On 6 November 1644, George Cutteford was given a hearing by the King’s commissioners, including Sir John Berkeley. They considered his case, and the accounts, as described by Mary Howard, of how he had supported her and her children for over ten years.
Richard Grenville, still attacking Plymouth, was not present, but he charged Cutteford with having sent Mary Howard money to fund Parliament’s army. This was not untrue, as Mary had paid for the younger George Cutteford’s commission in Drake’s regiment, and she was also probably supporting her nephew, now the Earl of Suffolk, a leader in the Parliamentary forces.
The Commissioners deliberated, and the outcome was not entirely in George Cutteford’s favour; it certainly would have riled Sir Richard Grenville, however. The Commissioners directed Sir Richard to restore Walreddon to the Cuttefords, along with all the corn and livestock he had stolen from the property. In return, George Cutteford was required to pay Sir Richard all the rent from Walreddon and Mary’s other properties, since November 1641, deducting any and all sums paid to Mary Howard and her children over the same period. Considering the condition of the estates, and the amounts that must have been sent to Mary Howard over the years, the resulting balance was not to amount to very much at all.
The strangest decision concerned George Howard. Mary Vernon and George Howard had both been receiving regular payments from Cutteford. Since Mary had lost all her property, and was no longer able to provide for her children, Sir Richard Grenville was now required to provide them with an allowance.
Sir Richard must have been furious. Not only was Walreddon back in Cutteford’s hands, with little money in compensation, but suddenly he was forced to outlay even more money to the daughter of Charles Howard, Mary Vernon. And even worse, he was now responsible for the upkeep, education and outstanding wardship payments for a step-son and heir he didn’t know existed – to some boy he’d never even heard of before, who was rumoured to be Mary’s illegitimate son. Who was this George Howard? If he was by law the son of Charles Howard, and now his step-son, this George Howard had a right to at least a sizeable share of everything Richard Grenville owned.
Here was the King’s trump card. Grenville may have thought he had, at last, amassed a personal fortune, worthy of his new-found status, but discovered that the King could give it away, even to the sons of his enemies. Enraged, and realising his position was more precarious that he thought, Grenville decided to make a full attack on Plymouth. Perhaps he had even received word that George Cutteford’s family was in Plymouth. He could not have chosen a worse moment to attack.
On 8 January 1645, Grenville amassed a considerable body of cavalry and infantry, over 6,000 men, and hurled them against the town. He anticipated at least annihilation, if not extermination. He expected to have taken Plymouth by morning. He demanded nothing less than a complete victory over his enemies.
But it rained. Not just a little rain, not a light shower, but a torrent that drove them back. It rained for two days. With the ditches before the line of earthworks filled with water, there was no chance of Grenville’s men even reaching the walls. Men and horses were flailing, drowning in the mud. But Sir Richard kept sending them. Again and again, he ordered his forces forward, to attack the fortifications. He blamed his subordinates, not the weather, for their failure to take Plymouth. On the night of the 10 January, he tried again, this time with some success. The Royalist cannon thundered through the night, and he managed to take two of the forts – but only briefly before being driven back. Sixty of his men were killed at Maudlyn. It was said that one of the Plymouth captains managed to turn a cannon on the enemy and killed thirty with one shot, the night air filled with the screams and cries of dying Royalists.
Grenville managed to hold the fort at Little PennyComequick for a bit longer, but silence gave them away. An officer called Birch, having fought amongst the screams and shouts at Maudlyn, noticed that the fort at Little Pennycomequick was quiet – too quiet. He ordered his men to approach in the darkness. Hearing someone within cry out, ‘Stand, who are you for?’3 Birch replied ‘For the Parliament!’ – and the subsequent rain of gunfire upon them told them the fort had been taken by Grenville’s men. Birch’s men bravely charged the fort and took it back, killing or capturing a further sixty-six of Grenville’s men.
Sir Richard ordered yet another attack on Plymouth’s defences, but one of his officers, Colonel Champernowne, protested, declaring that Grenville’s rash behaviour had caused the failure of the previous attacks. Sir Richard called him a coward, at which Champernowne fired his pistol at Grenville, but to no effect. Sir Richard then fired his own pistol at Champernowne and killed the man. When the Colonel’s brother retaliated with pistol-fire of his own, Grenville drew his sword and ran him through.
Again Sir Richard attacked Plymouth, this time occupying Mount Stamford to the east of the harbour, and again the garrison beat him back. Sir Richard Grenville would never manage to take Plymouth, however many of his own men he killed in the attempt.
By March 1645, the King was losing the war. Parliament had successfully restructured its forces and the New Model Army was born, eventually commanded by their most famous General, Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell’s forces were eager to take the west.
The King and his councillors proposed to counter this with the formation of the Western Association, combining the remaining forces of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Dorset, with the King’s young son Charles overseeing the Western armies. The aim was to unite all of the King’s supporters, quell the animosities between the bickering leaders, and so unify the Royalist cause into stronger, combined attacks.
Prince Charles, just fifteen, was still impressed by Grenville’s victories, despite the doubts of his father. He summoned Grenville to bring his forces to join the King’s army, under General Goring, to assist in the capture of Taunton, north-east of Exeter. Grenville ignored the summons. Prince Charles and his counsellors summoned him again. Grenville ignored the summons again, and only after repeated requests did he reluctantly bring a force of 3,000 with him to Taunton. He left 2,000 men still blockading Plymouth. His belligerent reluctance to fight with the King’s re-structured army would result in his final downfall.
In early April 1645, Grenville set about reducing Taunton, as ordered. He began the attack in his usual manner, by kidnapping an old man called Syms, a local justice of the peace, and demanding Mr Syms pay him a £1,000 within three days. While waiting for his money, Sir Richard established his men within musket shot of the town, and delayed the attack while he went to survey Wellington House, a Parliamentary stronghold 5 miles west of Taunton. They promptly shot him.
It seems Grenville got too close while inspecting the enemy stronghold, and one of their bullets struck Richard Grenville in the thigh. The wound was so serious that, for a while, it was thought it would kill him. The Parliamentary newsletters were ecstatic, some wrongly reporting his death, while others describing how the bullets had blasted his groin – just desserts for a ‘noteable whoremaster’.4 But news of his death and injuries were exaggerated. Instead, Sir John Berkeley was summoned to take command of his forces, while Sir Richard was, to some embarrassment, carted off in a litter, and transported to Exeter.
Sir John was rightly concerned that Grenville’s men, fiercely loyal to their leader, particularly as he paid them so much, would not obey him. As Grenville lay wounded, the Prince’s Commissioners sought to have Grenville’s reassurances that his men would obey Berkeley, but as Grenville was carried away on the litter, they noticed Sir Richard giving whispered instructions to his officers. Sure enough, Grenville’s officers and men refused to serve Berkeley. In fact, when Sir John Berkeley ordered one of Grenville’s men, a Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Robinson, not to burn down Wellington House, Robinson rode directly to his true master, Sir Richard Grenville, recovering in Exeter, for further orders. Robinson returned and Wellington House was duly burned to the ground, directly contravening Berkeley’s orders.
Sir John Berkeley
did manage to spare Mr Syms from paying the £1,000 ransom to Grenville. Sir John wrote a nice note, explaining that it seemed unfair to be demanding money from an aged and respectable man such as Mr Syms. Grenville was furious, believing that Berkeley had robbed him. He sent a written reply ‘so full of ill language and reproach’5 that his allies were appalled. Sir Richard complained about Berkeley to the Prince’s Council.
To make matters worse for Grenville, he discovered that his old enemy George Cutteford was still alive and living in Exeter as a free man. Cutteford had been released by the King’s Commissioners in December, but had been very ill, probably too ill to travel far in winter. While recovering, and trying to arrange his affairs to meet the demands of the King’s Commissioners, it is very likely that George Cutteford had remained in Exeter. Cutteford had also thought with good reason that, while Grenville was blockading Plymouth and then Taunton, Exeter was the safest place for him to stay.
After so many months of incarceration, Cutteford’s freedom was sadly short-lived. By a tragic turn of events, in mid-April 1644, Sir Richard Grenville arrived unexpectedly in Exeter, borne on a litter, wounded, to discover his old enemy living close by. There was now no reason for Grenville to keep Cutteford alive. On 16 April 1644, probably at the hands of Richard Grenville and men hired for the purpose, George Cutteford was dead.
Notes
1 Miller, 1979, p. 94.
2 Add Ms 18008-818, 1644. Held at West Sussex Record Office.
3 Miller, 1979, p. 100.
4 Miller, 1979, p. 25.
5 The story of the blackmailing of Mr Syms is told on p. 126 of Granville, R, 1908, The King’s General in the West; the Life of Sir Richard Granville, Bart., 1600-1659, originally published by J. Lane of London. Sadly, the only copy I can obtain is a poorly reproduced print copy published by www.general-books.net, though their digital version is very good.
Chapter Ten
A Man of Means
On 13 April 1646, just a few days short of the anniversary of his father’s death, George Cutteford the younger entered Exeter with Parliament’s army. Sir John Berkeley had at last surrendered the city to Parliament, his Royalist forces fleeing after a lengthy and horrendous siege, and George arrived in a city devastated by war and overwhelmed by starving refugees. The Parliamentary army looted whatever they could find and the more ‘godly’ amongst them set about destroying church buildings.
Charles II. (Courtesy of the Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, LC-USZ62-38492)
In the midst of this chaos, George’s first task was to find an attorney and make his will. Perhaps he wrote the will himself, as the original document is missing and only the version ‘proved’ in Canterbury in 1658 remains.1 George gave money to the poor of Whitchurch and to a dozen of his servants, £10 to his lawyer William Harris of Tavistock, £10 to his nephew and godson George Donne, and another £10 to his aunt, Joan Donne.2 His kinsman Philip Halse received £20, and his part of the estate of Gawton in Tavistock; £50 was bequeathed to each of his sister’s sons, George and Robert Radford – it seems that Grace Cutteford, the younger, had married into the Radford family, though she would marry again in the 1650s.3
The sum of £200 had been allocated to each of his sisters in his father’s will, but the money had never been paid, and George Cutteford the younger had insufficient funds to pay it now. So he gave his sister Grace his home called Woodford, in Whitchurch, in lieu of her father’s money, and a further £100. To his sister Anne, he bestowed his farm called Tuddy Brooke, again in lieu of the money, and a £100. His sister Eleanor had died in 1644, but the money from their father’s will was still owing to her husband John Skerrit, so George bequeathed John Skerrit two small estates he owned in Whitchurch: his house and lands called Ponniton, then occupied by Edmund and John Drake; and his small estate called Bamton, its tenants John and Richard Chubb. He also refunded John Skerrit the £90 John had paid to satisfy the late George Cutteford’s outstanding debts, and £10 went to each of John Skerrit’s children.
Thomas Robinson also received £10, which seems strange if this is indeed the same Thomas Robinson who worked for Richard Grenville and caused so much grief to his father. Perhaps George Cutteford the younger was ignorant of Tom Robinson’s history.
To his mother, Grace Cutteford, George bequeathed £100 and the remainder of his estate – the grand manor and grounds of Walreddon and the surrounding cottages and farms, including two mills. His brother John was named executor of the will.
It was a very different will to his grandfather’s in 1582: £400 was all William Cutteford the sailor had to offer. Now his grandson George Cutteford owned most of Whitchurch, some very fine houses and was bequeathing away nearly £1,000, but he did not live to enjoy it. Within five days, before 18 April 1646, George Cutteford the younger was dead too.4 When the younger George Cutteford wrote his will, he knew he didn’t have long to live. He was probably badly wounded in the battle to re-take Exeter and hurried to make his last will and testament, to provide for his family. George Cutteford, father and son, did not live to see the end of the war.
George Howard, the son of Mary Howard and George Cutteford, faired a great deal better. At the end of the war, in 16465, in the midst of the chaos and the homeless and the grieving, he inherited all his mother’s estates – 4,000 acres in four counties, over thirty properties including Fitzford. He still owned the Clun Castle estates in Shropshire, from his ‘father’, Charles Howard.
Lanhydrock, stolen by Richard Grenville, was returned by Parliament to Lord Robartes, but, in a strange turn of events, Buckland Abbey and the lands around neighbouring Buckland Monachorum were not returned to the Courtenays. Parliament sequestered many properties once belonging to their Royalist enemies, and it seems the Buckland estates were awarded to George Howard.6 He certainly received property in nearby Buckland Monachorum. As the (apparent) cousin of James Howard, Earl of Suffolk, who had fought for Parliament, George Howard proved his allegiance to Parliament with ease. Concealing his true parentage was very much to his advantage.7
In London in 1649, Oliver Cromwell and his Parliament tried and beheaded King Charles I. Just a few months later, George Howard returned to Fitzford with his mother, to find the house almost destroyed by the Earl of Essex’s forces. Cash for rebuilding was in short supply, so George Howard arranged a loan from Henry Rexford in Plymouth. From Rexford’s surviving correspondence, it seems he was in the business of making substantial loans to many of the gentry, now impoverished by the war. Rexford was one of the few businessmen who prospered in Plymouth during the siege, probably making his fortune from shipping.
Rexford’s clients were always very pleasant in their requests to delay re-payments, frequently pleading, almost obsequious in their letters.8 In 1651, George Howard too wrote to Rexford to explain he would be paying his first instalments once he had received the full account details of the loan. The note is short and straightforward, less sycophantic that most, and written on notepaper with the watermark of the Howard symbol: a Tudor rose.
In this new world, unsteadily forging a new constitution without a head of state, this was a dangerous act. Although his cousins the Howards had fought for Parliament, they had changed sides in 1646, supporting the King’s sons in prison and in exile in France.9 Of all the surnames George could choose – Halse, Cutteford, even Royalist names like Trelawney or Grenville – to proclaim himself a Howard during the reign of Cromwell was a poor decision, and he must have been forced to live very quietly in Devon for fear of imprisonment himself. Of course, George Howard lived a comfortable life. He was arguably the richest man in Devon. The sailor William Cutteford would have been astonished by his grandson’s wealth and status.
During the 1650s, George Howard and his mother set about repairing and redecorating Fitzford, which was restored to its former splendour. Mary brought her furniture, books and other belongings from her house in London and never seems to have returned there, settling in Fitzford for the
remainder of her life. The decor was luxurious even for the time, with the furnishings of the ‘best bed chamber’10 worth three times as much as that in the parlour. Mrs Radford in 189011 describes the extensive refurbishment: the blue bedroom; the green bedroom; the ‘half-moon’ chamber; Mr Howard’s bedroom; and Mary Howard’s chamber, with the bed perfumed; lavish dressing rooms and servants’ quarters; and a valuable library. The house resumed the bustling activities of a great estate, brewing beer and cider, salting meat, and storing plentiful food for the winter months.
The money for all this restoration was raised on rents from tenants who had suffered greatly during the war, often at the hands of Mary Howard’s husband. Many of the original tenants were dead, some of them imprisoned and killed at Lydford by Grenville’s men. The Devon countryside was now populated by thousands of impoverished and grieving widows and children. Much of their cattle and corn – and even furniture – had been stolen by Grenville’s soldiers. But Mary Howard and her son continued to collect the rent, to fund the redecoration of Fitzford.
Meanwhile, the deaths of George Cutteford the elder and the younger left a family in deepest mourning. Grace Cutteford, now a grieving mother and widow, returned to Walreddon, her daughters and grandchildren living around her in Whitchurch. But times were hard, and Grace was determined to recover everything her husband had once claimed as his own. Therefore, Grace wrote to Mary Howard requesting her husband’s income from Okehampton Park, but Mary was officious and cold in her reply12, explaining that she had transferred the income from Okehampton Park to George Cutteford, in lieu of wages, for his lifetime only. There had, she explained, never been any suggestion that the Cuttefords should have access to that income after George Cutteford’s death. Mary curtly ended the letter, ‘And [I] shall ever be as much your friend as you give me cause’.13 Grace Cutteford was a bitter woman, with just cause – her husband had been killed by Mary Howard’s husband, after all – so she took Mary Howard to court.
The Devil Comes to Dartmoor Page 15