (whom Wharton curiously refers to as "Lt.Col. Biddeman"). The fact that George Willingham was a man of considerable influence is not only shown by Wharton's confidence that his master can effect Billingsley's removal, but the obvious expectation of many other members of the regiment as well, "Touchinge Leiftenant Colonel Biddeman forementioned. I once more humbly beseech you - and not I alone, but many others, both commaunders, officers, and common souldiers -that you would endeavour to rout him." [12]

Billingsley was cashiered on 20th August, 1642, four days after this letter was written. If this was the only pica from Wharton for action, the influence of

Note: Printing Error: Page 33 is missing (the page is blank) in the paper issue.--RL

tion by Partizan Press. [13] It is less well known that Symonds continued to keep a diary of his activities during the self imposed exile which followed his Royal master's defeat. [14]

By 1651, Symonds had returned to Essex. He continued his diaries with extensive lists of the art collections of the great and good of London. In 1653, one very interesting entry records a collection whose owner Symonds sadly neglected to name, "At a Merchants in S Swithen's Lane; pictures which were of Belcamps, lately dead who kept the King's pictures." [15]

Whilst it was not a strange phenomenon for a merchant to have one or two pictures - or even a small collection - ownership of a collection formally belonging to a well known artist such as Jan van Belcamp [16] was unusual. The merchant would have probably been well off and well connected to have acquired such a body of work.

George Willingham - Painter-Stainer

Although membership of a certain company is normally a reliable indicator of a Freeman's trade, membership did not restrict any individual to following the trade of his guild.

"A further complication concerns the 'Custom of London' which had prevailed 'time Out Of mind' in the city. Regardless of the company to which he belonged, the custom of London guaranteed to every freeman the right to practise any craft Or trade within the bars." [17]

One of the many reasons for the unpopularity of Charles I with the livery companies of the city was that he had attempted to do away with this freedom to dabble in other crafts. [18]

The individual companies themselves alternately supported or challenged this right as it suited them; legal disputes of this nature were therefore common, with constant struggles over the demarcation of trade between such companies as the Clothworkers' and the Merchant Taylors' and between the Pain terStainers' and the Plaisters'.

Given this proviso, it need not be a surprise to learn that the Upper Warden (second in command) of the Painter Stainers' Company in 1641 was one George Willingham. [19]

The timing of this appointment would fit in very neatly with the marriages and christenings of the Guildhall parish records. Company regulations of the City were fairly unanimous in stipulating the age of 24 as the minimum at which a member could be made free of his company. Other regulations and apprenticeship statutes since Tudor times likewise advised and sometimes actually required those in the apprenticeship system to be at least 24 before they married. If the George Willingham who married Anne Eaton in 1624 was indeed this Painter-Stainer, he would have almost certainly been 24 or thereabouts. Thus, he would have been about 41 when appointed Upper Warden of his Company. This seems a fitting age for Such a senior post.

The Real George Willingham

It is the writer's contention that all these George Willinghams: Wharton's "Merchant at St Swithins", the father of the children baptised at St Swithin's, Symonds' art collecting Merchant in St Swithins Lane, and the Upper Warden of the Painter-Stainers' Company arc one and the same person.

As an Upper Warden of a livery company, George Willingham Would have had immense influence - enough to get a mere Lieutenant Colonel cashiered, for instance. As a member of the Painter-Stainers' company, the merchant George Willingham could have had the contacts to acquire Belcamp's collection of paintings.

The last major question to be asked in the present article is the nature of George Willingham's business. If we accept the theory, that Nehemiah Wharton was one of Willingham's journeymen, it is disapointing that the sergeant mentions a number of activities, but does not appear to show a professional interest in any of them. It could be argued that the experience of campaigning was so novel to Wharton that he had eyes for nothing else. Similarly' if he was involved in clothing or the making of flags, he may have already dwelt on the fact in a previous letter which has not survived. Wharton is a different person to Richard Symonds, and as a sergeant he probably had less education and certainly less time to make copious notes. Thus, we have to little positive evidence from Wharton to solve the mystery from this source.

It the evidence above has correctly established that George Willingham was a Painter- Stainer, it does not mean that he necessarilly followed this trade. He could have been a merchant in textiles or even supplied tailored clothes, such as uniforms. His rank as Upper Warden, however, suggests that he would not have risen so high without being initiated in the "mystery" of his company. On the other hand, an Upper Warden of a company was a rather powerful figure for a rival livery company to challenge had he chosen another craft.

There is a possible solution that fits quite neatly between these two poles. As their name suggests, the Painter-Stainers do not consist solely of artists, but also include stainers. [20]

A stainer is someone who stains, paints or decorates cloth - such as a regimental colour. We know that Alexander Venner and John Lot supplied several colours to the Army of Parliament. [21]

George Willingham could have been the head of a shop producing or dealing in art, painted interior decoration or painted cloth -was he anything to do with the supply of regimental colours?

Notes: