The Families and Descendants of Susannah and Sarah Cradock

David Man

Richard Banner’s Will 22
The Will of John Purcell, Snr., being the Father of John 44
The Career of John Purcell, MD (1674-1730) 45
The Will of Doctor John Purcell 52
Miscellaneous Jottings on the Purcell Family 56
The Hay Farm 58
Thomas Cotton, Jnr.’s Letters to George Cumberland, Snr. 63
James Cropp – The father of Abraham 67
SUSANNAH BANNER (1692-1759) AND ABRAHAM CROPP (1675/76-1744) 71
Abraham Cropp’s Career 72
Abraham Cropp’s Will 79
Susannah Cropp and John Man 81
The Death of Susannah (Banner) Cropp 84
JAMES CROPP (1715-1772) 88
RICHARD CROPP (1722-1796) 90
Richard Cropp’s Will 98
SAMUEL LONG, Jnr. (1799-1881) 120
George Prescott (1712-1790) – The Father of George William Prescott 128
Further Notes on the Prescott Family 133
George Beeston Prescott (1775-1840) 140
Sir Thomas Mills the father of Lady Prescott 142
William Willoughby Prescott (1777-1836) 145
Maria Charlotte Prescott (1780-1855) 147
Edith Katherine Spicer-Jay 150
RICHARD LONG (1754-1779) 152
JANE LONG (1756 – 1834) 157
The Neave Family 168
SUSANNAH LONG (1758-1815) 170
AMELIA (HUME) LONG (1772-1837) 187
GEORGE LONG (1761-1782) 193
WILLIAM LONG (1763-1835) 195
Benjamin Tudman’s Will 208
The Will of Stephen Child 212
Susanna Child and the Ewer Family 214
The Deaths of John and Susannah Blunt and their Wills 237
The Will of Sir John Blunt 239
The Death of Susannah (Craddock) (Banner) (Tudman) Blunt 241
The Will of Susannah Blunt 242
The Will of Sarah Boulter 255
The Will of Jonathan Boulter 260
Samuel Roffey’s Career 276
The Will of Mary Roffey the Wife of Samuel 284
JAMES ROFFEY (16?? – 1769) 286
BOULTER ROFFEY – The Son of William Roffey 292
APPENDIX ONE: The Three Cases of John Blunt, Susannah his wife, and Stephen Child 314
APPENDIX TWO: The Banner Family & its Charities 317
Richard and Samuel Banner’s Birmingham Charity 319
APPENDIX FOUR: The Henckell Family 323
APPENDIX FIVE: The Cropp – Bush – Bennett – Munck Connection 328
APPENDIX SIX: The Houghton Connection 337
APPENDIX SEVEN: The Purcell and Brooke Families 340
The Will of Mary Purcell 341
The Will of Winifred Purcell 342
The Will of Thomas Penson, the brother in law of John Purcell MD 343
Catherine (Brooke) Purcell 343
The Will of Catherine (Brooke) Purcell 344
Edward Purcell, the Brother of John Purcell, MD 345
APPENDIX NINE: The Brooke and Austen Families 357
APPENDIX TEN: The Bequests of Charles Long to the National Gallery, London 359
APPENDIX TWELVE: The Longs of Hurts Hall 374
APPENDIX THIRTEEN: A Brief History of the North Family 382
APPENDIX FOURTEEN: The Beckford – Beeston – Long Connection 398
APPENDIX FIFTEEN: The Collapse of Roffey’s Bank 406
APPENDIX SIXTEEN: The Family of Mary Warner who Married Samuel Roffey 412
APPENDIX SEVENTEEN: Jonathan Boulter’s Land 422
APPENDIX NINETEEN: The dispersal of Nathaniel Roffey, Snr’s Estate. 426
APPENDIX TWENTY ONE: Benjamin Tudman, Jnr. & The Marshalsea 436
APPENDIX TWENTY TWO: Ann Balchen & The Marshalsea 441
APPENDIX TWENTY THREE: The Tapp & Balchen Families 448
APPENDIX TWENTY FOUR: DAGNAMS PARK – The home of the Neave Family. 454
APPENDIX TWENTY FIVE: The Dayrell, Sherrard, and Brownlow Families 456
APPENDIX TWENTY EIGHT: The Jeaffreson Family 496
APPENDIX THIRTY ONE: The Elton Family 504
APPENDIX THIRTEEN: The Brothers Legh Rowlls 510
The Death of William Legh Rowlls 511
This version dated 11th December, 2012

This paper examines the lives of two of the daughters of Richard and Hester (Palmer) Cradock namely Susannah and Sarah, their families and descendants using parish records, wills, newspapers, published books and articles. As a family history mostly concerned with the births, marriages, and deaths of its members, the target audience is limited. Occasionally events of a public nature in which some family member or other was involved are included. And, even though most of the persons noted here left scant if any evidence of themselves, we have been able to recover enough about them to give us some idea of their lives.

The time period covered is from the end of the seventeenth century to the middle of the nineteenth.

Because this ‘paper’ has been prepared by David Man, who is a descendant of Richard Cradock’s sister Susannah, note will be made of a Man connection which would probably not otherwise have been made.

The font used here is New Courier but for a direct quote or where the text is taken from some other source the font is Calibri.

All the parishes mentioned are located in London unless otherwise stated. Female family members who marry are written First Name (Maiden Name) Married Name e.g. Susannah (Banner) Cropp. If married twice then First Name (Maiden Name)(First Married Name) Second Married Name, e.g. Elizabeth (Tyers)(Roffey) Boulter.

The illustrations of London churches, buildings, and views are mostly taken from: A New and Universal History, Description and Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster … by Walter Harrison (1776); as well as the British Museum’s collection of prints and drawings. These reflect the architecture of the period in which the events described here took place.

The word ‘baptised’ or ‘baptized’ has two spellings. Earlier English records use baptized which is current in American English whereas present day British English uses baptised. Both forms will be found here reflecting British usage over time.

Modern spelling of the name ‘Craddock’ is commonly with two d’s. Earlier forms were written Cradock or Cradoc or Cradocke. Craddock is used on the Man family website However, because earlier members of the Craddock family more often used Cradock, that form is used in this ‘paper’. The name ‘Blunt’ sometimes appears as Blount but here Blunt is used while the name ‘Cropp’ is sometimes Crop although here Cropp is used. Where a farther and son share the same name as in the case of Richard Cradock and George Cumberland the suffixes Snr. and Jnr. are used to distinguish father from son and vise versa.

This paper contains some narrative and a lot of numeric and calenderal quantitative data and descriptions of genealogical relations and so it is more a work of reference to be dipped into on occasion rather than read for anything like pleasure. Since it has a unique perspective much of what is gathered here has never before been seen or if it has then not displayed in a similar context.

In order for what little ‘narrative’ there is to flow and for the main point to be made more easily, a large amount of detail has been placed in the appendices. The genealogical charts are intended to display connections among families in order to support and clarify the text and are not intended to be exhaustive depictions of each and every family membership. Furthermore, the order in which the individuals appear in relation to one another on a chart may not reflect their actual chronological relationship.
The Arms of the City of London


In about 1635 Tobias Cradock (1603-1671), barrister at law of Gray’s Inn, married Susannah Bourne (1605-1697/96) and they had at least two children: Susannah (1637–1710) and Richard (1640-1712).
Grays Inn where Tobias Cradock was a barrister

Richard Cradock, Snr. married Hester Palmer on 26th July, 1666, at St. Andrew, Totteridge in Hertfordshire. We do not have a baptismal record for Hester but we know that she was the youngest daughter of Andrew and Elizabeth (Hamey) Palmer . Richard and Hester (Palmer) Cradock had number of children (all baptised at St. Mary’s, Hornsey) among who were two daughters: Sarah (1667-1748) and Susannah (1668-1743) and two sons: William (1676-1746) and Richard Cradock, Jnr. (1684-1748).

Susannah Cradock married three times: John Banner, Benjamin Tubman, and John Blunt. Although thrice married, Susannah only had children by her first marriage. Her sister Sarah married Jonathan Boulter but had no children.

Richard and Hester (Palmer) Cradock’s eldest son William married Mary Sheldon and by her had two children who reached adulthood. Richard and Hester (Palmer) Cradock, Snr.’s youngest child, Richard, Jnr., did not marry. Of these four children (Susannah, Sarah, William, and Richard) this paper examines the lives and families of only two: Susannah and Sarah.
St. Mary’s, Hornsey, in the 18th Century where all of Richard and Hester (Palmer)
Cradock’s children were baptised

Richard Cradock, Snr.’s sister, Susannah, married Dr. Henry Barnes (1631-1701) and they had a daughter Susannah (1663-1737) who married John Balchen (1658-1721). John and Susannah (Barnes) Balchen had a son Richard (1692-1738) who married Martha Hitchcock (1698/99-1766) and they had (among other off spring) two daughters: Mary (1721-1798) who married John Man (1718-1783) and Elizabeth (1719-1796) who married George Cumberland, Snr. (i.e. Cradock > Barnes > Balchen > > Man/Cumberland. See chart).

An important source of information on what follows comes from The Cumberland Letters edited by Clementina Black and published in 1912. Clementina began work on her book by visiting the British Museum and perusing several large leather-bound volumes comprising a remarkable set of correspondence sent to and from George Cumberland, Jnr. (1754-1848), as well as his brother Richard Dennison Cumberland (1752-1825). (George and Richard’s mother was Elizabeth Balchen whose sister Mary married John Man .)
Choosing only from the first of the sixteen volumes of family correspondence and covering just thirteen years, 1771-1784, Clementina produced a book – The Cumberland Letters – that she felt reflected the typical concerns of a large family living during the latter half of the eighteenth century.
Considering that George Cumberland, Jnr. went on to live another sixty years after 1784, one can only wonder at how much more material lies unmined among the fifteen volumes that Clementina left unopened, not least from a genealogical point of view. However what she did find and publish has made much of what follows possible.

Ms. Black notes in her introduction that, before marrying George Cumberland, Snr., Elizabeth Balchen lived with Mrs. Sarah Boulter, Richard Cradock, Snr.’s daughter, who was Elizabeth’s first cousin twice removed.

In The Cumberland Letters, Sarah (Cradock) Boulter is described by George Cumberland, Jnr. as:

… a lady of large fortune, who resided in St. Mary Axe, London, was a widow and sister to Lady Blunt [Susannah Cradock] of Stratford, both their husbands had been directors in the South Sea Company, and the chief of their property devolved to Rich Cross [Cropp], Esq., their nearest relation, a man of large fortune who lived in Grosvenor Square London, & Richmond Hill and who always considered my mother [Elizabeth Balchen] as a distant relation. p. 19

George is correct in saying that Susannah Cradock’s husband (John Blunt) was a director of the South Sea Company, indeed he was the founder and chief architect of the disastrous scheme that led to the South Sea bubble, but there is no evidence that Susannah’s sister Sarah’s husband, Jonathan Boulter, was connected to the South Sea Company. He was instead an extremely successful distiller / brewer.

As for the relationship between Elizabeth (Balchen) Cumberland and Richard Cropp which her son George describes above as “distant”; we can more precisely state that they were third cousins, their great grandparents (Richard Cradock, Snr. and Susannah (Cradock) Barnes) being siblings.
The Thames looking West toward Blackfriars Bridge and Saint Paul’s



Susannah Cradock, the daughter of Richard and Hester (Palmer) Cradock, was baptized on 4th April, 1668, at St. Mary’s, Hornsey. The baptismal record below shows her as Susan although most other records have her as Susannah or Susanna.
Susan Cradock the daughter of Mr. Richard baptised the 4th day of April 1668
Susannah married John Banner on 11th February, 1690/91, at St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, Westminster.
St. Paul’s Church, Covent Garden

John was born in 1665 and baptised on the 8th August of that year at St. Andrew Undershaft, his parents being Richard and Elizabeth (Chambers) Banner.
August 8 John Banner the sonn of Richard Banner and Elizabeth
his wife, was baptized the 8th day of August 1665

Although John had several siblings, none survived to adulthood; a fact confirmed by his father Richard’s will in which it is stated that John is an only child.

The Banners originated from Birmingham in Warwickshire, and were engaged as ironmongers, bellow-makers, and long-cutlers (sword makers). Their early establishment of furnaces to work iron at Birmingham helped that city become one of England’s first industrial centers.

Less than a month before Susannah’s marriage to John Banner, a settlement was drawn up on 21st January, 1690/91, in which her father, Richard Cradock (Merchant), agreed to pay Richard Banner (Gent of London) father of John the sum of £2,000 while Richard and John Banner agreed to spend £4,000 on the purchase of freehold land for the use of John for 99 years and after his decease for the use of Susannah .

The marriage between the Banner and Cradock families was also a mercantile union of sorts. In his capacity as a member of the Court [Board] of Directors of the Hudson’s Bay Company, Richard Cradock, Snr. had become acquainted with Samuel Banner, ironmonger of Birmingham, uncle of John, and supplier to the Hudson’s Bay Company of its long knives and swords.

In 1684 Cradock was appointed Assistant (i.e. Director) to the Royal African Company (RAC), thereby adding to his portfolio of directorships that included not only The Hudson’s Bay Company, but also The East India Company and the Bank of England. Richard held his post with the RAC for almost eleven years

As part of its trade with the African continent, knives and swords were used by the RAC and, up until 1690, these had been bought either in Holland or from London merchants. However, after 1690, the year John Banner married Susannah Cradock, the company began to obtain its requirements instead from the Birmingham ironmonger Samuel Banner.

The Birmingham knives produced by Banner were cheaper than those that the RAC had been buying from London and Holland: less than two and a half pence and only one and a half pence for wooden-hafted varieties: the swords were three shillings each, all prices inclusive of carriage by wagon from Birmingham to London. Between 1690 and 1701 Samuel Banner supplied the RAC with over 400,000 knives and 7,000 swords .

In 1681 the great Turkey merchant and economist Sir Dudley North bought 500 RAC shares and later joined Richard Cradock, Snr. as a director of the company (see DNB). More than one hundred years later, the great grandson of Dudley North and the great great granddaughter of Richard Cradock would marry in 1786 (see North Family Appendix).
According to Thomas Hughes, it was Richard Cradock Snr.’s involvement with the Royal African Company that led Daniel Defoe to comment that Cradock: … slept with his prayer book in his left hand and a company prospectus in his right, without letting either know what the other held .

We should also note that Hester (Palmer) Cradock’s niece Elizabeth, the daughter of her brother Ralph Palmer, married Sir John Verney who, served when a young man (as did Sir Dudley North) as a factor for the Levant Company in Aleppo . A ‘paper’ on the Palmer family and its connection with the Verney and other families is in the offing.










John and Susannah (Cradock) Banner had at least eight children: Esther (18th January 1691/92 ); Susannah (14th February 1692/93); Elizabeth (21st April 1694); Sarah (23rd May 1695); Richard (26th May 1696); John (4th July 1697 but he died soon after); and John (16th February 1698/99) (but he likewise died soon after) all of whom were baptised at St. Laurence, Pountney Lane. Two sons were baptised at St. Peter le Poer: Samuell on 30th May, 1700, and a third son named John on 30th November, 1704.

On each of the first five records from St. Laurence, Pountney Lane, in the left hand margin is written John Banner’s occupation ‘drie/dry/drye salter’; such a notation in such a position is not typical among baptismal records.

Elizabeth Banner daughter
of John & Susanna Banner
was Baptized April ye 21 1694
Sarah Banner daughter of John & Susana Banner was Baptized May ye 23 1695 by doctor Whinrop

Richard Banner son of John & Susanna Banner was Baptized May ye 28 1696 By Whinrop
John Banner son of John and Susanna Banner was Baptized July ye 4th 1697 by Dr Whinrop

John Banner son of John & Susana Banner was Baptized february ye 16 1698 by doctor Whinrop
Samuell son of
John and Susanna
Banner Born
21 Baptized
may 30 1700.

[This baptism and the one below took place at St. Peter le Poer]

John son of
John & Susannah
Banner Born
18 Baptized the
30 of november

The naming pattern of the Banner children is typical of the times thus Esther is named after her maternal grandmother, Susannah is named after her mother and her maternal great aunt, Elizabeth is named after her paternal grandmother, Sarah after her mother’s sister, Richard is named after his maternal and paternal grandfathers, John after his father and Samuell after his father’s uncle.

John Banner’s occupation ‘dry salter’ is defined by the OED as:

A dealer in chemical products used in the arts, drugs, dye-stuffs, gums, etc.; sometimes also in oils, sauces, pickles, etc.

Defoe described a dry salter as someone who …
understands very well the buying of cocheneal, indigo, gauls, shumach, logwood, fustick, madder, and the like.

These are the raw materials needed to produce different paint colours.
John’s uncle, Samuel Banner, the ironmonger, in his will dated 7th March, 1714, bequeaths legacies to his late nephew John Banner’s widow Mrs. Susannah Blunt and to her third husband John Blunt as well as to his late nephew John’s four surviving children: Susannah (Cropp), Esther (Purcell), Richard, and John Banner.

Elizabeth and Sarah Banner, although both named in their father’s will dated 1700, do not appear in their uncle Samuel’s of 1714 nor their mother Susannah’s of 1742, and so probably did not survive to adulthood.

On 19th March, 1703, John Banner was nominated a governor of Bridewell Hospital as recorded among the minutes of the board of governors:
Bridewell Royal Hospital: Minutes of the Court of Governors [last page]. 19th March, 1703

Ladd a Gov. Also Att this Court Mr. John Lad of Southwark was
nominated a Governour of these Hosplls by Mr Lawrence Parker.
Banner nominated a Govr
And Mr John Banner Salter in Frogmorton Street by Mr
Bridewell Hospital at the time of John Banner’s appointment as a Governor
John Banner died in July, 1707, and was buried at St. Vedast in Fosters Lane. The registry entry runs:

Mr. John Banner, Merchant, a Stranger, Dyed & was buried in ye North Ile of this Church by [next to] his Father [Richard] July 25th, 1707.

In her will John’s widow, Susannah (Cradock) (Banner) (Tudman) Blunt, states that she wishes to be buried in St. Vedast near the remains of her late husband John Banner (see her will below).

A later burial record indicates that another John Banner, one of the surviving adult children of John and Susannah (Cradock) Banner, was also buried at St. Vedast:

John Banner was Buried in ye North Ile in ye Church by a Certificate from ye Parish of St Edmond ye King Feb ye 6th, 1722.


John’s parents, Elizabeth Chambers and Richard Banner, were married at St. Christopher le Stocks, on 31st August, 1664.
Richard Banner of ye parish of St And: Undershaft & Elizabeth Chambers of St Allhallowes ye wall were married pr. Licence August ye 31th 1664

Richard Banner was Clerk to the Saddler’s Company from 1671 to 1702. The image here shows the gateway to Saddler’s Hall which was torn down in the middle of the nineteenth century.

According to the Saddler’s guild website, in 1698, Richard gave:

.. a capital sum to the Company to enable apprenticeship premiums to be paid on behalf of poor boys who would otherwise have been unable to enter the saddlery trade. With the addition of later benefactions, Banner’s Charity was subsequently renamed the Apprenticing Charity. Today its income is primarily used to support the training and progression of young saddlers.

(See the Appendix for more details on Richard’s and other Banner charities.) Richard is referred to in Thomas Cradock’s will and elsewhere as ‘Banner of Saddler’s Hall’.

We have already noted that Susannah’s husband John was the eldest and only surviving child of Richard and Elizabeth (Chambers) Banner. Below are the baptisms and some of the burials, of John’s siblings; the first four are from St. Andrew Undershaft:

1. Richard Banner was baptised on 16th September, 1667.
16 Richard Banner ye son of Richard Banner
& of Elizabeth his wife was
Baptized on ye 16th of September.

2. His burial took place on 4th October, 1667 (last line):
4 Richard Banner ye Son of Richard Banner and of Elizabeth his wife
was buried the 4th of October

3. In 1668 a Sarah was born and although her baptism has not been located her burial occurred on 6th March, 1669.
6 Sarah Banner daughter of Richard Banner
& of Elizabeth his wife was Buried ye 6th day of March

4. In March, 1669, twin girls were born. One was named Rebeckah and the other was named after the recently deceased Sarah (above). The twins were baptised on 28th March, 1669.
28 Rebeckah Banner & Sarah Banner Daughters
of Richard Banner & of Elizabeth
his wife were baptized ye 28th of March
Pictured below is St. Andrew Undershaft where John Banner and four of his siblings Richard, Sarah (probably), and the twins Rebeckah and Sarah were baptised. After 1669 all Banner baptisms and burials occurred at St. Vedast in Foster Lane.
St. Andrew Undershaft St. Vedast in Foster Lane

The original parish records of St. Vedast were destroyed during the Second World War and so images of these do not exist. Fortunately, the records had been previously transcribed and to this extent preserved. The following baptisms and burials of John Banner’s siblings are among the St. Vedast transcriptions. Note that two of the deaths were attributed to ‘ye Teeth’ and one to convulsions.

1671 Louis Sonne of Richard Banner and Elizabeth his wife was borne the first and Christened ye 4th February 1671.
1671 Rebeckah daughter of Richard Banner was buried in ye Church June 13th 1671. [baptized above at St. Vedast]
1673 Elizabeth Born on 5th August baptised on 12th.
1673 Elizabeth Deceased and was ‘was buried in the north aisle of ye Church close to ye 11th pew December ye 2nd ‘
1674-75 Richard Born on 22nd January and baptised on 28th January at Saddler’s Hall.
1675 Richard Deceased and was buried on 15th September: ‘Dyed of ye Teeth and was buried in ye North Ile of ye Church under ye 9 & 10th pew…’
1676 Richard Born and Baptised (no record located)
1676 Richard ‘Dyed of the Teeth and was Buried in the North Ile of the Church below the step near ye 10th and 11th pew the 4th day of July 1676, out of Sadlers Hall, by Mr Masters.’
1678 Elizabeth Born on 26th April Baptised on 1st May (at Saddler’s Hall by Mr. Wheately)
1678 Elizabeth ‘Dyed of Convultions and was Buried in the North Ile of the Church to the 10 & 11th pews the 28th day of July 1678, out of Sadlers Hall, by Mr. Wheatley.’

John Banner’s parents were also buried at St. Vedast:

Mrs Elizabeth Banner the wife of Mr Richard Banner who is Clarke of Sadlers Hall in this parish was Buried in the North Ile of the Church to ye step the 25th day of October 1700.

Mr Richard Banner, Clarke of Sadlers Hall, Free of the Merchant Taylors, was Buried in the North Ile of the Church to ye step the 21th day of July 1702.

As noted, other burials at St. Vedast include both John and Susannah (Cradock) Banner, as well as their son John.


Richard Banner’s Will

Susannah (Cradock) Banner’s father in law Richard wrote his will on 6th November, 1700. He identifies himself as being of Sadler’s Hall and a Gent. He wishes to be buried in St. Vedast Foster’s Lane as near as possible to his wife (Elizabeth), although the manner of his internment he leaves up to his son. To each of his grandchildren he bequeaths £4,000 which, if he had four surviving grandchildren (Richard, John, Elizabeth and Sarah [based on his brother Samuel’s will]) would have meant a considerable sum of money for those days.

Others in his will that he names are his daughter in law Susannah who receives fifty twenty shilling pieces of broad gold. He names his brother Samuel the ironmonger of Birmingham and gives to each of Samuel’s three children (Richard, Elizabeth, and Samuel) ‘a piece of silver plate of value of ten pounds’.

He refers to an indenture bearing the date 5th July, 1698, made between him and the Wardens and Keepers of the Saddler’s company whereby eight pounds a year would be used ‘for the putting forth yearly of one poor Boy be an apprentice’[see appendix on what happened to Richard Banner’s charity]. He also gives the Saddler’s Company a piece of silver Plate worth twenty pounds.

He names his nephew John Brierly; his sister Sara Brierly now the wife of John Howall or Howell; and their brother Samuel Brierly

He names his nephew Edward Synge and forgives him the debt he owes him (Richard). He names Edward’s brother Richard Synge who is in trade as a Goldsmith in Cary-lane. Likewise he forgives the debts of his nephew Robert Banner and he names his two servants.

He ends his will as follows:

I do make name and appoint my said son John Banner Executor of the station God hath placed him and be a kind and tender husband and father to his wife and children God almighty bless my son his wife and children and what I have and intend for him and his.

Richard adds a codicil about a month later in which he increases the amounts of money he leaves to his nephews and nieces. Probate was granted to son John in 1702, however administration of the estate did not take effect until 1st December, 1708, because John had by then deceased.

John’s gifts to the Saddler’s company included:

A pair of Silver Candlestick, 13 inches high, in form of a Roman Doric column, with hollow and cabled flutings, on octagonal bases. In the hollow moulding of the base is, on one side a coat of arms, viz., ermine nd azure a fleur-de-lys counterchanged, a canton Or; on the other side an inscription, The Gift of Richard Banner to the Worshipful Comp. of Sadlers Anno 1702. The illustration below is from A Concise Historical Account of the Worshipful Company of Saddlers. John’s candlesticks can be seen on either side of the silver plate in the middle.


Below the procession of Mary of Medici, mother of King Charles I’s wife, along Cheapside in 1639 with the Saddler’s Hall on the very right.


In 1780 a letter appeared in The Gentleman’s Magazine, which fleetingly refers to Richard Banner’s nephew Richard Synge. The writer is identified only as AB.

Capt. Richard Synge, mentioned in [issue] No. 41 [of the Tatler], was a goldsmith in Cary-lane, near Goldsmiths-hall. He was the second husband of my grandmother by the mother’s side; he died in 1734; she died in 1761, aged 83. She was a woman of good education, very intelligent, and full of anecdote. I have frequently heard her say, that Capt. Synge, who was a man of some humour…

Before we look at the lives of Richard’s surviving grandchildren (Richard, Esther, and Susannah) being the children of his son John and Susannah (Craddock), we shall briefly note a niece Elizabeth and a nephew Richard who were the children of Richard’s brother Samuel.



We have already noted some of the legacies left by Richard’s brother Samuel Banner, the ironmonger and sword maker of Birmingham, and here we briefly note that Samuel also named in his will his daughter Elizabeth and Richard Croft his son in law.

Elizabeth was born in 1680 and baptised on 7th March, 1680, at St. Martin, Birmingham in Warwickshire.

In October 1914, some two hundred years later, the following letter appeared in the Notes and Queries section of The Connoisseur:

Unidentified Portrait No. 150.
Dear Sir, I should be very much obliged if your readers could give me any information as to the portrait of which I enclose a photograph. It measures 2 foot 3 inches by 1 foot 2 inches and is of a woman with brown hair and eyes, in a red dress lined with grey, with gold stripes and a white vest. Upon the back of the picture are the words, “Third wife of R. Croft.” There is nil artist’s signature. It was purchased some years ago at the sale of the effects of the late Mr. Kelynge Greenway, near Warwick .
Yours truly,
J. Elspeth

A response to this inquiry appeared in The Connoisseur for January-April, 1915.

Unidentified Portrait (No. 150), October, 1914.
Dear Sir,— I can identify the portrait (No. 150) as that of my great-great-great-grandmother, Elizabeth Banner, daughter of Samuel Banner, of Birmingham, and third wife of Mr. Richard Croft. They were married in 1710. The name of the artist I do not know. Should the owner of this picture wish for further details of their descendants, I can supply them privately.

Yours faithfully,
H. D. J. K. Greenway








Another child of Samuel Banner’s, Richard, also mentioned in his father’s will was born in 1680 and may have been the twin of the above Elizabeth. He eventually became the reverend doctor and his entry in Alumni Oxonienses is as follows:

Son of Samuel of Birmingham, Warwickshire, gent. University College, matriculated 31st March, 1696, aged 16; B. A. 1699; M.A. 1702; B. & D.D. 1727, minister of Marston Chapel, co. Worcester, 25th May, 1704 (the day on which it was consecrated), until his death, author of ‘The Use and Antiquity of Musick in the Service of God. (See Rawlinson, xvi. 125; & Gutch, i. 68.)

In The Diary of Francis Evans, Secretary to Bishop Lloyd 1699-1706, an entry appears where the bishop consecrates a new church:
On 25th May, 1704, Richard Banner, M.A., subscribed and took the oaths in order to be admitted and licensed to preach and perform all other Divine Offices in the Chapel of Marston in the Parish of Yardley, County and Diocese of Worcester. On the same day (Ascension Day), my Lord [Bishop Lloyd] went from Sir John Burgoigne’s and consecrated Marston Chapel in the Parish of Yardley. Mr. Rich. Banner (the new Incumbent) preached. My Lord Digby, Sir Charles Holt, and many Persons of quality attended the Solemnity. In the afternoon my Lord consecrated the Chapel yard.

The title pages of the two books that Richard Banner authored are reproduced below: A Treatise of Simony … published in 1716 (45 pages) and A Sermon Preached …. The Use and Antiquity of Musick in the Service of God published in 1737 (38 pages).
Below is the entry for Richard’s marriage to Susanna Sacheverell at St. Andrew’s, Holborn, on 14th February, 1716. There appears to have been no issue.
14 The Rev Rich Banner & Susana Sacherval

As happened quite frequently in the 18th Century, the Banner’s home was broken into and items removed:

From the newspapers 4th March, 1727.


Whereas the House of the Rev. Mr. Richard Banner in Birmingham in Warwickshire, was broken open on Monday Night the 27th of February, and besides several fine laced Heads and Ruffles, there was taken away one white Damask Gown and Petticoat lined with Scarlet, one embroidered white Satten Gown and Petticoat lined with green, one full Night-Gown striped with small purple Stripes, faced and robed with a sprigged Linnen, six Tea Spoons mark’d S.S. Whoever gives Notice of them and can discover any of the Persons who took them away, so as they may be brought to Justice, shall have Ten Guineas Reward; or if any of the Accomplices will discover any of the Gang, he shall have his Pardon and the same Reward.

Richard died at St. Giles in Oxford on 10th May, 1750 and he was buried in the chapel of University College.
Henry Sacheverell The Public Advertiser, 2nd May, 1763.

On Tuesday died in St. Giles’s in this City, aged 94, Mrs. Susannah Banner, Relict of Dr. Richard Banner, formerly Fellow of University College, and Sister of Dr. Henry Sacheverell, who in the Reign of Queen Anne so much distinguished himself.
By ‘distinguishing himself’ the newspaper notice above refers probably to the fact that Richard Banner’s brother in law, Henry Sacheverell, by means of his incendiary speeches against the low and dissenting churches incited, among other things, the greatest riot that London had ever seen in the eighteenth century.

The Whig broadside below shows Sacheverell riding the lead horse of a carriage driven by the devil. Sacheverell blows a horn while Moderation, Toleration, Liberty, and Property are all crushed beneath the carriage’s wheels.

A Whig cartoon against Henry Sacheverell
In the next section we will look at the families of John and Susannah (Cradock) Banner’s three surviving children: Richard who married Mary Davies, Esther who married John Purcell, and Susannah who married Abraham Cropp. For various editorial reasons this does not follow their birth order.

John and Susannah (Cradock) Banner’s son Richard was born in 1696 and baptised on 28th May at St. Laurence, Pountney Lane. Some of Richard’s life can be pieced together from various sources.

For example, the admissions register of Lincoln’s Inn for February 1714/15 has the following entry: 17th February: Richard Banner, son and heir of John Banner of the City of London Gent, deceased.

In The National Archives a number of records refer to Richard, for instance there is a marriage settlement dated 26th July, 1718, between Richard Banner and Mary Davies with her uncle, Griffith Davies of Birmingham, Doctor in Physick .

1. Richard Banner of Birmingham, Warwickshire Esq. 2. Mary Davies of Birmingham. 3. Griffith Davies of Birmingham, Doctor in Physick. Henry Hinckley of Smithwick, Staffs, Esq. Richard Banner of Birmingham, Clerk. £3,500 1. to 3. £2,000 2. to 3. to buy estates in Warwickshire, Staffs. Leicestershire, Salop, or Worcestshire, to use of 1. Richard Banner for his natural life. 2. Rents to value of £300 to use of Mary for her life for jointure. 3. 1st son of Richard Banner and Mary. 4. Lands not conveyed to Richard Banner then his heirs in default to Trustees. 5. Use of daughters £6000 when 18 or married and £150 p.a. for maintenance – if more daughters then £6000 to be equally shared. 6. £2500 for portions of children born after Richard Banner’s decease.

The fact that Mary is the daughter of Griffith Davies’s sister (unnamed so far) and yet has Davies as a last name, as well as the absence, so far, of any record of her parents would suggest that she may well have been orphaned and perhaps adopted by her Uncle.

We noted earlier that, as part of the marriage settlement between Richard’s parents Susannah Cradock and John Banner, John’s father Richard purchased the manors of Boughton (Bowton) and Southoe. The manors eventually devolved to Richard’s grandson Richard as noted by The Victoria County History for Huntingdonshire: “By 1718 the manors of Boughton and Southoe were in the possession of Richard Banner”. On 2nd June, 1718, Richard leased the property and in 1751 he sold the manors to William Finch.

Richard’s various places of residence can be followed from a series of agreements that he entered into so that, for example, between 1721 and 1728 Richard is residing at Hamstead Hall in Staffordshire.
Hamstead Hall in Staffordshire

On 2nd January, 1743, Richard Banner Esq., along with his wife Mary, is of Little Aston in Staffordshire.

Below adapted from: Miscellaneous Antiquities … By Henry Sanders:

After the Scotts’ family left [little] Aston-hall it was in the tenure of Richard Banner, of London … He was a person of good breeding, and great humanity, especially towards the poor, shewn, besides his continual benevolence in giving a whole beef and three guineas at Christmas, yearly, to the distressed of his own parish. His study was fitted with a collection of the most choice and valuable books, which were when he left this place, sold by ________ Purcell, of Worcester, his nephew, for several hundred pounds to Thomas Anson (1695-1773), of Shuckburgh, in the county of Stafford, esq. Richard’s wife was [Mary] _____ sister [niece] to Griffith Davies, of Birmingham, an eminent physician, distinguished too for her charities, one instance of which we remark, which was the keeping a shop of physical drugs, in the management of which she was directed by Samuel Swynsen of Swynsen, esq. M. D. afterwards of Birmingham, well known, and yet remembered for his skill in his profession, and his care in his prescriptions; this good lady died of a cancer in her breast. Her niece [cousin], Mary [Elizabeth] Griffith, only daughter and heir to Griffith Davis*, M. D. with a fortune of 300001. was, upon May 26, 1736, married in Shenstone church to Sir Thomas Cave, of Stanford, in Northamptonshire, baronet; her residence being then at Aston, as ward to her uncle Richard Banner, esq.

* Lord of the manor of Thedingworth in Leicestershire; where a monument is placed to his memory..

In the collection of The National Trust’s Shugborough Estate, home of the Anson family, there are a number of eighteenth-century armorial bookplates belonging to Richard Banner, with the motto: “Nil sine numine”. When part of this collection was put up for sale in 1842 the catalogue listed one item, Antiquities of Constantinople, as being “… a presentation copy to Richard Banner of Perry Hall [Handsworth] in Staffordshire Esq., the former proprietor of this library to whom this volume is inscribed Lond, 1729”. The catalogue for the second day of Anson’s book sale included “The subscription copies of Richard Banner of Perry Hall County of Stafford, Esq. whose library was purchased by Thomas Anson.”

Thomas Anson Richard Banner’s Bookplate

Below left the title page for Antiquities of Constantinople and right Perry Hall which was demolished by Birmingham City Council in 1927.
Above, Perry Hall in Staffordshire and left the title page from The Antiquities of Constantinople.
Below (left) the village of Shenstone at the time that Richard Banner was residing at Aston Hall (right), just outside the village.
View of Shenstone from the Litchfield Road Little Aston Hall, occupied by Richard and Mary banner from about 1743 to1746

On 22nd December, 1744, Richard and Mary (Davies) Banner are found at Hatton Garden in Middlesex. On 30th August, 1745, Richard Banner, late of Little Aston, Staffs. Esq. is now of St. Andrews, Holborn in Middlesex along with Mary his wife.


But Richard appears to have run into financial difficulties. One indication of this is that his mother in her will forgives him all his debts. His selling of the two manors of Boughton and Southoe to William Finch in 1751, as well as his book collection to Thomas Aston is another indication. As is a ‘Deed of Defeasance on Mortgage Bond & Judgment entered into by Richard Banner & Sir Thomas Cave’, for £1,200 owed by Richard Banner on 31st August, 1745 [148/2/174]; Sir Thomas Cave having married Elizabeth Davies, cousin of Richard’s wife Mary.


Mary (Davies) Banner’s uncle Griffith Davies was born in 1668 probably at Dryslwyn in Carmarthen. He married Elizabeth Burgoyne and they had one daughter also Elizabeth who was born in 1716 and baptised at St. Philips, Birmingham, on 18th February, 1716. The death date of Griffith Davies is not certain. Between January, 1721 and August, 1722, he wrote his will and some sources base his death on the date of his will, which is incorrect. Another claim based on his wall monument at Theddingworth would have him dying in 1772 which would make him 104 years old. Elizabeth (Burgoyne) Davies died on 29th July, 1726, aged 47.
St. Philip’s Birmingham Griffith Davies

Elizabeth Davies married Sir Thomas Cave 5th Bart. (1712-1748) in November 1735. They had two sons and two daughters however, however the baronetcy became extinct on the death of their son Sir Charles Cave.

Sir Thomas Cave’s mother was Margaret Verney whose mother was Elizabeth (Palmer) Verney the niece of Hester (Palmer) Cradock. Thus Richard Banner was the second cousin of Sir Thomas Cave’s mother.

Below Mary (Davies) Banner’s uncle Griffith Davies is seated far right next to his daughter Elizabeth (Davies) Cave. Her husband Thomas Cave is standing to her right with their children in the grounds of Stanford Hall. It was painted by Arthur Devis in 1749. Baptisms of two of the Cave’s children have been located at Wandsworth (IGI P01901-1): John Cave baptized on 7th November, 1734 and Charles James baptized 20th May, 1739. Also, at Gilmorton in Leicestershire Thomas Cave was baptized on 18th June, 1738 (IGI Index I04340-0).
Sir Thomas Cave and his family

In the church of All Saints, Theddingworth, on the south side is a large mural monument to Griffith Davies and his wife Elizabeth (Burgoyne). It is without figures or ornaments, except a fluted border and an urn at the top, and having on it the arms of Davies and Burgoyne as shown below.

The top of the monument (left) at All Saints showing the Burgoyne and Davies arms. The monument (right) shows the arms of Cave (red hand) and Davies below.

Elizabeth (Burgoyne) Davies was the aunt of the British army general John Burgoyne who, on 7th October, 1777, suffered the first major British defeat during the American War of Independence at Saratoga, New York.
The British surrender at Saratoga and General Burgoyne, Elizabeth (Burgoyne) Davies’ nephew.

Below Stanford Hall the home of the Cave family.
Stanford Hall
The only time Thomas Cave spoke in parliament was on 22nd March, 1777, which was against the bill to abolish the observation of the execution of King Charles I. Below the monument to Sir Thomas Cave:



AUGUST 7TH 1778, AGED 67.


Penelope, daughter of Lord Wenham, and wife of Thomas Cave 1st Bart. Elizabeth Croft mother of Thomas Cave, 1st Bart.
Margaret Verney, mother of Thomas Cave 5th Bart. Margret and Richard Banner were second cousins.



In January, 1691, John and Susannah (Cradock) Banner’s first child, Esther, was born and on the 18th of that month she was baptised at St. Laurence, Pountney Lane.
Esther Banner daughter of John & Susanah Banner was Baptized January 18th 1691

Note again in the left margin John’s profession as ‘drie salter’.

Esther married John Purcell, although as yet no record has been located, and they had the following five children: Maria Teresa, James, John, Edward, and Thomas. Of these children we know nothing except for Maria Teresa and of her we know very little.

Esther (Banner) Purcell died aged 29 at the end of May, 1720, and was buried on 1st June, 1720, at St. Pancras Old Church. The notations after her name (recorded as Hester) indicate that she is from foreign parts (For.) and a Roman Catholic (R.C.) which would comport with what little we know of her life. Her death in 1720 would also explain why she is not mentioned in either her husband’s or her mother’s wills.
June 1st Hester Purcell For. & R.C. Affid –
St. Pancras old church where Esther (Banner) Purcell was buried on 1st June, 1720



John Purcell had seven siblings: four sisters, three of whom did not marry – Winfred, Mary, and Anne. The fourth, Catherine, married Thomas Penson. And then there were three brothers Thomas, Edward, and Philip.

The Purcell family was Catholic and adhered to its religion with tenacity, bearing fines and suffering discrimination through the centuries. Six of John‘s seven siblings refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to George I in 1715, and as a result were fined. On the other hand, John and his brother Edward did take the oath, which allowed them certain legal rights denied the others. These rights had some bearing on who could inherit what and who taxed or not when it came to inheritance. As a result we shall see the ‘taking of the oath’ would be an issue for John in writing his will.

Because the Purcell family was a fractious lot some used their wills to express their frustrations with each other. As a result, we are able to piece together (although not always very clearly) some of the issues that pitted one against the other.

From his will, we learn that John is particularly vexed by his sister in law Catherine (Brooke) Purcell, the widow of his brother Thomas Purcell. She appears to have somehow ‘obstructed’ the administration of John’s father’s estate as well as that of his brother Thomas’s. In particular, he believes that she is obliged to pay out certain monies by order of the courts, although his point is somewhat obscure:

….but be paid by Catherine Purcell my brother Thomas’s Widow pursuant to an award made about the fourteenth of July 1726 by Mr. Baron Cummins and Sarjeant Darnall consented to by the said Catherine and by Mr Edward Webb of Grays Inn council for all the annuitants which said award is filed and proved by affidavits in the Kings Bench and may if necessary be confirmed in Chancery and if the said Catherine should withdraw herself or prove insolvent or even if she should not – sufficient proofs will be found amongst my writings to make Walter Stubbs of Borkbury Con Salop attorney at Law and William Ashwood of Madeley County Salop Gent […] lyable to such or far greater sums and it is my Request that as soon as money can be spared to do it my Executors will take admin and endeavour to recover all they can for my children from my said Brothers Widow ….

On her part, John’s sister-in-law Catherine (Brooke) Purcell, gives us no clue in her will as to why John Purcell was so aggrieved by her as there is no reference to the Purcell family anywhere in it. Instead Catherine has a bone or two to pick with her own Brooke family.

Details of Catherine’s will, as well as those of John’s sisters Mary and Winifred Purcell, and other members of the Purcell and Brooke families are given in the appendix.
The Purcell family and Catherine Brooke share a common ancestor both being descended from Robert Brooke (d.1558) who was Speaker of the House of Commons during the reign of Queen Mary and who was knighted by her husband King Philip of Spain. The Purcell family is descended from Robert’s daughter Mary who married Thomas Leveson while Catherine is descended from his son Basil Brooke (see Appendix)
The Will of John Purcell, Snr., being the Father of John

John Purcell of Madeley in the County of Salop in his will, dated 25th February, 1711, names his wife and all eight of his children and makes the following bequests:

To his wife Catherine: One Hundred Pounds a year during her natural life according to a Rent charge I formerly made unto her and now in her hands.
To son Thomas fifty pounds.
To sons Philip and Edward twenty pounds a year each.
To daughters Mary, Catherine, Winifred, and Anne twenty pounds each. He then writes:

As to my son John [who married Esther Banner] to whom I have already given what I am able I desire he may have fifty pounds if my estate will bear it. …

Whereas there is the sum of fifty pounds left as a legacy to my daughter Mary by her uncle Richard Giffard I desire the same (fifty pounds) may be paid to her as it conveniently can be raised And whereas my daughter Catherine has a legacy of Forty Pounds left by her aunt Dorothy and Ten Pounds by her aunt Elizabeth Purcell I desire the said sum be paid to her as soon as it conveniently can be raised.

The reference to ‘uncle Richard Giffard’ supports the notion that this Purcell family is that which is depicted on the Visitation of Staffordshire shown below. Likewise, the aunts Dorothy and Elizabeth mentioned by John, Snr. also appear on the Visitation.

John Purcell, Snr. warns the beneficiaries of his estate, i.e. his children, that if:

Any difference should hereafter arise about the performance of my will betwixt my executors and Legatys or any person herein concerned. My will and meaning is that such difference be referred to the Arbitration and Award of Thomas Whitegrave of Madly in the County of Stafford aforesaid Gentleman.

He appoints as his executors his wife Catherine and sons Philip and Edward. The will is witnessed by John Ashwood, William Ashwood, and Mary Poole. A codicil was added on 31st January, 1712, which did not alter the provisions of the will.

The Career of John Purcell, MD (1674-1730)

According to The Roll of the Royal College of Physicians of London, Esther (Banner) Purcell’s husband John was:

A native of Shropshire and a doctor of medicine of Montpelier of 29th May, 1699, and was admitted a Licentiate of the College of Physicians 3rd April, 1721. His name disappears from the College lists in 1731. He was the author of A Treatise of Vapours or Hysterick Fits, London, 1702 and A Treatise of the Cholick, London, 1714.

Purcell’s medical training in France may well have been because Catholics in England were denied the opportunity of becoming physicians although his subsequent ability to practice in England might have been because he, unlike most of his siblings, ‘took the oath’.

From the first edition of the Dictionary of National Biography:

PURCELL, JOHN (1674 – 1730) physician was born in Shropshire about 1674 and in 1696 became a student of medicine in the university of Montpellier where he attended the lectures of Pierre Chirac (image right) then professor of medicine for whom he retained a great respect through life (see Of Vapours p. 48). After taking the degrees of bachelor and licentiate he graduated MD on 29 May 1699. He practised in London and in 1702 published A Treatise of Vapours or Hysteric Fits of which a second edition appeared in 1707. The book is dedicated to the Honourable Sir John Talbott his ‘near relation’ and gives a detailed clinical account of many of the phenomena of hysteria mixed up with pathology of the school of Thomas Willis. His preface is the latest example of the type of apology for writing on medicine in the English tongue so common in books of the eighteenth century. He shows much good sense pointing out that there are no grounds for the ancient belief that the movement of the uterus is related to the symptoms of hysteria and supports the statement of Sydenham that similar symptoms are observable in men. Their greater frequency in women he attributes to the comparative inactivity of female life. He recommends crayfish broth and Tunbridge waters but also seeing plays, merry company, and airing in the parks. In 1714 he published at J Maphew’s A Treatise of the Cholick dedicated to his relative Charles duke of Shrewsbury of which a second edition appeared in 1715. This work shows less observation than his former book but contains the description of an autopsy which he witnessed at Montpellier giving the earliest observation in any English book of the irritation produced by the exudation in peritonitis on the hands of the morbid anatomist. On 3 April 1721 he was admitted a licentiate of the College of Physicians of London. He died on 19 Dec 1730. [See: Munk’s Coll of Phys ii, 77. Astruc’s Memoires pour servir a l’Histoire de la Faculte de Midecine de Montpelier Paris 1767 Works NM]

The ‘near relative’, Sir John Talbott, to whom John Purcell dedicates his first book is puzzling. In ‘Genealogy of Shropshire’ by Joseph Morris there is a record for a marriage between John Purcell of The Hay and Catherine Talbot; where Catherine’s father is John Talbot. If these two John Talbots are one and the same then he is John Purcell’s maternal grandfather.

However other sources indicate a Thomas Talbot as Catherine’s father. For instance at the Shropshire archives there is a:

‘.. drawing of a monumental inscription (with coat of arms) of John Purcell (d. 1713), who married Catharine Talbot, daughter of Thomas Talbot and Catharine Talbot. And a monumental inscription of Thomas Purcell (d. 1719). All at Madeley’.

This Thomas Purcell was probably John’s elder brother who married Catherine Brooke. The confusion around Catherine (Talbot) Purcell’s ancestry is regrettable.

As for his ‘relative Charles duke of Shrewsbury’ to whom John Purcell dedicates his second book, the connection must have been through the Talbot family since this is the family name of the dukes of Shrewsbury, but how exactly is not yet known.

John Purcell appears below on a one page broadsheet dated 1728 in the last column as a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, where he is the only member whose address is shown as just Country.

The tile pages of John’s two books are reproduced below:


Below an advertisement for A Treatise of Vapours:
A Treatise of Vapours, or Hysterick Fits, Containing an Analytical Proof of its Causes, Mechanical Explanations of all its Symptoms and Accidents, according to the newest and most Rational Principles: Together with its Cure at large. By John Purcell, M.D. Printed and Sold by N. Cox, at the Bible without Temple Bar, 1702.

The preface of A Treatise of Vapours contains an extended justification of his position as the following passage shows:

To please all Men is absolutely impossible; and I am so far from imagining I have done it, that I expect more Criticks upon this small Treatise, than upon any Book of its kind which has come out these many years: Besides the general ones, I expect the particular Censure of two sorts of men; The first are, the Galenick Old-fashion’d Doctors, who explicate all things by Hidden Qualities, which give others just as clear an idea of what they would explain, as they themselves have of the true Mechanism of Man’s Body, which they know nothing at all of; but these I fear not, all the Learned of this Age are sufficiently convinc’d of their Errors, and ’tis long since that all these Occult Qualities have been banished from Minerva’s School; and nothing is now acceptable, but what is explain’d Mechanically by Figure and Motion. The second are our Modern Physicians, who though they are convinc’d that the Body of Man is a Machine, which is acted all by inward Springs and Motions, yet may think it Arrogance for a young Physician to pretend to explain to them by other Notions than what Ingenious Willis and his Followers have deliver’d to us: But I must beg their pardon if I lay aside his, to ground my self upon the more solid and Rational Principles of that Penetrating Philosopher Doctor Chirac Professor of Physick in the University of Montpellier, to whose Works (which will shortly be publish’d) I referr them, to be convinc’d of the Solidity of those Principles, which the brevity this Treatise requires, will not permit me to establish.

As for those Ingenious Gentlemen who are well-vers’d in Modern Philosophy, Geometry, and the Structure of Man’s Body, ’tis them I’d chuse to be my Judges. And I hope the Fair Sex (for whose benefit this Book was chiefly design’d) will, in requital of my Labour, excuse the Impoliteness of my stile, and some hard words, which the subject render’d impossible for me to avoid.

Purcell gives as complete an analysis of the symptoms, causes, and treatment of ‘Vapours and Hystericks’ as could be imagined for those days, not that this makes much, if any, sense to us these days. On page three he describes some of the symptoms of ‘The Vapours’ which appear to be analogous to an epileptic fit:

Those who are troubled with Vapours, generally perceive them approach in the following manner; first, they feel a Heaviness upon their Breast; a Grumbling in their Belly; they Belch up, and sometimes Vomit, Sower, Sharp, Insipid, or Bitter Humours: They have a Difficulty in breathing; and think they feel something that comes up into their throat, which is ready to choak them; they struggle; Cry out; make odd and inarticulate sounds, or mutterings; they perceive a swimming in their heads; a Dimness comes over their Eyes; they turn pale; are scarce able to stand; their Pulse is weak, they shut their Eyes; Fall down; and remain senseless for sometime; afterwards by little and little, their Pulse returns; their Face regains its natural colour; their Body grows hot as before; they Open their Eyes, Sigh, and by degrees come to themselves.

There are many who when these Accidents are over, come quietly to themselves by degrees; and in others, when the violent Cold is ended, a no less violent Heat succeeds; which casts them again into many of the former Accidents, as Palpitations of the Heart; Headaches; Giddiness; Difficulty in breathing; and into some new ones, as Flushing of the face; Raving; Convulsions; Foaming at the Mouth; Violent Beating of the Muscles and Arteries; and a Tingling Sensation in the Thighs, which were Paralytick during the Cold fit, nay sometimes the Palsy will continue in the Hot fit too.

What was ‘new’ in Purcell’s thinking was that traditionally ‘The Vapours’ were blamed on fumes given off by a ‘distempered womb, rising up through the organs’, instead Purcell argued that they were the result of an organic obstruction located:

In the Stomach and Guts; whereof the Grumbling of the one and the Heaviness and uneasiness of the other generally preceding the Paroxysm, are no small Proofs.

Because he detached the source of ‘The Vapours’ from the womb this meant that men, as well as women, could become susceptible to them. Consequently both genders could experience ‘hysterick fits’.

On 22nd August, 1719, John lent his name to the following reassuring public notice:
Bath, Aug 22. 1719.
WHereas it has been maliciously and industriously reported in and about London, as we have been inform’d, that there rages in this City a malignant Distemper; These are to inform the Publick, that the City of Bath is free from any such Distemper; and that the said City was never healthier than at this Time, and that the said Report is entirely false and groundless. Witness our Hands. …. John Purcell, M.D. [et al].

Among papers titled Tower Records, iii, 1722, is the following:

Order for letting Doctor Purcell to visit Lord North and Grey in his illness. N.B. He chose Purcell a papist who attended Lord North and Grey for a fever.

William Lord North and Grey was committed to the Tower of London for treason on 27th October, 1722 . The fact that the Keeper of the Tower refers to Purcell as a ‘papist’, would indicate that John retained his faith while yet taking ‘the oath’. This needs clarification.

The following is from A Survey of London, published in 1900 by The London County Council:

Dr. John Purcell, a prominent London physician, who published A Treatise of Vapours …. and A Treatise of the Cholick was living at No. 10 Denmark Street in 1730. He died in the same year. The door case at No. 10 shown here [photograph] is an 18th-century addition.

A publication below: Essays upon Several Subjects by Sir Richard Blackmore is among several contemporary works that refers approvingly to Purcell’s ideas and his practice as a physician.
Sir Richard Blackmore
Those who would see this Subject [hysteria] treated more fully, and with more Accuracy and Method, I refer to Dr. Willis on Hysterick Affections, and to Dr. Purcell, a learned Gentleman, not only well vers’d in the Theory, but likewise skilful in the Practice of Physick, in whose Treatise on this Distemper the Reader will find many useful Observations, and instructive as well as curious Experiments.

On 20th December, 1730, John’s death was announced in the newspapers:

A few Days since died Dr. Purcell, an eminent Physician, Author of a Treatise on the Vapours
The Will of Doctor John Purcell

We have already extracted one passage from John’s will, regarding his sister in law Catherine, the widow of his brother Thomas. Here we detail some of the legacies that John left.

JOHN PURCELL, of the Hay, in the parish of Madeley, co. Salop, Doctor in Physic and of the College of Physicians in London, writes his will dated 3rd April, 1729. He divides his estate equally among his four sons James, John, Edward, and Thomas and his daughter Mary Teresa. Esther, his wife, having died nine years earlier is, of course, not mentioned.

He bequeaths one hundred pounds a year to his mother Catherine and his brother Edward.

He bequeaths fifty pounds a year to ‘my brother Richard Banner’s now wife [Mary Davies]’. [i.e. Richard being John’s late wife Esther’s brother]

He also writes that should all of his children die without issue then he bequeaths:

… all the Remainder and Remainders of all my estate both Real and Personal to my brother in law Richard Banner Esq who I leave and constitute Guardian of all my five Children …. Lastly I leave unto my Mother in Law Lady Blunt and my Brother in Law Richard Banner Esquire Executors of this my last will Testament.

Of course Lady Blunt was Susannah (Cradock) Banner, the mother of John Purcell’s wife Esther.

John Purcell claims in his will that his estate is not liable to certain taxes that it would otherwise have been because he had “taken the oath”. As a result, he is free to take:

…. all my Estates freehold and Leasehold by Right and by inheritance as firmly and as legally as any Subject of all England ever did nor can there be any objection to me on the penal statutes I having insured any such penalty nor ever refused taking the oaths or been summoned so to do the —— which may be pretended by any of the annuitants on my Estates ought not to affect my children…

John believed that since he had taken the oath his beneficiaries were entitled to receive their annuities without additional fines that Catholics might otherwise have been liable to. And, as often happened, in order to ensure that the beneficiaries of his will did not question or challenge one another or argue among themselves, he suggests that those fines could be re-imposed on any one among them who would argue or question:

My will and desire is that the penal statutes [against Catholics] be never taken against my mother [Catherine], or any of my brothers and sisters (except my brother-in-law Thomas Penson) to deprive them of the annuities left them by my father’s will, but if they sue for more than such annuities, or for a receiver on my estates, or for any distribution of my estates, my express will is that those penal statutes be then taken against them which hinder Roman Catholics from taking interest in lands, and that rather because several of them have unfairly obstructed the probate of my brother Thomas Purcell’s will.

John’s complaint against his brother in law Thomas Penson suggested above by the fact that he was willing to have Thomas Penson bear fines leads him to write further that should Thomas challenge or argue then he should: … pay double taxes to the utmost extent for his annuity and that he never be suffered to have any management or to intermeddle in the ——- of my estate.

There is nothing in Thomas Penson’s will, nor in any of John’s siblings’ wills to help clarify John’s complaint (see Appendix).

John’s will was probated on 20th November, 1732. On 9th December, 1751, administration of the estate was handed to John Purcell’s son John because Susannah Blunt had died before she had ‘taken on the execution thereof’ and Richard Banner had chosen not to carry out his executorial duties.

As seen below, a total of seven members of the Purcell family including John’s siblings Thomas, Philip, Winifred, Mary, and Anne appear on a list of Roman Catholics who were forced to “register their names and real estates” and subsequently fined because they had refused to take the oath. For his fellow Catholics John’s willingness to take the oath was enough to have him named an apostate (see – Records of the English Catholics of 1715).
15 cords of the English Catholics of 1715) Records of the English Catholics of 1715














Miscellaneous Jottings on the Purcell Family

English Catholics often sent their children abroad to receive a proper Catholic education. And, in the case of the Purcell family, some were sent to Lisbon in Portugal to attend the English College. In the Historical Account of Lisbon College is a list of students who attended the school, including:

PURCELL, Edward, son of Edward Purcell, of Stafford, gent., by his wife Elizabeth Langley; admitted on Revell’s Fund, Nov. 5, 1730. [The nephew of Doctor John Purcell]

PURCELL, James, brother of Edward, q.v.; admitted on Revell’s Fund, June 9, 1730. [Likewise the nephew of the doctor]

PURCELL, Philip, son of John Purcell, of The Hay, Madeley, co. Salop, Esq., and of his wife Catherine; admitted (1696?); ordained a priest and was chaplain at Arundel Castle, in 1717. [The brother of doctor]

Also a deed dated 30th December, 1690, held at the Birmingham Archives shows: Edward Revell, of Shifnal, Shropshire, in pursuance of his right to nominate students to the English Catholic Colleges at Douai and Lisbon, devises power of nomination after his decease to John Talbot, of Longford, Shropshire, and Thomas Giffard, of Chillington, Staffordshire; signed and sealed and witnessed by John Purcell and Will Turner. [This John Purcell being the ‘senior’ not the MD]

Among the records at The National Archives is the following:

CATHERINE PURCELL, widow [Mother of John Purcell,MD etc.] Annuity out of “Yieldfields” by indenture, dated 4th October, 1675, between John Purcell, of Madeley, co. Salop, of one part, and George Talbot, of Worfield, of other part.

The last line above shows Edward Purcell’s marriage to Elizabeth Langley
The Hay Farm
In their wills, some of the Purcell family, including John, state that they are ‘of The Hay in Madeley’ in Shropshire; The Hay being a large red brick farm house which is still standing above Coalport and commanding enviable views along the Severn valley. In 1544 the Hay was sold to Sir Robert Brooke who later built himself a new house at Madeley Court. In 1683 the Hay past to the Purcell family. In 1705 the Hay was bought by John Ashwood and William Phillips but the following year it was resold to the trustees for the heirs of John Purcell, Snr. In the 19th century it was owned by the founder of the Coalport china company.
The Hay, home of the Purcell family

On a portrait of the composer Henry Purcell there is drawn some arms (barry wavy of six argent and gules on a bend sable three boars heads couped of the first) which according to the Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) (1st Ed.) connects the composer with the family of Purcell of Onslow, Shropshire, from which the Staffordshire Purcells are supposed to be descended. Whether it does or not has yet to be shown.

The last mention of this Purcell family in the newspapers occurs in The London Evening Post on 23rd July, 1752, almost twenty years after the decease of the doctor, and concerns a claim against various family members’ estates as a result of a mortgage having been taken out on John Purcell, Snr.’s estate and owing to a Mr. Fowler.



All Persons who are Creditors to John Purcell of the Hay, in the Parish of Madeley in the County of Salop, Gentleman, deceased, and of his Sons Thomas and Doctor John Purcell, late of the same Place, both also deceas’d, are desir’d to send an Account of their respective Claims to Mr. Alexander Jesson, at his Chambers, No. 11, in the Paper-Buildings in the Inner-Temple, London; or to Mr. Homer, of Sutton Coldfield in the County of Warwick, on or before the 1st of August next. And whereas there is suspected to be a Mortgage subsisting, made either by the said John Purcell or Thomas Purcell, to one Mr Fowler, suppos’d to be late of St. Thomas’s in Staffordshire, sometime before the Year 1715: Whoever has the same in Custody, or can give any Intelligence of the same, or has any Claim in Respect thereof, is desir’d to send an Account thereof in Manner above-mention’d.

The Purcells, being armigerous minor gentry, returned a pedigree for the Visitation of Staffordshire (1663) where John Purcell’s father (John, Snr.) is shown not yet married. The pedigree was made by his brother Richard who appears on the page below married to Elizabeth Chetwynd, etc. John, Snr.’s names his four daughters after his sisters shown below: Anne, Catherine, Winifred, and Mary.

For more details on the Purcell family see the Appendix.

Despite having had four sons all of whom reached adulthood, no further records have yet been located that would throw light on their lives. There is a brief mention of a _______ Purcell, the nephew of Richard Banner, who disposes of his uncle’s book collection. Only the daughter, Maria Teresa, has left a trace of her existence.


John and Esther (Banner) Purcell’s only daughter, Maria Teresa, married Thomas Cotton on 27th May, 1746, at Westminster Abbey as the entry in The Marriage, Baptismal, and Burial Registers of the Collegiate Church or Abbey of St. Peter, Westminster … indicates:


The marriage was noted by the newspapers:

Mr. Thomas Cotton, an eminent Merchant in Tower-Street, London, to Miss Maria Teresia Purcell, a young Lady possessed of every Accomplishment capable to make the Marriage-State happy, with a Fortune of 12,000 pounds.


Thomas and Maria Teresa (Purcell) Cotton had two children. A son Thomas was born on 15th March, 1748, and baptised on 3rd April, 1748, at St. Dunstan in the East.

Thomas son of Thomas & Maria
Theresa Cotton born March 15th 1747-48 & baptiz’d April
3d 1748.

A daughter, Elizabeth, is mentioned in Richard Cropp’s will and elsewhere although a baptismal record has not yet been located.

We know little of Maria Teresa (Purcell) Cotton. She is mentioned in a number of relations’ will such as her cousin James Cropp’s dated 1767 where she is living as a widow at Kensington Gore. She inherited from her aunt Winifred Purcell an ‘unaltered tabby’ cat and a green damask dress.

At the National Archives she appears alongside her brothers and her husband in a legal case involving land at Madeley:

Trinity 26 George II (circa 1753) Robert Fox Plaintiff. John, Edward and Thomas Purcell, Thomas Cotton and Maria Teresa, defendants: 6 houses and 220 acres of land, etc., in Madeley.

This case may have had to do with the claim of an outstanding mortgage on the estates of John Purcell, Snr. and John Purcell, MD mentioned in the newspaper notice above dated 23rd July, 1752.

Apart from the above records, and a few others not noted, no other documents relating to Thomas and Maria Teresa (Purcell) Cotton have been found.

Westminster Abbey where Maria Teresa Purcell
married Thomas Cotton in 1746

Thomas Cotton, Jnr.’s Letters to George Cumberland, Snr.

In The Cumberland Letters there are two letters by and some references to a young man called Thomas Cotton. Clementina Black does not identify how Thomas might be connected to the Cumberland/Balchen families but, as we have shown, he is the son of Thomas and Maria Teresa (Purcell) Cotton, grandson of John and Esther (Banner) Purcell, and the great grandson of John and Susannah (Cradock) Banner. He was thus the third cousin once removed of Elizabeth (Balchen) Cumberland.

Thomas’s letters were written to George Cumberland, Snr., Elizabeth Balchen’s husband, and from them we learn that he is a soldier serving in India.

Letter No. I

Ellore Garrison Circars (or Circass) [India] Jan 22 1771

Dear Sir

Your Letter dated June 10 1770, I did not receive Till June 21 1771 you mention your sending it on board the ‘Dolphin’ Frigate of War, but it came to me by the ‘Queen’ East Indiaman, For the future should be much oblidg’d to you to put them in at the India House, & they come to me much safter, than by Private Hands, was I settled at the Presedency, it would do very well to send them that way but am Eight Hundred miles from it, when they are Thrown about in the offices, & seldom come to hand. I hope you to excuse the Liberty I take in desiring you to put them in the India House, as it will be the means of my allways receiving them safe & directly as there Landed. The Trouble you Take for my Dear mother [Maria Teresa], sister & self lays me under the greatest obligations to you, which I hope to God I never shall be Unmindful, as at Present all I have in my Power is to acknowledge them, which I hope you think sincere as I assure you they are. Mr [Beeston] Long & Mr Cross [Richard Cropp] our kind Benefactors all we can do is to offer up our Prayers for there Healths & Happynesses, as it will be out of our Powers ever to return those numberless Obligations we lay under To them. It gives me great Pleasure to hear Mr Cross [Cropp] has concented To their going to France, for they’ll not only live cheaper, but it will be the means of my Sister improving of her Education, I enjoy my health here, to the full as well as in England, India is made Twenty Times worse in England than it really is, the heat is very Great, To be sure, but refrain from Excess of Drinking, & you’ll weather it very well, its drinking that kills Two thirds of our Gentlemen here, not the Climate, we have been at Peace ever since I been here, only a few skyrmishes, with the Poligars, & Cottires & they do not Trouble us much, we expect, To hear of a war, by every ship that comes in. Let it come as soon as it will we are prepared for it here in this Part of the World, and only wate for another [order] to March to Manila, Pray my best Respects To Mrs. Cumberland & complements To your sons. And believe me,

Your much oblidged, humble Servt,

Thomas Cotton.












To Mr. Cumberland:
I forgot to mention to you that I gott some friends at Madrass who has gott me removed into a Battlion of Seapoys which is Ten Pagodoes a month addition to my Pay, which makes it about Thirteen Pounds Sterling a month, this I send down to Madrass to go by the duke of Portland, if not too late, if it is am not certain what ship it will go by, shall Take the Liberty of sending you another Packett in a few weeks.

Letter No. 2

ELLORE, Sep. 28, 1771.

Dear Sir,

I take the Liberty of Troubling you with another Packett, which comes to you by the Stag frigate Sir John Lindsy [Lindsay] Commander. I still preserve my health very well I have no news here to send you only that we have sent an army of thirty thousand men under the Command of General Smith against the King of Tanjore, they marched the 1st of this month To lay siege to his fort, the Particulars will acquaint you with in my nextFF FF, I have never received a line from Mr. Redman or my Uncle Edward Purcell it gives me great concern, he should refuse to Write to me as I am conscious I never disobliged him pray my best compliments To Mrs Cumberland & family,

And am,

Your Obliged Humble Servant

Thomas Cotton
George Cumberland, Jnr. maintained contact with Thomas Cotton after George’s father died in November, 1771, and he kept his brother Richard up to date with Thomas’ Indian adventures:

… T. Cotton is well & I believe succeeds …

And, in response to George’s updates about Thomas, Richard remarks that he is:

… very glad to hear Mr. Cotton is so happily situated; & if He goes on at the rate you mention, shall very soon expect to see Him a Nabob.

However, through The Cumberland Letters we learn that in January, 1781, George Cumberland, Jnr. received news of ‘poor Cotton’s fate’. Clementina Black comments that:

It is probably safe to assume that, while serving with his regiment in India, Thomas was killed in battle. George, helpful as usual, had been looking after some property in Westminster for the benefit of his mother [Maria Teresa (Purcell) Cotton] and sister [Elizabeth].

Next we turn to Esther’s sister’s family Susannah Banner who married Abraham Cropp.


James Cropp – The father of Abraham

James Cropp was born in Holland and emigrated to England. Toward the end of the 1670’s, he married Abigail Bush, probably after he emigrated. (Cropp may be a short form of Croppenburgh)

James and Abigail had at least three children of whom two survived, Abraham and Elizabeth. The burial of a daughter, Abigail, at St. Margaret Pattens took place on 22nd March, 1679.
Abigail ye Daughter of James Crop was buried ye 22d of March in St. Margaret Pattens 1679.

We know very little of James’s life other than his being a successful merchant and an elder of the Dutch church at Augustin Fryars in London.

James died in December, 1723, and on the 9th of that month he was buried in the Dutch Church at St. Augustin Fryars, in accordance with his wishes expressed in his will. The armorial shown here is from the floor of the church beneath which James is buried. The inscription is only partially visible as the floor has been raised, covering the rest of the gravestone.


The Dutch Church at St. Augustin Fryars

James wrote his will in 1723. In it he refers to himself as a merchant living at Richmond. He bequeaths to his wife Abigail the sum of two thousand pounds as well as his house at Richmond.

He makes various bequests to his son Abraham and his grandchildren James (who was his godson), Richard, and Sarah. He also names his daughter Elizabeth who is the wife of Abraham Henckell, a Dutch merchant living in London, as well as their six children: James (also his godson), Abraham, Tilman, Isaac, Elizabeth, and Susannah.

James leaves bequests to the Dutch Church at St. Augustin Fryars in London, as well as the Dutch Reformed Church in ‘in parts beyond the sea’ at Hamborough (Hamburg) and at Altona .

In April, 1727, six years after James Cropp’s decease, his widow, Abigail, died and her death was noted in the parish records of St. Laurence, Pountney Lane at Thames Street. The record also indicates that her burial took place, not at St. Laurence but ‘in ye dutch Church’ on 28th April.
Mrs Abigail Cropp Widow died in this parish and was Buried in ye dutch Church April 28 1727

Her burial at the Dutch Church was also recorded among the parish records of St. Peter le Poer:
Abigail Cropp in the Dutch Church April 28th 1727

In 1724 Abigail Cropp, Widow and Relict of James Crop late of Richmond in the County of Surrey Merchant deceased, wrote her will. In it she states that she wishes to be buried in the Dutch church of St Augustin Fryars with her late dear and loving husband, James. To her son Abraham Cropp she gives one thousand five hundred pounds. She also requests that a further sum of one thousand five hundred pounds be held by her son Abraham, together with Mr. William Houghton of Beames Building in Chancery Lane and her grandson James Henckell, and invested by them on behalf of her daughter Elizabeth Henckell (the now wife of Abraham Henckell) the interest therefrom to be paid by them to Elizabeth for her sole use and benefit and that her Receipt alone shall be sufficient discharge for her trustees.
Interior of the Dutch Church Exterior of the Dutch Church
Abigail gives and devises to her daughter in law Susannah (Banner) Cropp, wife of her son Abraham, the sum of five hundred pounds. To her Henckell grandchildren James, Abraham, Tilman, Isaac and Susannah one hundred pounds a piece. She gives to her brother James Bush Esquire of Red Lion Square in Holborn ten pounds for mourning and also to James’s daughter in law the widow and relict of her nephew Levinus Bush deceased the sum of ten pounds for mourning. And also to Mrs. Judith Bennett (Abigail’s brother’s sister in law) ten pounds. To her cousin Anna Henckell, the widow and relict of Jacob Henckell her goddaughter, one hundred pounds. Also ten pounds for Mourning to Mr. William Houghton and to her cousin Olimpea Houghton his wife (see the appendix on more about the Houghton family).

She also names her nephews Isaac Henckell, John Shoemaker, and Frederick Shoemaker. She names her cousin Mary Booth wife of _______ Booth and her two daughters Susannah and Mary Booth. Also, her cousin Lucy (?) Pocock (?) of Deale in Kent as well as her cousin Mrs Martha Seabrooke widow one Guinea as well as Martha’s daughter in law Susannah Handy who is Abigail’s god daughter. Another god daughter is named ______ Crop who is the daughter of Manfred Cropp of Amsterdam. Abigail’s two children Abraham Cropp and Elizabeth (Cropp) Henckell receive all her plate, jewels, linen, household goods, furniture, etc. to be shared equally between them. She appoints her son Abraham and her son in law Abraham Henckell as Executors. She signs her will on 11th July, 1724.

A year later Abigail wrote a curious codicil which can be found in the appendix and which leads to a number of genealogical connections.
During the second World War the Dutch church was eviscerated by bombs The restored interior of the church today.
SUSANNAH BANNER (1692-1759) AND ABRAHAM CROPP (1675/76-1744)

Susannah, the daughter of John and Susannah (Cradock) Banner, was born in 1692 and baptised at St. Laurence, Pountney Lane as shown below:

Susanna Banner daughter
of John & Susanna
Banner was Baptized
february ye 14 1692
Susannah Banner married Abraham Cropp on 18th March, 1713, at Holy Trinity, The Minories. The same church in which Mary Balchen would marry John Man some thirty years later.
March 18th Mr. Abraham Crop Batch and Ms Susanna Banner Spinster, the former of ye Parish of St Bennett Sherehog, ye latter of St Edmonds ye King

Below Holy Trinity the Minories which was destroyed by bombs during World War Two and not restored.

Abraham, the son of James and Abigail (Bush) Cropp, was born in 1676 and baptized on 7th March, 1675/76 at St. Gabriel, Fenchurch Street.
Abraham Crop the sonne of James Crop and of
Abigail his wife was baptized on and the seventh
day of March 1676

In the porcelain collection of the Reeves Center at Washington and Lee University in Virginia is the dish or plate shown below. The Cropp arms are on the left side of the shield with the bird, while the Banner arms are on the right with the fleur de lis. The plate may have been painted to commemorate the Banner-Cropp marriage.



Abraham Cropp’s Career

There are a number of references to Abraham Cropp in the newspapers of the age. For instance, he was one of the commissioners appointed on 21st June, 1711, to manage and direct the ‘One and a half million lottery and the adventure of two millions’.

Abraham is listed as a lottery commissioner below in the left hand column about half way down. The lottery, known at the time as The Classis, was the brain child of Sir John Blunt, Susannah (Banner) Cropp’s step-father. Blunt regarded this lottery as … his masterpiece, and as ushering in a new era of finance not only in England, but also in Western Europe. (See Carswell , p. 44).

A view of a typical 18th century lottery-drawing can be seen below (from the British Museum) showing the interior of the Guildhall, London, where a raised stage has two large lottery wheels on either side of it from which boys from Christ’s Hospital are drawing tickets which are handed to the Commissioners seated at a long table; clerks sit at a table below and in the foreground is a crowd of men, women, and children awaiting results. Portraits of the king and queen hang against the gothic windows above. This is a latter lottery drawing circa 1727 but captures the sort of scene that Abraham Crop may well have partaken in as a lottery commissioner.
List of ‘The Commissioners appointed for managing and directing of the Lottery of One Million and an half, and the Adventure of Two Millions.’ An Eighteenth Century Lottery-Drawing
On 3rd November, 1718, Abraham placed the following advertisement in The Daily Courant:
Whereas a Bill of 100l. drawn by Mr. Thomas Brearey upon Mr. Abraham Cropp, Merchant, in London, was taken out of a Letter directed to Mr. John Allen, and Company, in Friday-street, London, that was delivered into the Post-Office at Stockport in Cheshire on the 26th of September last; and whereas the said Bill was carried to the said Mr. Cropp’s House for Payment, on Wednesday the 15th of October last: If the Person that carried the said Bill will come to the Post-Master-General, at the Post-Office in Lombard street, and give an Account how he came by it, so as to detect the Person that took it out of the Letter, he shall receive 20 Guineas Reward.

On 20th January, 1719, the ‘General Court of the Societies of Mines-Royal, Mineral and Battery Works’ appointed Abraham Cropp to the committee managing the ‘Affair of insuring Ships and Merchandize’ by.

On 24th June, 1720, he was named a director of the Royal Exchange Assurance Company.

Fifty years later George Cumberland, Jnr. began working as an office clerk at the Royal Exchange Assurance Company until, at a still quite young age, he inherited a large enough fortune which allowed him to escape the drudgery of clerical work. Not so fortunate was his cousin Henry Man who remained tethered to his secretarial desk at the South Sea House until his early death aged 51 in 1799.
The Royal Exchange Assurance Company

Abraham was also heavily involved in the South Sea Company although he was not a director. For instance, a meeting of the shareholders and officers of the company was held on 8th September, 1720, and was reported on two days later by The Weekly Journal. In the report, Cropp’s appointment to a committee to examine the company’s bylaws is noted.

Thursday there was a General Court of the South Sea Company held at Merchant Taylors Hall, where the Sub Governor acquainted them that the intended Subscription for the Proprietors was laid aside, it being judged more for the Interest of the Company so to be; and that the last Subscription that was taken in was for 1,250,000 l. And he also assur’d them, that there was a perfect Harmony among the Directors; which confutes the malicious Calumny that has been industrially spread concerning their Feuds and Disagreements among themselves. Upon this there appear’d a great Unanimity in the Assembly, which entirely acquiesced in all Things that the Court of Directors have done since the last; a Committee was appointed to inspect the bylaws, viz. Mr. Gumley, Mr. Deputy Skinner, Mr. Alexander Cleeve, Mr. Richard Turner, Mr. Abraham Cropp, and two others. The Duke of Portland, the Lord Carpenter, Mr. Craggs, and Mr. Hungerford, moved for the Thanks of the General Court to be given to the Directors, which was immediately complied with, and then the Lord Orkney moved to adjourn.
This meeting was significant in the annals of the South Sea Company as it was the last meeting of the shareholders before the bubble burst. The purpose of the meeting was to cover up the cracks that were fast appearing and to try to convince investors that all was well with the company and their money.

About this meeting (described above) John Carswell writes:

A General Court of Proprietors of the South Sea Company which now had to be held was organized with the utmost care to preserve an impression of continued confidence. Although the proceedings were not due to begin till midday, the hall was filled at nine in the morning of 8 September with a reliable crowd, so that hostile groups arriving later could not get in. Apart from endorsing the proposed dividend for the next ten years, the main business was a vote of confidence in the directors, which was proposed by Postmaster-General Craggs and seconded in a long speech by the MP John Hungerford, the promoter of the Bubble Act, who assured the meeting that in all his experience he had never known such wonderful results to be produced in so short a time. The universal wealth flowing from the original scheme, he asserted, had washed away all party differences [Whig –v- Tory], and the country was at peace with itself for the first time in a generation. Town, country, and Church had all benefited – ‘not a few of the reverend clergy having got great sums’ and he only hoped the directors had done as well for themselves as they had done for the nation. At this point an interruption by some August annuitants was howled down and a motion that they should be allowed to withdraw from their disastrous bargain defeated. The concluding speech was made by the Duke of Portland, who said he could not understand what reason anyone had to be dissatisfied. This impressed everybody, for the Duke’s holding was known to be large, and much of it had been bought at long prices.

On 11th June, 1725, Abraham, as an officer of the Company of Copper Mines in the Principality of Wales, was responsible for issuing stock in the company.

In 1731, Abraham was chosen, along with seven other gentlemen, to audit the accounts of St. Thomas’s Hospital. Abraham’s involvement with the hospital lasted a number of years.


In 1735 he was nominated Sheriff for the County of Surrey.

In 1740 Abraham Cropp was appointed by Captain John Balchen (Mary Man and Elizabeth Cumberland’s uncle) as the executor of his will. Balchen died on 26th July, 1742, at Canton while commanding the East Indiaman The Onslow (named after the Speaker of the House of Commons). Note that in the two notices above (1719 and 1720) Lord Onslow appears as Governor of the Societies of the Mines Royal Mineral, etc. and The Royal Exchange Assurance.

In 1742, Abraham was appointed one of the executors of his mother in law Susannah (Cradock) Blunt’s will.

On 3rd June, 1743, an advertisement appeared in a newspaper:
Lost out of the House of Abraham Crop, Esq; in Fenchurch-Street, (within these four or five Years past) or misplac’d, (while Workmen were employ’d in the House) a square Box, with Parchment Deeds and Writings relating to a Leasehold Estate, (of no Use but to the Owner.) Whoever brings the said Box to the Bar of Garraway’s Coffee-House in Exchange-Alley, shall have Three Guineas Reward, and no Questions ask’d.

This is the last appearance that Abraham makes in the newspapers. Abraham died in February, 1744, and his burial at the Dutch Church is recorded on the 24th of that month as being ‘In het graf van Mrs Abigail Crop’.
A view down Fenchurch Street with Ironmonger’s Hall on the right

Abraham Cropp’s Will

Abraham Cropp wrote his will on 10th February, 1743, in which he refers to himself as a merchant of Fenchurch Street residing in the parish of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch. He appoints his wife Susannah as the sole executrix of his will.

He first states that he wishes to be privately buried at the Dutch Church of St. Augustin Fryars ‘in the same grave where my late dear father and mother lye buried at the foot of the Communion Table or as near to them as may be.’ As can be seen from above, his wishes were carried out.

The first three pages of his twelve-page will are taken up with describing how his marriage settlement had been disposed of over the years.

Abraham names his wife, Susannah and his three children James, Richard, and Sarah, who together receive the bulk of his estate and who are bequeathed handsome amounts of cash as well as income derived from annuities in stocks as well as rents received from various properties. Among the latter are collections ‘of messuages, tenements, hereditaments, copyhold and freehold lands’ located at:

1. Manchester Court and Chancel Row in the parish of St. Margaret’s, Westminster.
Westminster Bridge and Manchester Court on the right

2. A certain court called Foster’s in or on or adjoining Whitecross Street in the parish of St. Giles without Cripplegate.
3. Property in St. George, Hanover Square.
4. Marshlands and hereditaments at Tide or Tyd Saint Mary in Lincolnshire.
5. Likewise property in Lathbury and Bunstye in Buckinghamshire.

His three residences include two houses at Richmond, one on the Hill and the other on the Green. The latter Abraham purchased from William Pirie, coal merchant and which he had lately entirely rebuilt ; as well as his dwelling house in Fenchurch Street.

Then there are plates, linens, bowls, rings, a coach chariot and coach horses, etc. that are distributed among his legatees. He also names:

His nephews and nieces being the children of his sister Elizabeth (Cropp) Henckell:

James Henckell and his son Abraham and Tilman Henckell the brother of James.

The Balchens: Henry Balchen (my cousin); Mrs. Martha Balchen widow (of Henry’s brother Richard) and her two sons William and James and also to Susan, Elizabeth [Cumberland], Mary [Man], and Ann the four daughters of the said Martha.

Institutions that benefit include: The Dutch Church in St. Augustin Fryras, St. Thomas’s Hospital, the charity school at Richmond, and the charity school of Lambourn Road for the use of the charity children thereto belonging to Mrs. Sarah Boulter, widow.

Mourning rings go to:

Richard Banner Esquire and Mary [Davies] his wife, Maria Theresa Purcell, Mr. Richard Cradock, Matthew Pitts, The Reverend Doctor Richard Banner of Oxford and his wife [Mary Sacheverell].

The fortunes inherited by Sarah (Cropp) Long and her brother Richard Cropp came in large part from the various properties owned by their father Abraham and grandfather James.

Susannah Cropp and John Man

In the British Library’s manuscript collection is a series of indentures running from 1729 through to 1753 mostly concerned with the transfer of a piece of land known as Baron’s Yard on Tower Hill and which, over the years, involved John Blunt and his wife Susannah (Cradock), Abraham Cropp and his wife Susannah (Banner), Abraham Cropp’s brother in law Abraham Henckell, and John Man.

Below are shown some of the signatures of the parties on indentures dated 1729. The first is a receipt for £2,100 received by Sir John Blunt from Abraham Cropp.


Received the day of the date of the Deed within written by me Sir John Blunt within named of and from the within named Abraham Crop the Sum of Two thousand one hundred pounds Consideration money within mentioned to be by him to me paid Witness my hand —————— John Blunt Witness John Gee Lewis Hansen


Assignment from Sir John Blunt Bart To Messrs . Crop and Henckell, the Six messuages or Tenements North of Tower Hill call’d Baron’s yard. dated 4 Oct. 1729

Assignment from Sir John Blunt Bart to Messrs. Crop and Henckell 4th October, 1729, of The Lease From St Catherin’s Hospitall in Trust for Dame Susan Blunt
Susannah (Cradock) Blunt’s signature

A later indenture dated 8th November, 1753, records an agreement between Susannah (Banner) Cropp and John Man whereby John agrees to lease from Susannah for a thirty year period two newly built brick houses at the north end of Tower Hill in the parish of St. Allhallows, Barking, abutting to the east of certain warehouses occupied by the East India Company and northeast of the house of Joseph Poole wine cooper. This is the same property known as Baron’s yard recorded above in the 1729 indenture.
The first half of an indenture between Susannah (Banner) Cropp and John Man
Accompanying the indenture, possibly produced by John Man himself, is a plan of the property showing one of the houses as thirty four feet wide. The property runs sixty three feet east to west and fifty feet north to south.
The location of two houses John Man leased
from his cousin Susannah (Banner) Cropp in 1753
John Man’s signature on the indenture
he made with Susannah (Banner) Cropp
Sussanah (Banner) Cropp’s signature on the identure she made
with John Man

A bemused royal lion looks out from the indenture made
between John Man and Susannah (Banner) Cropp

Sealed and delivered by the within named John Man (being first duly stampt)
in the presence G. Cumberland,[Snr.] and T. Edwards South Sea House

The Death of Susannah (Banner) Cropp

Susannah (Banner) Cropp died on 17th December, 1759, and was buried on 24th of that month in the chancel at St. Margaret Pattens.
Susannah Crop Widow of Abraham Crop was buried in the chancel 24 Dec 1759

Susannah (Banner) Cropp’s will available from the National Archives online is incomplete consisting of three pages mostly taken up with the terms of her marriage settlement. However, in one short passage she directs that she wishes to be buried in the church of St. Margaret Pattens ‘as near to my five [in fact six] children as may be’. These would be: James, Richard, Abraham, John, John, and Susannah.

The following transcription of a wall monument in St. Margaret Pattens made in 2011 by an unnamed source indicates that six of her children are indeed buried in the church. The transcription on the right would appear to be from over Susannah’s grave on the chancel floor. A visit to the church itself should confirm this.

Abraham and Susannah (Banner) Cropp had eight children of whom only three reached adulthood: James, Richard, and Sarah; five did not.

Among the children that did not survive was a son Abraham baptised 10th February, 1715/16, at St. Stephen, Walbrook.
Feby Bapt. Abraham Son of Abraham Abraham
Crop & Susanna his wife Cropp

Eight years later Abraham died in March, 1723, and his burial in St. Margaret Pattens on 2nd April, 1723, is shown on the second line below:
Abraham Crop was Buryed in the Church Apr 2 1723

A daughter, Susannah, was baptised on 5th February, 1716, at St. Gabriel’s, Fenchurch.
Crop Susannah the Daughter of Abraham Crop and Susannah his wife was Borne January 16 and Baptized Feb. 5 1716

She died in May, 1734, aged eighteen and was buried in the church of St. Margaret Pattens on 21st May, 1734.
Susannah Crop was Buryed in ye Church May 21st 1734

A second son, Richard, was born on 19th July, 1718, and was baptised on the 25th of that month at St. Gabriel’s, Fenchurch.
Richard The Son of Abraham Crop and Susannah his wife was Born the 19 and Baptized the 25 day of July 1718

This Richard died a month later and was buried on 25th August, 1718, in the church of St. Margaret Pattens.
Buryalls Continued
Richard Crop was Buryed in the Church Augst 2 1718

A third son, John, was born on 2nd February, 1719, and baptised at St. Gabriel’s, Fenchurch, on 15th February, 1719.
John — The Son of Abraham Crop and Susannah is Wife
was Born ye 2 and Baptized the 15 of February 1719

John died shortly after and was buried in St. Margaret Pattens on 8th March, 1719.
John Crop was Buryed in the Church Feb 8 1719

There is a clerical error here because if John had been buried on 8th February as indicated on the record he would have been buried before he had been baptised. We therefore assume March was the intended month of his burial.

A fourth son named after the above John was born on 18th April, 1721, and baptised on 1st May at St. Gabriel’s, Fenchurch.
John Ye Son of Abraham Crop & Susannah his Wife was
Born April 18 and Baptized May 1st 1721

This John died in March, 1722, but the parish register at St. Margaret Pattens mistakenly records his burial as 18th March, 1721, because the person making the entry forgot to change the year from 1721 to 1722 as the record below shows. The first entry is 22nd December, 1721, the next two are January, 1721, and March 1721, and then March 1722. Because of the calendar change the date should be 18th March 1721-22.
John Crop was Buryed in the Church March 18 1721.

JAMES CROPP (1715-1772)

The first of Abraham and Susannah (Banner) Cropp’s children to survive to adulthood was James Cropp who was baptized on 19th January, 1715/16, at St. Stephen, Walbrook.
Jan 19 Bapt James Son of Abraham
Cropp & Susanna his Wife James
Interior of St. Stephen, Walbrook where James Cropp was baptized

Apart from a baptismal record, a burial record, and a will we have no other record of James’s life. His death occurred in July, 1772, and on the 5th of that month he was buried in the church at St. Margaret Pattens.
James Crop Esqr was buried in the Church July 5 1772

See also the transcription of the wall monument in his mother’s section above.
St. Stephen Walbrook St. Margaret Pattens

Although James was, according to his father’s will ‘unhappily of weak judgement and understanding’, he nonetheless made a will on 23rd July, 1767, in which he styles himself ‘Esquire’. He gives his reason for writing his will the fact that he intends:

… to cross the seas to some parts of the Kingdom of France or Flanders and considering the langors of the seas do make this my last will …

He may have made this trip (unscathed) on the sloop ‘The Four Winds … trading to Bologne’ which was skippered by his ‘worthy and well esteemed friend’ Master William Merit to whom he leaves twenty pounds in a codicil made one day after making his will. As no wife or child is mentioned we can assume that he had neither.

James appears to have spent most of his adult life as a boarder in Great Ormond Street in the care of a man called Abraham Samuel de Bossens and his wife Elizabeth. He expresses much gratitude for their kindness in looking after him and he bequeaths them quite large sums of money, as well as his: … post-chariot and all of my plate China furniture in general my wearing apparel and linen of all sorts whatsoever belonging to me …

He leaves bequests to his brother Richard and Richard’s daughter Susannah, as well as to his sister Sarah, the wife of Beeston Long. He names Jane Long as his sister’s daughter, a spinster [at the time], his god daughter, and a resident of Bishopsgate Street in London. He also:

… gives and bequeaths the several sons and the other daughters of the said Beeston Long and Sarah his wife (being eight in number besides the said Jane Long) the sum of Twenty pounds apiece.

James also bequeaths money to Teresa (Purcell) Cotton of Kensington Gore, widow, as well as her son (Thomas) and daughter (Elizabeth). As noted, Teresa was the daughter of James’ aunt Esther Banner who married John Purcell and she was thus his first cousin.

James bequeaths fifty pounds apiece to his first cousins Abraham Henckell Merchant of Cannon Street and James Henckell Merchant of Fenchurch Street, being the children of his aunt Elizabeth Cropp who married Abraham Henckell.

His will was speedily executed by his brother Richard and sister Sarah; probate being granted on 17th August, 1772.
RICHARD CROPP (1722-1796)

Named after an earlier short lived son, this Richard was born on 13th August, 1722, and baptised on 19th August at St. Gabriel’s, Fenchurch.
Richard – the Son of Abraham Crop and Susannah his Wife
was Born the 13th and Baptized Aug: 19th ….. 1722

Richard was married on 21st November, 1751, at Yeovil in Surrey to Mary Dayrell(sometimes misspelt Dagnell).
MARRIED. Last Thursday Richard Crop, Esq; of Westhoe, in Cambridgeshire, was married at Yeovil in Surry, to Miss Dagnell, Daughter of Francis Dagnell, Esq; of Saville Row.

Mary was the daughter of Francis Dayrell and Elizabeth Whitcombe of Shudy Camps in Cambridgeshire. No record of her birth has yet been located.

Mary’s mother, Elizabeth (Whitcombe) Dayrell, was the daughter of Peter Whitcombe of Braxted Lodge in Essex and was one of the co-heirs of Sir Brownlow Sherrard, Bart, of Lobthorpe in Lincolnshire. (For details of the Whitcombe, Sherrard, and Brownlow families see the Appendix)

Richard and Mary (Dayrell) Cropp had two children. A son Richard was born on 29th August, 1755, and baptised on 25th September at St. Gabriel, Fenchurch.
Richard The Son of Richard Crop and Mary his Wife Was born 29 Aug. and baptized 25 Sept.1755

This Richard lived only six months, dying in January, 1756, and he was buried on the 16th of that month at St. Margaret Pattens.
Richard Crop the son of Richard Crop was buried in the church 16 Jan. 1756

A daughter Susannah was born in 1754 and details on her can be found later.

Scattered throughout The Cumberland Letters are references to a Mr. Richard Cross. Unfortunately, Clementina Black misread the name Cropp as ‘Cross’, which resulted in a considerable amount of time spent trying to discover who Richard Cross was until the error was realized. We now know that Richard Cross was in fact Richard Cropp. However the mistake is easily made given that, in the 18th century, a double ‘ss’ in word final position was written as ‘ff’. As a result the ‘pp’ of Cropp was misread as Croff and so assumed to be Cross.

We have already noted George Cumberland’s comment that: “the chief of their property [i.e. that of Sarah (Cradock) Boulter’s and her sister Susannah (Cradcok) Blunt’s] devolved to Rich Cross [Cropp], Esq., their nearest relation, a man of large fortune”. However George is mistaken as to how Richard came by his fortune; rather the bulk of Richard’s wealth was derived from his grandfather James and father Abraham Cropp. As a result, Richard owned a great deal of property including a house on Upper Brooke Street just off Grosvenor Square in London, one on Richmond Hill in Surrey and various estates in Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire, including Westoe (Westow) Lodge.
Grosvenor Square

Elizabeth (Balchen) Cumberland’s son, Richard, while a student at Cambridge wrote to his brother George in May, 1773, to tell him that:

Mr. Cross [Cropp] has made me a very handsome present of above three Score Volumes, out of His Study at Westoe, most of them very useful Books.

[And again …]

If Mr. Cross [Cropp] sends for me over I will contrive to be absent for a day or two from College but wish he had come along at any Other Time as am very busy with Lectures just now.

The newspapers of the time often mention Richard Cropp in his capacity as a governor of Christ’s Hospital. For instance, The Register for the Year 1768 reported that:

… a court at Christ’s hospital … declared that a benefaction of 200 pounds had been received from Richard Crop, Esq; and a benefaction of 200 guineas from Thomas Hanbey, Esq; whereupon the thanks of the court were ordered to be given, and staffs to be sent, to those gentlemen.
Christ’s Hospital
Saint Bartholomew’s Hospital

The Anniversary Feast of the Governors of this Charity will be held at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, in the Strand, on Thursday the 14th April, 1774, after a Sermon preached before his Grace the Duke of Grafton, President; his Grace the Duke of Northumberland, the most Honourable the Marquis of Carmathen, Thomas Lucas, Esq.; Robert Nettleton, Esq; Vice Presidents; George Brough, Esq; Treasurer; and the Governors; by the Hon. and Right Rev. Father in God SHUTE Lord Bishop of LANDAFF, at St. Michael’s Church in Cornhill.
The Church Doors will be open at Eleven, and Prayers begin at Twelve o’Clock.
Richard Crop, Esq;
Aaron Franks, Esq; ….

At the end of April, 1793, Richard and his wife Mary gave a total of £3. 3s. to St. George’s hospital as noted by The Times on 1st May, 1793:


The Small-Pox Hospital near St. Pancras Saint George’s Hospital

Richard was appointed Sheriff of Cambridgeshire in November 1758 and again in 1761 as well as receiving the freedom of the city of Cambridge.

Extract of a letter from Cambridge, Jan, 10.
“At a Grand Common-day, held this day at the Town-hall, the following gentlemen attended, and were admitted to the freedom of this corporation, viz. The Hon. John Yorke, second brother to the Earl of
Hardwicke; Sir Sampson Gideon, Bart. Member for the county; James Jefferys, Esq; Richard Cropp, Esq; ….

In October, 1778, George Cumberland, Jnr. wrote to his brother Richard from the Cropp’s residence on Richmond hill:
I write this from Richmond, and Mr. Cross [Cropp] who has just popped into the room, says, when you make your duties to your Mother tell her I [Cropp] wish to be drinking Tea with her they are all very well and not at all frightened tho’ their house has had a narrow escape, as you will see by the papers, I was there by 7 o’clock when the fire was out, and saw the party wall and staircase fall, being in the Hall at the time, but fortunately no lives were lost nor any thing damaged and the family all out of town they will get in I think this winter.

The event described by George was reported in the newspapers on 17th October, 1778:


On Thursday night, a fire broke out at a house fitting up for Capt. Herbert, in Upper Brook-street, near Grosvenor square, which consumed the same, greatly damaged the house of _______ Cropp, Esq; and did other considerable damages. The Duke of Gloucester was present at the above fire, and sent for a detachment of the guards, who attended to assist the inhabitants, and staid there till the danger was over.







The painting below by Arthur Devis shows Richard offering his wife Mary a game bird, probably shot by the gun propped up against the fence behind him. The dog seems more interested in the offering than Mary who leans slightly away while Susannah stands apart looking at the viewer uninvolved with what is happening. She holds her dress with her right hand as if she is about to walk. The house beyond is Westoe Lodge which was demolished in the middle of the nineteenth century.
The Cropp Family of Westoe Lodge by Arthur Devis dated 1759

In order to supplement his meager income as an office clerk at the Royal Exchange Assurance Company, some of George Cumberland Jnr.’s early adult life was spent collecting the ground rents on properties scattered in and about London that were owned by Richard Cropp as well as Richard’s brother in law Beeston Long.

The first letter of the new year (1777) that Clementina Black chose for The Cumberland Letters was addressed to Richard Dennison Cumberland and comes as a complaint from George, who was at the time overwhelmed with his business affairs and that of others:
A business for [Mr.] Cotton, My Ground Rents — my Account with Mr Cross [Cropp] — a seizure to make for Ground Rents etc. etc. have kept me constantly employed — in Short all my own private affairs go to pot in the Meantime — I shall certainly lose £10 this Xmas for want of time to consider how to apply, and tho’ I have wrote a letter to Mr. Long for his Assistance shall not have time to copy it.

However, in 1782 George benefited enough from the will of his aunt Sarah Cumberland’s live-in companion, Elizabeth Mole, to give up having to serve Richard Cropp. However, his quitting must have provoked an unpleasant reaction from Cropp which George described in a letter to his brother Richard. This letter did not survive, but Richard’s reaction it was preserved by George. At first Richard questions the wisdom of George’s giving up working for Richard Cropp:

— With regard to Mr. Cross’ [Cropp’s] Business, instead of throwing it wholly up, might you not have retained it in favour of my Mother, as was once proposed, during her Life — as you will most probably pass part of the Year in Town and have no other Employment — or been yourself Security and got it done by proxy ? There is something in Mr. Cross’ [Cropp’s] behavior on this occasion that hurts me extremely — he seems to think you are now utterly spoiled for a Dependent, and too much of a Gentleman to be fit for his Service — but this he might have discovered long ago — How thankful should we be that we are neither of us obliged to bow Down and do Homage to such a Man who can hesitate to serve a Relation, in a material Point for fear of offending against punctilio [careful observance of proper manners]. p.296

On 16th August, 1796, Richard’s death, aged seventy-four, was announced in the papers:
Died, on the 14th instant, at his seat at Tap-
low, Bucks, Richard Crop, Esq.
He was buried at the parish church of St. Peter, Duxford in Cambridgeshire. On the floor of the church is inscribed on a white plaque: ‘Entry to vault of Richard Crop of Westoe Lodge d.1796’
Richard Cropp’s Will

Richard Cropp of Upper Brooke Street, Grosvenor Square, in the County of Middlesex states first that he wishes to be buried in the church of St. Peter, Duxford in the County of Cambridgeshire.

He gives his wife Mary five thousand pounds plus four hundred pounds to buy mourning.

He gives his wife twelve months in which to choose from among all his furniture, drawings, paintings, prints, books, linen, china, plate, watches, rings, trinkets, etc. contained in his house in Upper Brooke Street and after she has chosen then what remains goes to his nephew Charles Long of Grosvenor Place in the parish of Saint George, Hanover Square, Esq.

He bequeaths to his nephew Samuel Long of Hill Street in the parish of Saint George, Hanover Square, three hundred pounds, to his nephew Beeston Long two hundred pounds, to Charles Long two hundred pounds, and also to George Henckell ‘late of Bow Court, St. Swithins Lane and now of Austin Fryras’, two hundred pounds.
Hanover Square

He gives the whole of his freehold estate situated at Lathbury in Buckinghamshire to John Whitmore of the Old Jury, London, Merchant, the said George Henckell, and Francis Gosling of London, banker from which estate his nephew Samuel Long of Hill Street can derive and enjoy whatever rents and profits are received from them during his natural life and after that to his children. And, if Samuel does not have children, then the estate at Lathbury goes to his brother Beeston Long, etc….

And, as for his estate known as Westoe Lodge and all its lands and its hereditaments and all its contents, household furniture, paintings, prints in frames, and other ornaments in and about or belonging to Westoe Lodge to his wife for her natural life and thereafter to Charles Long. And as to his freehold estate at Duxford in the county of Cambridgeshire he likewise gives all the lands and all the contents to his wife for her natural life and thereafter to Charles Long.

He then directs that Charles Long and Beeston Long hold in trust for his wife the sum of sixteen thousand pounds in Royal Scotch Bank funds from which interest arising they are to pay his wife twice a year the sum of three hundred pounds (totaling six hundred a year) and after the decease of his wife the sum of sixteen thousand Royal Scotch Bank funds are to be given, equally divided, to Beeston Long and Charles Long for their own use and benefit absolutely.

From the residue of his estate he establishes a series of small legacies. He gives an annual sum of fifty pounds to Elizabeth Cotton daughter of the late Maria Theresa (Purcell) Cotton of Br______ for the rest of her life. And fifty pounds annually to his valet Christopher Robeson for his care and faithful discharge of his duty in his service. An annuity of twenty five pounds a year goes to Mathew Ward his Butler for the duration of his life.

He appoints his nephews: Charles, Samuel, and Beeston Long, and his cousin George Henckell as his executors. The will is signed and dated 9th March, 1795.

Twelve years after Richard’s death, on 26th August, 1808, Mary (Dayrell) Cropp died. Her death was announced in Jackson’s Oxford Journal, on 3rd September, 1808, and occurred at Dullingham House which was in the possession of the Jeaffreson family. Mary’s sister, Sarah, having married Christopher Jeaffreson.
Berks— At. Col. Jeaffreson’s, Dullingham-house, Cam-
bridgeshire, aged 80, Mrs. Crop, relict of R. Crop,
Esq. of Westoe Lodge.
Dullingham House where Mary (Dayrell) Cropp died in 1808

Below the wall memorial to Mary (Dayrell) Cropp at St. Mary’s church, Dullingham in Cambridgeshire which was placed there by her nephew Christopher Jeaffreson, being the son of Mary’s sister Sarah.

In the last letter that Clementina Black selected of George Cumberland’s, he mentions almost all these relations in just two lines:

10th November, 1784.

Our mother [is] so so. I dined with her today. Mr. [John] Balchen– Mr. Cross [Cropp] writes is dying by inches – Jefferson [Jeaffreson] with him at Taplow.

In other words, George is telling his brother Richard that their cousin Richard Cropp while staying at his country estate at Taplow in Buckinghamshire has written to George to inform him that their first cousin once removed, John Balchen , is slowly dying. Jefferson is Christopher Jeaffreson who married Sarah Dayrell, Richard’s sister in law. (For details of the Dayrell and Jeaffreson/Jefferson families see the Appendix)


Richard and Mary (Dayrell) Cropp had a daughter, Susannah, who was born on 26th April, 1754, and baptized on 24th May, 1754, at St. Gabriel’s, Fenchurch.
Susannah The Daughter of Richard Crop and Mary his
Wife was born 26 April and Baptized 24 May …. 1754

On 22nd April, 1782, just before her twenty-eighth birthday, Susannah committed suicide and her death was briefly noted in the papers:
Yesterday died at Richmond, Miss Crop.

Susannah was buried on 30th April, 1782, at St. Margaret Pattens.
Susanah Crop was buried in the church April 30 1782

On the internal west wall of St. Margaret Pattens is a monument dedicated to Susannah:

Richmond Hill looking East in the middle of the 18th Century

Clementina Black records that in January, 1781, Elizabeth (Balchen) Cumberland was staying with her kinsman Richard Cropp and his family on Richmond Hill and that at this time the family was ‘in a disturbed state over a love affair of the daughter [Susannah]’.

Consequently, George had been putting off a visit to Richmond because he was sure to have been:

… harass [sic] with consultations and Cabals, been vexed with our Mothers oddities, an object of family suspicion, and incapable after all of serving any one of them.

According to Clementina, Susannah’s lover was about to leave England on military service, and Ms. Black speculates that Susannah:

… liked him but she had refused to marry him with no larger a fortune than the £1000 a year which her father had offered her, and which she spurned at, and said it would hardly bye her necessaries.

It would appear that, frustrated by her father’s willingness to provide her with a marriage settlement far less than what she could have expected (no doubt designed to dampen her ardor and discourage her from pursuing the object of her desires), Susannah committed defenestration, hurling herself from out of an upper floor window on to the flagstones below.

Unfortunately in The Cumberland Letters, Clementina Black does not mention Susannah’s death. That the Cumberland brothers did not correspond about this event is surprising and it may have been Ms. Black’s choice not to include references to it. (Further research should solve this puzzle).

The Cumberland brothers were no strangers to family members killing themselves. Their father had committed suicide in November, 1771; his ‘melancholy exit’ being caused by his speculating on the stock exchange and suffering heavy losses.

In 1807, twenty-five years after Susannah’s suicide, the Reverend Thomas Maurice published ‘The Lass of Richmond Hill, a Poem’, in which, under the name of ‘Mira’, he introduces a young lady who lived at Richmond and who committed suicide for her lover ‘Eugenio’.
A view of Richmond Hill looking west

In his introduction to the poem Maurice writes:

The Lass of Richmond Hill is a narrative founded on facts well known in the neighbourhood of Richmond and Sheen. The story is simply as follows. A young lady [Susannah Cropp], equally accomplished in mind and body, the daughter of a merchant of immense wealth [Richard Cropp], resident on Richmond Hill, had consented to receive the addresses of a young officer, of exemplary character, and respectable parents, but Poor. He belonged to a regiment of cavalry then quartered at Richmond; but his offers were rejected by her father on account of that Poverty. Apprehensions of a clandestine marriage being entertained, the officer was forbidden the house, and the young lady was strictly confined within its walls. Continued grief and irritation of spirits led her, in a fit of despair bordering on insanity, to precipitate herself from an upper window of her father’s house, and she was dashed to pieces on the stone steps that formed the ascent from the garden into the house. The unfortunate young man afterwards served in America, and was shot at the head of his company.

Maurice’s poem is long and turgid and is not reproduced here. When it was first published, the poem was greeted by Lord Byron with the following cutting epigram:

As Sisyphus against the infernal steep
Rolls the huge rock whose motions ne’er may sleep,
So up thy hill, ambrosial Richmond! heaves
Dull Maurice all his granite weight of leaves:
Smooth, solid monuments of mental pain!
The petrifactions of a plodding brain,
That, ere they reach the top, fall lumbering back again.

However one commentator has noted that:

The Rev. Thomas Maurice (1754-1824) … must have confined his dullness to his poems (Richmond Hill (1807), etc.), for his Memoirs (1819) are amusing, and, though otherwise blameless, he left behind him the reputation of an “indiscriminate enjoyment” of literary and other society. He was assistant keeper of MSS. at the British Museum from 1799 till his death. His family was ruined by the South Sea bubble.

This last point is interesting considering how the Cropp and related families were involved in some way or other with the South Sea Company.






In his will Richard Cropp bequeaths to his wife Mary, for the use during her life, a pair of diamond earrings and a diamond bow that were given to his daughter (Susannah) by her grandmother (Susannah (Banner) Cropp (deceased)) which:

I do desire my wife will alter into or wear in any shape or mode she pleases and after the decease of my said wife I give the choice of the said diamond earrings or the said diamond bow to my niece Mrs. George Chamberlaine and the other diamond not the choice of Mrs. George Chamberlaine I give to Maria Prescott daughter of George William Prescott late of Barrow Street in the Parish of Saint Mary le Bow for a remembrance of my dear deceased daughter.

Mrs. George Chamberlaine mentioned above was Susannah Long the youngest daughter of Richard’s sister Sarah (Cropp) Long. Susannah had married the Reverend George Chamberlaine. Since she shared the same name as Richard’s daughter this may have been the reason his daughter’s jewelry went to her.

Because Richard Cropp’s only child, Susannah, died unmarried and his brother James never married, there were no surviving children, on the male line of the Cropp family. As a result, only Sarah Cropp who married Beeston Long produced descendants for Abraham and Susannah (Banner) Cropp.


Sarah Cropp was the only daughter of Abraham and Susannah (Banner) Cropp, the sister of James and Richard, and Susannah (Cradock) Banner’s granddaughter. She was born on 16th April, 1725, and baptized on 3rd May, 1725, at St. Gabriel, Fenchurch.
Sarah The Daughter of Abraham Cropp and Susannah his Wife was Born April 16 and Baptized May 3rd 1725.

Sarah married Beeston Long on 24th January, 1744, at Holy Trinity, The Minories; the same church in which her parents were married.
1744 Jan: 24 Beeston Long. Br to Sarah Cropp. Spr L.

The Universal Spectator and Weekly Journal on 26th January, 1745, noted the marriage as follows:
Thursday [i.e. 24 Jan, 1745] Beeston Long, Esq; of Bishopsgate-Street, an eminent Merchant in the Jamaica Trade, one of the Directors of the Royal Exchange Assurance, was married at Little Trinity in the Minories, to Miss Cropp of Fenchurch-Street, only Daughter of the late Abraham Cropp, Esq; a very agreeable Lady, with a Fortune of 30,000l.

Beeston Long was born in October, 1710, the son of Charles Long and Jane Beeston and was baptized on the 14th of that month at St. Andrew’s, Holborn.
Beeston son of Charles Long esq and Jane his wife
and baptized

Beeston Long’s father’s family, originally from Wiltshire, had been connected with Jamaica since Beeston’s great, grandfather, Samuel, had taken part in the conquest of that island in 1655. This Samuel Long, became the chief justice of the island and was elected as a member for Port Royal in the first meeting of the Jamaica assembly (for more details on Samuel’s descendants see the appendix).
A sugar mill on the island of Jamaica at the time of the Long family

Having become prominent as planters in Jamaica some later members of Samuel Long’s family returned to London and became West India merchants in the City. His son Charles (1679-1723), father of Beeston, settled in Saxmundham in Suffolk and purchased Hurts Hall. The History of Parliament has this to say about Charles:

Succeeding as an infant to the largest property in Jamaica, Charles Long bought an estate in Suffolk [Hurts Hall], not far from Dunwich, for which he was returned in 1715, voting with the Government. In 1720 he and a number of other persons obtained a patent granting them all gold and silver mines in Jamaica for 31 years. Long and his associates put up £150,000, a large part of which he, as treasurer, invested in South Sea stock at the height of the boom, with disastrous results. As a result, his grandson [Edward Long] writes, ‘My Grandfather was not able to bear up under the accumulated pressure of calamities, which had almost annihilated his fortune and involved him in a labyrinth of intricate accounts and lawsuits beneath which the powers of his mind entirely sank, and he soon fell into a decline of health from which he never recovered’. Nevertheless he stood again in 1722 for Dunwich, declaring, it was said locally, ‘that he would spend £5,000 rather than lose it’. Defeated, he died on 8th May, 1723.

In 1730 Beeston Long formed a partnership with Roger Drake, who would later become his brother-in-law and their place of business was in Leadenhall Street and their firm was, Long, Drake and Co., which became well-known in its day. In 1758 the firm was joined by Henry Dawkins and became known as Long, Drake, & Dawkins and had moved to 17 Bishopsgate. Henry Dawkins’s son Richard married Catherine Jane Long Beeston’s great niece.

In 1757 The London Chronicle in its issue for April 19-21 noted that Beeston’s brother, Samuel Long, had died. His brother’s early death he took upon himself the responsibility of helming Samuels’ widow, raise her children:

Letters from Jamaica dated 20th Feb. mention the Death of the Hon. Samuel Long, Esq; a Member of the Assembly of that Island, and Brother to Beeston Long, Esq; of Bishopsgate-Street.
Beeston was also a governor of the Royal Exchange Assurance Company. A nephew, Edward Long, wrote one of the island’s first histories (title page below).
Edward Long’s ‘History of Jamaica’

On 16th February, 1765, a curious advertisement was placed by Beeston Long in the newspaper:

Whereas Charles Turner , a young Man of about twenty Years of Age, of a middle Stature, fair Complexion, light brown Hair, a remarkable Wart near one of his Ears, has absconded from his Master’s Service with a large Sum of Money; whoever will apprehend him, and give Notice to Saunders Welch, Esq; in Litchfield-Street, Soho, that he may be brought to Justice, shall receive Fifty Pounds Reward, He is supposed to be gone the Northern Road, and was seen in Company with a common Prostitute, who is described to be about twenty one Years of Age, short in her Person, very fair, rather lusty, Hair rather inclined to flaxen, has a small Scar near her Right Eye, and the Right-hand first joint of her Little Finger has been broken, and is grown bigger than natural.
I do hereby promise to pay the Reward of Fifty Pounds for apprehending Charles Turner, as mentioned in this Advertisement.
London, Feb. 16, 1765. BEESTON LONG.

In August, 1775, George Cumberland wrote to his brother Richard:

You may have seen by the Newspapers that Mr. Long was robbed coming from Carshalton on Tuesday.

The event that George was referring to was reported in The London Evening Post on 29th August as follows:
On Friday evening last, between five and six o’clock, as Beeston Long, Esq: of Bishopsgate-street, with his wife and daughters, were going in their coach to their country house at Carshalton, a young highwayman, well mounted, stopped the carriage on Brixton Causeway-hill, and after telling the coachman at his peril to take notice of what he did, he proceeded to the coach door, and presented a pistol to Mr. Long’s breast, requesting at the same time the ladies not to be alarmed, as he intended doing no mischief. He declared that necessity compelled him to this desperate undertaking, and that if they had any medals or favourite pieces of coin, they were welcome to keep them, as also their purses, watches, &c. as he wanted nothing but money. On being told that they had no particular pieces, and having received their cash, he rode off with his booty, but had not gone ten yards, when he called to the coachman to stop again, and returning said, he had forgot the servant, to whom he gave half a crown, then took his leave, wishing them a pleasant evening. In a few minutes after the same highwayman stopped the coach of Mr. Knapp, Clerk of the Crown, and robbed him and Mrs. Knapp of what cash they had about them, telling Mr. Knapp that he hoped this would be the last time of their ever meeting in town or country. Not five hundred yards from the above place, he stopped Mr. Bond, the sugar-baker, in his coach and robbed him; a little time after, he stopped two gentlemen in a whisky. He requested they would be expeditious, as he had a great deal of business, and after having received their cash, rode off toward Clapham.

One Saturday in August, 1777, George Cumberland had gone to Carshalton, to Mr. Beeston Long’s, ‘where we had a play at night, by a strolling Company, who performed tolerably.’ By Sunday other visitors had arrived, including one Mr. Dillon, who was wrote George:

… the most facetious man I was ever in company with. There was really a handsome dinner Venison, Turkey, Turbot and French Soup, with Pines, Melons, and foreign sweetmeats, after dinner Champaign, Languedoc, Claret, old Hock and Frontinjack.
p. 141

According to Clementina Black:
George was invited to stay and go fishing with the facetious Mr. Dillon, but reflecting, perhaps, that lively conversation is the last quality desirable in a fishing companion, returned to town with Mr. Long “in the chariot” instead. p.141

We perhaps get a glimpse of Sarah (Cropp) Long’s character from a scrap of paper that appears to have been torn from a letter sent by George Cumberland, Jnr. to his brother Richard written on 30th September, 1775, which Clementina Black describes as containing:

…. only fragments of a tale about some unnamed person who was left with but “6d per Diem for her support” and was now proposing to “retire from the World,” after having called upon Mrs. Long, “her Cuzzin and employed every endearing expression for assistance but in vain.”

Who this cousin was and whether she acted on her threat to end her own life is not revealed in The Cumberland Letters.

Toward the middle of the eighteenth century Beeston Long’s position among the West Indian merchant community was secure and he represented their interests among the political elite as the following passage shows:

The London West Indian community … varied greatly in the age and daring of its members. Seniority lay with the great planter-trader families. Some had lost ground; the great name of Beckford, once so potent in the City, was now borne by a son who had little interest in City matters, preferring to become the author of exotic works in literature and architecture. But the older Jamaican families still held their position; the house of Drake and Long was the oldest and most respected firm in the Jamaica trade. Beeston Long, senior, was Chairman of the Society of West India merchants from its formative years in the 1760’s; Samuel Long was its Treasurer. It was the former who carried on the tradition of giving West Indian advice to Prime Ministers, though it was as a spokesman for an organized interest rather than as an individual as it had been with the elder Beckford’s relations with Lord Chatham. The Chairmanship fell to Sir Richard Neave, Bart., another member of the Long connection, Chairman also of the London Dock Company, Director of the Bank of England for some forty years, and Governor I783-85, when he presided over the crisis at the end of the American War.

According to The Gentleman’s Magazine 1829 Sarah (Cropp) Long died on 28th July, 1780, aged 55 years and her husband Beeston Long died on 21st January, 1785, aged 74.

Below is an extract of a letter from Edward Long to his son Edward Beeston Long on the death of his uncle Beeston Long.

22nd January, 1785

My Dear E,
I wrote you very lately, and should not resume the Pen again so soon but that I must inform you, that we have just lost our good old Uncle. I have a letter by this day’s post to acquaint me with this melancholy intelligence. He was taken ill last Wednesday night [the I9th] was thought better the next day, but the disorder taking an unexpected turn, he expired at 2 o’clock yesterday morning, so sudden has this catastrophe been, that I could not but be very much shocked, especially as I had written to him no longer ago than the very day he was taken ill and did not hear of his indisposition before I received news of his Decease, He was born in the year 1711, therefore about 74. I thought when I saw him last, that he promised fair to hold out to 80 having been always so temperate and regular and habituated to exercise. The loss is great to his friends, as well as to his family; the former benefited by his Counsels which were always sincere, and the joint result of good sense, and great experience and observation, corrected by a sound Judgement. His family and connections derived a lustre from his irreproachable character, principles, worth and fortune. For my part I had long been used to reverence him with a filial affection, having from the age of twelve known no other Father; and indeed from the age I have mentioned, to that of twenty four I lived much with him, and was treated in the same parental affectionate manner, as if I had been his own son. When obliged to go to Jamaica, his kindness still followed me thither, and l owe to him his voluntary solicitation, the V. Admiralty Patent, which was an act of consideration and Friendship I can never think of but with the utmost Gratitude. To Jamaica too his loss is not trivial. He was always a warm friend to the interest of the planters, and a faithful Advocate, upon every suitable occasion. Here too, his known Experience, Judgement, and Candour, were such, that he has been often advised with, and respectfully attended to, by some of the ablest Ministers in this Kingdom. It is such men only, we can wish, for the benefit of Society, would be immortal. But he is gone pursuant to the order of nature, after a punctual execution of every duty in this life, as a Parent, Husband, Friend, Master, Trustee, Patriot and a good Christian, and has left us the valuable legacy of an example which, the nearer we can copy it in our own conduct and practice, the nearer we shall be to that degree of perfection, which it is in the power of humanity to attain; and beyond which, human frailty precludes us from aspiring in this state of



Beeston and Sarah (Cropp) Long had nine children: Samuel, Jane, Richard, Beeston, Charles, George, William, Sarah, and Susannah, most of whom were baptized at St. Martin Outwich in Threadneedle Street and all of whom survived to adulthood which for the age is quite surprising.
St. Martin Outwich

Some of these children are occasionally mentioned in The Cumberland Letters and where they are note will be made of it. For instance, in a letter from George to his brother Richard dated 1st January, 1798, he writes:

Sunday Mr. Sam and Richard Long came down with their Sister, to go to the Ball on Monday at the Talbot, where they had 100 people of fashion, luckily I was obliged to go to Town and so escaped it.


Samuel Long was the eldest son of Beeston and Sarah (Cropp) Long and was born in 1746 and baptized on 28th August, 1746, at St. Martin Outwich.
Samuel son of Beeston & Sarah Long ….. Aug. 28

On 22nd December, 1787, Samuel married Lady Jane Maitland at Walthamstow, Essex. Below the announcement in The World on 25th December, 1787:


Lady Jane Maitland was born on 4th June, 1769 at Ratho, Midlothian in Scotland and was one of nine children born to James Maitland (1718-1789), 7th Earl of Lauderdale, and his wife, Mary Turner Lombe (1734-1789).

Samuel and Jane (Maitland) Long lived at Hill Street, Berkeley Square and Carshalton in Surrey, and had three children.

1. Samuel (18th May, 1799 – 31st August, 1881);
2. Charles Maitland (16th August, 1803 – 6th October, 1875); and
3. Mary Turner (15th May, 1805 – 24th February, 1858)

Below from The History of Parliament:

Samuel Long appears not to have been active in his father’s firm of Long, Drake and Dawkins of 17 Bishopsgate, which continued to flourish throughout Samuel’s lifetime. Instead, he settled in the country and provided himself with a seat in Parliament in 1790 (Illchester). Unlike his brother Charles, who was already in the House, he voted with the Whigs. In this he was probably influenced by his brother-in-law James Maitland, 8th Earl of Lauderdale. No speech is known, but from 30th May, 1794, until the dissolution he steadily opposed the war against France, also voting for the repeal of the suspension of habeas corpus, 5th January, 1795, and for an inquiry into the national finances, 10th March, 1796. The Treasury listed him as an opponent. He was left without a seat in 1796 and did not seek re-election. On 7th June, 1797, he and his brother Beeston were among the City merchants who condemned the naval mutiny (at the Nore). He served as Sheriff of the County of Surrey in 1790.

Jane (Maitland) Long, like her eldest brother, the 8th Earl, gained notoriety for her flashy dress and outrageous public conduct and was altogether considered a rather controversial figure. One acquaintance judged her to be “as violent as her Brother.”

The portrait below of Jane (Maitland) Long by Sir Thomas Lawrence hangs in the Henry Huntington Library in California and is described on its website:

The extreme fashionability of the portrait began with the choice of painter. Aged just twenty-four, Thomas Lawrence was already renowned for his glamorous presentation and dazzling brushwork. His painting of Lady Jane Long provides early indication of the romantic naturalism that would ultimately distinguish him and set the tone for Regency style. Seated in a landscape, she leans casually against a low wall or bench over which she has tossed a red mantel lined with white satin. The position of her right hand is reminiscent of that of her father’s in his portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds.
Lady Jane (Maitland) Long wife of Samuel Long

Her hair is bound loosely with a white ribbon that allows several long, curling locks to cascade over her face and neck. The sleeves which she has pushed up above the elbow provide a further indication of informality, while also allowing Lawrence to demonstrate his skill in differentiating the opaque white material worn close to her skin from the nearly transparent muslin of her overgown. The high-waisted fitting of the sash and the loose, blouson effect of the bodice recall the drapery of Greek statuary, thereby reinforcing the neo-classical sensibility of her hairstyle. In the background, the autumnal foliage has a fiery appearance, emphasized by the vigorous manner of Lawrence’s brushwork.

Left, Samuel Long’s father in law the 7th Earl Lauderdale; and right his brother in law the 8th Earl who fought a duel with Benedict Arnold

A descendant of the 8th Earl was Arthur Balfour the Prime Minister.

Samuel died on 19th October, 1807, in Hill Street, Berkeley Square, and was buried at Carshalton in Surrey.


Below the South East view of the seat of Samuel Long, Esq. at Carshalton in Surrey engraved by James Roberts from James Edward’s A Companion from London to Brighthelmstone [Brighton] (1801).

Carshalton Park House; but since demolished
When Carshalton Park was eventually sold by the Long family on 21st August, 1821, for £3,000 , the purchaser was Captain Grindley who was the banking partner of James Matthews whose daughter Katherine married Edward Garnet Man the great great great grandson of Susannah (Cradock) Barnes.

A little over a year after her husband’s death, on 5th November, 1808, Samuel Long’s widow married William Houston (1766-1842), a British army colonel. Lady Jane gave birth to a son in 1809, and to another in 1811. On 8th April, 1831, Col. Houston was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Gibraltar. Jane accompanied him to his new post but died shortly after their arrival on 1st June, 1833.

On 1st July, 1833, Jane’s family placed the following notice in the newspapers.

The family of the Earl of Lauderdale has been placed in mourning by the demise of his Lordship’s eldest surviving sister, Lady Jane Houston, the lady of Lieutenant-General Sir William Houston, the Lieutenant-Governor of Gibraltar. Lady Jane, before her marriage with the Gallant General, was the relict of Samuel Long, Esq. brother to Lord Farnborough. Her Ladyship’s marriage to William Houston took place in 1808.


SAMUEL LONG, Jnr. (1799-1881)

The eldest son of Samuel and Jane (Maitland) Long, Samuel Long, Jnr., married four times.

1. Louisa Emily Stanley (1805-1825) the daughter of Edward Smith-Stanley, 13th Earl of Derby (1775-1851). They married on 18th April, 1825.
Saturday, 23rd April, 1825

She died on 11th December, 1825 in France. No issue.
Lately, in France, the Hon. Mrs Long, wife of Captain Long, second daughter
of Lord Stanley, and grand-daughter of the Earl of Derby.

2. Sidney Charlotte Anne Atherley. They married on 19th November, 1827.
She died on 7th July, 1852. No issue.


3. Emily Herbert. They married on 28th February, 1854. They had three children. She died 24th April, 1864.
Samuel Long’s in laws: The six children of Charles John Herbert and Louisa Middleton of Muckross Abbey, Killarney Samuel Long’s brother in law
Henry Arthur Herbert, MP

4. Eleanor Julian Stanley. They married on 11th December, 1866. No issue.

Eleanor’s mother, Lady Mary Maitland, was the daughter of Samuel Long’s maternal uncle the 8th Earl of Lauderdale and so they were first cousin’s once removed. Louisa Emily Stanley and Eleanor Julian Stanley (Samuel’s first and fourth wives) were 5th cousins.

For twenty years (1842-1862), Eleanor Julian (Stanley) Long held the office of Maid of Honour to Queen Victoria. She was a pupil of Chopin’s and a talented watercolourist who taught the Queen how to draw. She died on 21st January, 1903.

Eleanor Julian (Stanley) Long

After her death, her letters were published under the title ‘Twenty years at court…’ edited by Mrs. Stuart Erskine. The following is from the introduction:

In February 1862, Eleanor Stanley sent in her resignation after having served her Sovereign just twenty-one years. She was then engaged to her cousin, Charles Maitland, afterwards Lord Lauderdale. She has left an account of her farewell visit to the Queen. However, Miss Stanley’s engagement to Mr. Maitland appears to have been broken off very soon after her resignation; on December 11th, 1866, she married, as his fourth wife, Lieut.-Colonel Samuel Long, of Bromley Hill, Kent, who was a cousin on her mother’s side, and whose first wife had been a Stanley. Mrs. Long brought up her two stepdaughters, the children of Colonel Long’s third wife, Emily Herbert, sister of Mr. Henry Herbert, of Muckross Abbey, Killarney ; as they grew up she took them out in London, where she entertained a good deal, and where they married —the elder the Honourable Richard Dawson, third son of the first Earl of Dartrey, and the younger the Honourable Hugh Elliot, third son of the third Earl of Minto. After Colonel Long’s death in 1881 , his widow settled in Bryanston Square, where she lived next door to her former colleague. Lady Congleton, and where she died on January 21st 1903, aged eighty-one.
Edward Stanley, 13th Earl of Derby. His daughter Louisa Emily married Samuel Long, Jnr. Two of the daughters of the 13th Earl of Derby. Their sister Louisa Emily married Samuel Long, Jnr.

Although married four times, Samuel Long, Jnr. only had children by his third marriage to Emily Herbert. One of their children, Mary Euphemia Long (1856-1934), married the Hon. Hugh Frederick Hislop Elliot, a son of the Earl of Minto and they lived at Newton Stewart. She was a noted watercolourist and “a very able painter of small and pretty landscapes”.
The other children of Samuel and Jane (Maitland) Long, Charles Maitland Long, and Mary Turner Long will be included in a later ‘paper’.

Arthur Atherley (image below) was the father of Sidney Atherley, Samuel Long’s second wife to whom he was married for twenty-five years. Arthur Atherley was painted by Sir Thomas Lawrence when Arthur was at Eton. Sidney Atherley’s brother Arthur married Amelia Elizabeth Dawkins whose mother was Catherine Jane Long who married Richard son of Henry Dawkins (see chart below).



















More detail on the Long family can be found in the appendix.

Below, the various connections among the Maitland, Long, Stanley, etc. families.





Sarah was born in 1749, the daughter of Beeston and Sarah (Cropp) Long, and was baptized on 26th March, 1749, at St Martin, Outwich.
1749 Sarah Daughter of Beeston & Sarah Long baptd. March 26th

She married, on 23rd April, 1774, George William Prescott. The marriage allegation dated 21st April, 1774, is below:

George William was born in 1748 the son of George and Mary (Elton) Prescott and was baptised on 17th November at St. Stephan Coleman Street:

Mary (Elton) Prescott, George William’s mother, was his father’s second wife, his first wife having died in childbirth. Mary was the daughter of Jacob Elton, a merchant of Bristol, and the sister of Isaac Elton, one of the original partners of the Bristol Bank. (see Elton family in the Appendix)

George and Mary (Elton) Prescott had two other children: Thomas (died 20th April, 1790), and Anne who married Joseph Chamberlaine (see Susannah Long).

George William and Sarah (Long) Prescott had two sons: George Beeston and William Willoughby, and two daughters Maria Charlotte and Elizabeth (details below).

Sir George William died at Theobald’s Park leaving Sarah a widow on 22nd July, 1801. Sarah (Long) Prescott died at Seaford on 18th July, 1817.

George William Prescott’s grandfather was George Prescott, of Bridge-street, Chester, who was born at Ightfield Hall, in Shropshire in 1680 and died on 16th March, 1747, and was buried at St. Mary’s in Chester. He had three sons, Thomas, George (father of George William), and Daniel. Thomas purchased the manor of Overton in Cheshire, and was High Sheriff in 1756. Thomas died unmarried and left the Estate and Manor of Overton to his brother George Prescott, for his life, and afterwards to George William Prescott, his nephew.

George Prescott (1712-1790) – The Father of George William Prescott

The following (in part) is from The History of Parliament.

George Prescott [the father of George William who married Sarah Long] was born in 1712, the second son of George Prescott of Ightfield Hall and his wife Anne. His father was a prominent merchant in Chester and was also a partner in several lead mining enterprises in Wales.

After completing his schooling, George Prescott was sent by his father to work for a French Protestant merchant, Monsieur Raguoneau/Ragueneau, in Livorno, Italy. After ten years in the city, and with an accumulated wealth of £5,000, George Prescott went into business for himself as a trader. During his time in Italy he formed links with a number of prominent English noblemen who lived or spent time in Rome. George Prescott continued in the Italian trade after his return to England, and in 1746 was a member of the committee of London merchants who appealed to the government about the increasing number of trading ships being captured.

George Prescott served as Whig member of Parliament for the seats of Stockbridge, 1762-7, and Milborne Port, 1772-4. In Parliament, he was known for his extensive first-hand knowledge of commerce and finance. He was regularly consulted on matters related to his areas of expertise, and spoke on business connected with international trade.

Early in 1761, Lord Fitzmaurice wrote in a list of constituencies: ‘Mr. Fox has recommended Mr. Prescott, merchant, at great expense.’ The Prime Minister, The Duke of Newcastle, sent Prescott his parliamentary whip in October, 1761, urging him to attend and for his vote and Prescott wrote in reply, 27th October:

I will certainly attend at the Cockpit and the first day of the sessions, and your Grace may depend on my attendance on any future day when business of moment may be supposed to come on. If I have not appeared at your levee it has not been through want of respect, but it is my opinion that the public and your Grace may be better served by a close attention to my commercial affairs and a regular conduct of them and I wish some of my brethren had followed this rule.

On the day of the Duke of Newcastle’s (the Prime Minister) resignation, 26th May, 1762, Prescott wrote congratulating Sir Francis Dashwood (see also section on Austen family below), the new chancellor of the Exchequer:
Persons like you of resolution, ability, and honesty are more than ever necessary in the first departments of the state, to extricate us from the labyrinth of wild expense and politics we are got into. You may rely, Sir, that without any pecuniary view to myself I shall most heartily concur to second in my sphere of life all measures the new ministry may adopt towards the attainment of such a desirable end.

Left the Duke of Newcastle, Prime Minister, and
right Sir Francis Dashwood, Chancellor of the Exchequer

On 22nd February, 1766, he voted against the repeal of the Stamp Act; and when on the 24th complaints were raised in the House ‘of the rudeness and insults of the American rabble and merchants in the lobby to Members, not their friends’, Prescott informed the House ‘that an American merchant drew all his cash from his hands, the mighty sum of £170, signifying by letter, that his vote had been the reason’. On 4th March, on the third reading of the repeal of the Stamp Act, Prescott spoke against it: ‘dwelt on the late favours done to America, far beyond the value of the tax, supposed £50,000 a year—hemp, iron, timber, potashes—bounties on them all when imported from America’.

After this Rockingham naturally classed him in November 1766 as an opponent. He voted with the Opposition on the nullum tempus bill , 17th February, 1768. Holding neither place nor contract, rich and independent, he obviously voted according to his convictions. In the House he spoke on trade problems; and on 8th March, 1764, arising out of the bankruptcy of Samuel Touchet, he ‘moved the House for a bill to make Members of Parliament being merchants, liable to bankruptcy, and to take away privilege—he spoke well, called it a self-denying ordinance, but necessary—that some foreigners had given orders not to accept draughts on merchants being Members’; which bill was carried.

In 1763 Prescott bought the manor of Theobalds, Hertfordshire, from the Duke of Portland. There, Prescott built a new Georgian mansion, Theobalds Park, which became his family residence. In 1782 he also purchased the nearby manor of Cheshunt.

He does not seem to have stood at the general election of 1768, but the following year he considered contesting Hertford, but did not stand.
I PRESUME to offer myself as a Candidate to represent your Borough in Parliament, in the room of your late worthy Member, Mr. COWPER; hoping that my Conduct in a former Parliament, and in the Discharge of various Trusts within this County, will bear the strictest Scrutiny. If I should have the Honour of meeting your Approbation, I promise you that no Consideration whatsoever shall make me swerve from my Loyalty to my King, nor from all legal Support and Defence of the Civil and Religious Rights of Mankind in general. The Service of your Town, and the Trade thereof, shall always have my particular Attention, and the Sense of the Honour conferred shall cease only with the Life of, GENTLEMEN,
Your most obedient humble Servant,
Theobald Park,
Sept. 5, 1769. GEORGE PRESCOTT.

He was finally returned on petition for Milborne Port, in May 1772. In this Parliament his interventions in debate were on East Indian affairs. In 1774 he was defeated at Hertford. Edmund Burke, accusing Prescott of spreading false rumours about him, wrote with his usual sweet temper: ‘But as it is universally known that he [Prescott] is the lowest and most infamous of mankind, and one whose cowardice alone protects him from the punishment his daily falsehoods and habitual villainies so richly deserve …’
The town of Hertford

The above traces the parliamentary career of George William Prescott’s father, George. Below is a short summary of the early history of the banking firm that George Prescott established in 1766 with three other partners and is based on the archives website of The Royal Bank of Scotland.

On 1st January, 1766, Prescott joined with the Hamburg merchant Andrew Grote, William Culverden and John Hollingsworth to form the banking partnership Prescott, Grote, Culverden & Hollingsworth. Their new firm’s success was greatly aided by Prescott’s many trading contacts from Italy, as well as his political status and connections.

He continued in the partnership until his death on 21st April, 1790, aged 78.


He was buried five days later in a vault he had designed for himself, on the south side of the churchyard at Cheshunt.


George Prescott Andreas Grote

He was succeeded as senior partner in the bank by his son George William Prescott, who had originally joined the firm in 1773.
Theobald’s Park from: The Seats of the Nobility and Gentry, in Great Britain and Wales, by William Angus (1787)

Further Notes on the Prescott Family

Although the name of the bank George Prescott had founded in 1766 changed over the years, always one remained so that by the end of the nineteenth century the bank was named as just Prescott’s Bank, Ltd and in 1903 there were 23 branches operating all over the British Isles. The bank built its headquarters at 50 Cornhill which became known as The Counting House and which today is a Fuller’s pub.

However, soon after the turn of the twentieth century the firm’s existence as an independent private bank ceased as it was merged with the Union of London & Smiths Bank, Ltd. And after yet still more mergers and takeovers it eventually became a part of The Royal Bank of Scotland.

As noted above, one of George Prescott’s first banking partners was Andreas Grote and although there was no inter-marriage between the two families, the Grotes are of interest. Today that family is best remembered for its historian George Grote (1794-1871) who wrote the voluminous History of Greece.
George Grote
Selina Grote
According to The Personal Life of George Grote (1873) George’s grandfather Andreas was born in 1710 and came over to England toward the middle of the eighteenth century from Bremen, where his family was well established among the burghers. He brought a small amount of capital with him, and founded an agency business in Leadenhall Street, under the name of Kruger and Grote. Finding that he prospered as a general merchant he, after a few years, entered into joint partnership with George Prescott, and spacious premises near the Royal Exchange were purchased, in which the Banking-house of Prescott, Grote, etc. was established.

Among the documents kept at the British Museum is a letter (below) from Prescott’s bank to a customer.

Threadneedle St. 6 Sept. 1847
Dear Sir
In reply to your note of the 4th inst. we are unable to furnish you with the name of the party to whom the 20 shares were transfered but as we look upon ____ to assent to the deduction of £1. in the appreciation of Mr. Livery, the Secretary, we think it will be unnecessary for you to meet the purchaser or the subject.
We remain
Dear Sir
Y. H. Servant
Prescott Grote
(a pencil note mentions George Prescott)

George Romney’s group portrait of Sarah (Long) Prescott and her three children, has been described as consisting of Sarah’s three-quarter figure in a grey dress and large black hat, seated under a tree, looking towards the spectator, holding her youngest child [Maria Charlotte] on her lap while the other two [George Beeston and William Willoughby] are standing in front of her, holding cherries. This painting is now in the Library of the Nemours Mansion in Delaware, the home of the Du Pont family (image below). Romney also painted a half-length portrait of Sir George William Prescott wearing a brown jacket with a white stock, although only a very poor image of this portrait (above) has so far been located.
The Romney painting of Lady Presott and her children on the far wall on the right in the library of the DuPont family home Nemours Mansion.

Above Charlotte (Culverden) Grote the wife of Andreas Grote by Sir Joshua Reynolds. Mrs. Grote sat for Reynolds in 1784 and he was paid £52 10s. And right Selina (Peckwell) Grote (1775-1845) wife of George Grote painted by Sir Thomas Lawrence.

Both George Beeston Prescott and George Grote subscribed to Henry Man’s posthumously published ‘Miscellaneous Works’. And, according to notes left by Hubert Man:

When Henry Man’s widow Eleanor (Thompson) Man died in 1823 their spinster daughter Eleanor Ann Rankin Man came into about £150 per annum, derived from the leases of two houses at de Crespigny Park, Camberwell in Surrey. With this small income she went and first lived with Lady Prescott & then with people named Willbraham[orWilbraham].

If Hubert is correct, this Lady Prescott would have been the second baronet’s wife Lady Catherine (Mills) Prescott.

George William Prescott, of Earnshaw Hall, in the parish of Davenham in Cheshire, and of Theobalds aforesaid, Esq. was created a Baronet, on 9th December, 1794. Below is correspondence between the Prime Minister William Pitt and King George III concerning the baronetcy of George William Prescott. It may have helped that Prescott had married the sister of Pitt’s most loyal political ally Charles Long.
The name of Willoughby is closely linked with the Prescott family although no marriage between the two families appears to have occurred. The advertisement below on the left shows both Prescott and Willoughby chairing a meeting.


Sir Christopher Willoughby (1748-1808) of Baldon House in Oxfordshire had a daughter Juliana who was rather famously painted by George Romney (below). Juliana was named after her mother, who had died shortly after giving birth to her. It took the artist two years to execute and now hangs in the National Gallery, Washington, DC.
Juliana Willoughby aged four circa 1783 by George Romney

So far only one article that refers specifically to Sir George William Prescott has been located among the British newspapers (28th July, 1800):
Friday the Southern Troop of Hertfordshire Yeomanry Cavalry, with their Artillery, had a Field day in Theobald’s Park; they went through their maneuvers with great correctness, and were afterwards entertained by their Captain, Sir GEORGE WILLIAM PRESCOTT, when many loyal toasts were drank, and the day passed off to general satisfaction.

Because we do not intend to go much further past the children of Beeston and Sarah (Cropp) Long we will only note very briefly the subsequent Prescott generations
without further elaboration and leave that task for another ‘paper’.

George Beeston Prescott (1775-1840)

George Beeston Prescott was the eldest son of George William and Sarah (Long) Prescott and the grandson of Beeston and Sarah (Cropp) Long and was born on 11th February, 1775. He was baptised on 11th March, 1775, at St. Marylebone.
11 George Beeston Prescott of George William Prescott Esq: & Sarah born 11 Ultimo

He married on 20th August, 1799, Catherine-Creighton Mills, the daughter of Sir Thomas and Elizabeth (Moffat) Mills . Below are the marriage banns.


The marriage took place at the parish church of Cheshunt close by the Prescott’s home – Theobald’s Park.
Tuesday last, at Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, George Beeston
Prescott, Esq., eldest son of Sir George William Prescott,
Bart. of Theolbald’s-park, to Miss Mills, daughter of the
late Sir Thomas Mills.

Catherine-Creighton Mills was born in Canada where her father was Receiver-General of Quebec. She is supposed to have been a niece of the ‘late countess of Elgin’ but what exactly the connection is has not been established.

George Beeston and Catherine (Mills) Prescott had four children: George William, Louisa Anna Maria, Catherine Hale and Eliza Charlotte. (to be noted in another ‘paper’).

George Beeston Prescott succeeded his father to the baronetcy on 22nd July, 1801.

Catherine, his wife, died on 6th April, 1832 in France:

ABROAD – April 6. At Paris, Catherine- Creighton, wife of Sir George Beeston Prescott, Bart., of Theobalds Park, Herts. She was the second dau. of Sir Thomas Mills, Governor of Quebec, was married Aug. 20, 1799, and has left two sons and three daughters.

George then married Flora Theodora Virginie Moucheron the daughter of Baron Moucheron on 21st June, 1838, at All Souls in Marylebone. He is a widower aged 63, she is a spinster aged 29.


George died in Paris on 25th October, 1840.

Sir George Beeston Prescott, Bart., died on the 25th ult. at Paris. He was born in 1775, and succeeded to the baronetcy in 1801. His lady, daughter of the late Baron Moucheron, survives him. The deceased Baronet’s son, George William, by his first marriage, succeeds him in the title and estates.
Sir Thomas Mills the father of Lady Prescott

Below left a portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds of Sir Thomas Mills, Receiver General of Quebec, and right his wife Elizabeth Moffat painted by William Grimaldi. Her mother was Catherine Creighton (Crichton) after whom she named her daughter.
Sir Thomas Mills was, according to Horace Walpole, “… a man of notoriety rather than talent … too inconsiderable for any office … and … a noisy fellow who lived at vast expense without any visible means; but was supposed to be the natural son of Lord Mansfield”

The following is based on the Canadian Dictionary of National Biography and is a summary of the life of George’s father in law Sir Thomas Mills.

Thomas Mills entered the army as an ensign in the 15th Foot on 26th April, 1759, and was promoted lieutenant in the 47th Foot on 11th May, 1760. The date of his arrival in North America has not been determined. Although his origins are unknown, he was evidently well connected and the patronage of the influential Lord Mansfield. (it was alleged that Mills was Mansfield’s illegitimate son.) After several years in England he returned to Quebec in June 1765 with appointments as receiver general, member of the Council, and brigade major.
Father and Son? Left William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield (1705-1793) and right Sir Thomas Mills who greatly enjoyed the patronage of the Earl

When Mills took up his duties, as receiver general on 10th July, 1765, he revealed a vanity bordering on arrogance and an almost complete lack of integrity. The administrator of the colony, Paulus Æmilius Irving, found him quite unfit for office. According to Irving he had little understanding of the question he had been appointed to solve and claimed totally unrealistic prerogatives. The receiver general was responsible to the Treasury Board for the collection and expenditure of public funds. In Mills’s view he was therefore not obliged to submit accounts to the Council; nor was he required to have the governor’s warrant in order to make payment. Indeed the governor and Council should merely decide what needed to be done; the receiver general would allot the contracts. These doctrines were quite impractical given the governor’s personal responsibility for administering the colony in an economical manner. In the face of determined opposition by Irving, Mills quickly backed down.

Mills returned to London in August 1767 and his influence in London was sufficient to obtain a knighthood in 1772 and a new commission as receiver general in 1777. Mills again cut a prominent social figure with his choice wines, fine fowling pieces, and the brown mare, Coquet, which he raced on the Plains of Abraham. When he was unable to meet certain payments in 1789 the Legislative Council investigated his accounts and found he had used more than £3,000 of public money to pay his debts. Despite his attempts to mystify Governor Dorchester [Carleton] with figures suggesting the crown owed him money, he was suspended by the governor on 25th August. He returned to England later that year where he displayed a remarkable capacity for self-deception claiming credit for things he had little to do with such as the passage of the Quebec Act.

He was a friend of the actor David Garrick and was present at his funeral, and was also invited to the house of the Thrales. Samuel Johnson described Mills as “ in his prosperity civil and officious”. He died insolvent in London in 1793; the same year a government audit revealed that he and his deputies owed the crown more than £18,500.

Additional material on Sir Thomas Mills has been supplied by Joan Barrett in an email dated 7th January, 2013:

“I have been able to somewhat clarify the relationship between the Mills girls Eliza Finch and Catherine Crichton and the Countess Dowager of Elgin. Their father’s will (Sir Thomas Mills) written 26th June, 1780 (probated 1st July) and makes a definite reference to the Countess and her children:

I give and bequeath unto my sister Martha Bruce, Countess of Elgin £50;
To the Right Honourable, the Earl of Elgin, her son £50;
To my godson, the Honourable Charles Andrew Bruce, her second son £100;
To Lady Charles [sic] Charlotte Bruce her daughter £50;

One notes that the Hon. Charles Andrew Bruce, bears the name “Andrew” after his godfather. It may well be the case that Andrew Moffatt’s father had married the widow of Thomas Whyte, the father of the Countess of Elgin, after Andrew’s father’s first wife (Andrew’s mother) had died. Furthermore, in Lady Mill’s obituary, as well as in her sister’s, there is mention that she is the ‘niece’ of the Countess. Her father Andrew (b.1729) names his siblings in the will as well – John, James and Aaron, and the last sibling mentioned is Martha (b. 1739).

Then, in the generation of Andrew’s own children, his second daughter is named Martha (b. 1759), and it would seem likely she was named for her Aunt Martha. Andrew’s children are: James (1751), John (1754), Elizabeth (1756) and Martha (1759) all baptized at St. Mary Woolnoth.

William Willoughby Prescott (1777-1836)

George’s brother William Willoughby Prescott was born on 16th December, 1776, and was baptised on 29th January, 1777,
at St. Marylebone.
William Willoughby Prescott son of George Willm
Prescott Esqr. & Sarah b: 16 dec 1776

He married on 11th June, 1799, Harriet, daughter of Thomas Blackmore of Briggins in Hertfordshire.

The Lady’s Magazine or Entertaining Companion for the Fair Sex …, Volume 30, 1799, noted the marriage:

William Willoughby Prescott, esq. youngest son of Sir George William Prescott, bart. of Theobald’s Park, to miss Blackmore, sister of Thomas Blackmore, esq. of Briggins, Herts.

They had ten children (to be noted another time).

William Willoughby’s father in law was Thomas Blackmore who was Sheriff of Hertfordshire in 1778. The miniature below of Thomas has written on the reverse ‘Thos Blackmore Esq. father of Mrs William Willoughby Prescott’
Thomas Blackmore

The silver dish below by John Edwards is engraved with the arms of Prescott impaling Blackmore and was made for William and Harriet’s marriage. The dish was sold for £1,440 at Bonhams on 21st June, 2011. Below right is Briggins Hall, home of the Blackmore family.

In 1803 Thomas Blackmore Jnr., the brother of Harriett (Blackmore) Prescott, was declared a lunatic and taken into the care of her brother in law The Reverend Charles Phelips.

William Willoughby Prescott’s brother in law The Reverend Charles Phelips

In 1836 William Willoughby Prescott died and his death was noted in The Annual Register:

William and Harriet’s eldest son George William Prescott cut his throat with a razor at Clarence-villa, Roehampton, Surrey, on 29th April, 1865. The inquest returned a verdict of mental derangement. (see The Times 3rd May, 1865.)
Maria Charlotte Prescott (1780-1855)
Maria was the youngest child and only daughter of George William and Sarah (Long) Prescott. She was baptized on 11th July, 1780 at St. Marylebone (last line):

11 Maria-Charlotte Prescott of Geo. Wm & Sarah 6th Ult:
She was married on 20th January, 1810 to William-Henry Spicer. William-Henry was born on 23rd March, 1777, at Topsham in Devon. He was a captain in the 2nd regiment of the Life Guards.
William-Henry published a book of poems The Last Evening of Catanie as noted by The Literary Gazette (1834):
The last Evening of Catanie; with other Poems. By W. H. Spicer. 12mo. pp. 175. London, 1834. Longman and Co. – The production of youth, full of good feeling, and not deficient in tenderness and taste. There is nothing beyond to call for extract; though the cultivation of his talent may promise higher fruits to Mr. Spicer’s ambition.
No further literary fruit appears to have been produced by William-Henry who died on 26th July, 1841, at his home at Leatherhead in Surrey.

Below The Mansion in Leatherhead in Surrey where William-Henry Spicer died.

The Mansion, Leatherhead, Surrey, home of the Spicer family
Maria Charlotte died in 1855 in the parish of St. George, Hanover Square. William-Henry and Maria-Charlotte (Prescott) Spicer had a number of children including:
Elizabeth Maria Jane Spicer was baptized on 20th January, 1811, at St. Marylebone.

(This Elizabeth married Samuel Jay and some details on their daughter Edith Katherine Spicer-Jay are given below)
A son, William Henry Spicer, was born on 18th February, 1812, and baptised on 11th June of that year at St. Marylebone:

A second daughter, Charlotte Amelia Harriet Spicer, was born on 17th November, 1820, at Leatherhead in Surrey.
Charlotte married Thomas Mayer Carvick and there are living descendants of this marriage. Below, the 1851 census where Charlotte is shown as Emily H. aged 30.

Below the 1881 census showing Charlotte aged 60 years of age and her relation to the head of household as mother:

Edith Katherine Spicer-Jay

Edith Katharine Spicer-Jay was a writer whose pen name was Prescott, E. Livingston. She was the daughter of Samuel Jay, barrister, M.A. (Oriel, Oxon) and of Elizabeth Maria Jane. She was educated privately, under tutors. She was the Honourable Lady Superintendent of the London Soldiers’ Home and Guards’ Home, till incapacitated by ill health. She published at least eighteen books, several of them posthumously, between 1896 and 1904 including: The Apotheosis of Mr. Tyrawley, 1895; A Mask and a Martyr, 1896; Scarlet and Steel, 1897; The Rip’s Redemption, 1897; Dearer than Honour, 1898; Red Coat Romances, 1898; The Measure of a Man, 1898 ; A Small Small Child, 1898. She resided at Somborne, The Riviera, Sandgate.

The current DNB says: Her plots often turn on the reformation of characters whose flaws include drunkenness and abuse of authority. She was especially exercised by the practice of flogging military prisoners. Reviewers’ assessments of her fiction range from ‘very cleverly written’ (New York Times, 17th May, 1896) to ‘these books do violence to every principle of good novel-writing’ (The Dial, 1893).

The Literary Yearbook for 1902 noted that she was a:

… popular writer of soldier’s tales. Her novels display intimate knowledge of soldier’s life and some aspects of the soldier’s mind; and the keen interest which Miss Spicer-Jay took in all things concerning the private was frequently shown by her letters to the newspapers on subjects affecting his welfare. On the occasion of her death soldiers bore her coffin to the grave.
A very unusual book. So intensely pathetic and beautiful is the story that few readers will be able to read it unmoved. It is a tale of prison life written evidently by an author who has studied the whole question of prison reform closely, and who feels that the brutalising influence of our present prison system is often responsible for turning a chance law – breaker into a hardened and habitual criminal. Appeals to all social workers, but apart from this side of the case, the simple pathos and beauty of the story will charm the general reader, and especially the reader who loves children. Livingston Prescott is the daughter of a Chancery barrister of some reputation. Her mother was the daughter of Colonel Spicer, 2nd Life Guards and Queen’s Bays, who subsequently held an appointment in Chelsea Hospital. She had five great-uncles, officers in different regiments (mostly cavalry) on her mother’s side of the family, and another uncle, on her father’s side, Major Livingston, lost his arm and was decorated for distinguished service. Though she has always written for her own amusement since she was seven years old, she never entered the literary field in earnest till 1895, when, after a tolerably varied experience of men and things, sick and well, bad and good she found herself on her couch for the remainder of her days. Then, quite as a stranger, she asked the advice of a distinguished novelist about a small piece of work which she submitted to him, and on his encouragement sent out her first book, which was accepted by the first publisher to whom it was offered. She keeps in touch with soldiers of all ranks, and occasionally contributes to regimental magazines. Perhaps her own, now lifelong imprisonment first impelled her to become the champion of prisoners. She is president of three football and two cricket teams, one of which at present heads the local league.

But we have gone too far, the later Prescotts will be explored further in another ‘paper’. We will turn now to Sarah (Long) Prescott’s brother Richard.
RICHARD LONG (1754-1779)

Richard was born in 1754 and baptised on 15th February, 1754, at St. Martin, Outwich.
1754 Richard Son of Beeston & Sarah Long baptized Feby 15th

He was a student at Oxford and was tutored before going there by his cousin Richard Dennison Cumberland and although described as ‘rather backward’ his company was pleasant enough.

While the Longs had money, the Cumberland brothers had much less and so they depended to some extent on the Long’s generosity. Early in 1778 a scheme was devised whereby Richard Dennison Cumberland would take on as pupils at his home at Driffield in Gloucestershire, Richard and William Long while George tutored their brother George. In addition to the two Long boys Richard would also tutor one of the sons of Beeston Long’s business partner Henry Dawkins. Henry’s son Richard Dawkins married Beeston’s niece Catherine Jane Long. It could have been this Richard whom Richard Cumberland tutored. And, thrown into the mix was the Cumberlands’ cousin John Balchen, whose health was supposed to be delicate, being a consumptive, although during his stay at Driffield he displayed remarkable robustness .

George in London to Richard at Driffield. 14th January, 1778.

You must come to Town as soon as you possibly can Mr. [Beeston] Long was with me this Morning and did me the pleasure to say that he believed he had hit on a plan which would be likely to turn out beneficial to you, with regard to Pupils, and had an intention of sending one of his own Sons, (I suppose William) to be under your care there are two others he hinted but said he would talk with you when you came to Town as that he thought would be the best way. Mr. Cross [Cropp] has been with me since I wrote this, and we have had some conversation about it. He [Cropp] says he believes it is Richard if so the plan I suspect will be to place him [Richard Long] as a boarder to amuse his mind with diversion and leisure. He is good tempered, and has an agreeable outward carriage but I fear his mind does not afford the most promising prospect. I told Mr. Long I believed you could very well contrive to accommodate 3 at present &c., &c. of which we will talk when we meet. p. 169

Clementina Black states that: between the 15th and the 26th of January, 1778, Richard Dennison Cumberland went to London, met with Beeston Long and arranged to receive two boys, one of them a son (William), the other a ward perhaps a nephew of his [actually the other pupil was a son of Henry Dawkins’, Beeston Long’s business partner], in the course of the next fortnight. An elder Long (Richard) was to come somewhat later and to be prepared for Oxford. p. 173.

Richard at Driffield to George in London. 9th February, 1778.

I write by the first post to acquaint you with our safe arrival here yesterday to Dinner. In our way down we slept at Oxford, where I heard nothing but what was satisfactory respecting Mr. [Richard] Long’s plans of being admitted there. We supped that night at Maudlin with Mr. Matthews who breakfasted with us the next morning and was very intelligent about degrees, method of living, and other things of that nature, and in the end convinced me that Oxford was to be preferred to Cambridge especially for one in Mr. Long’s situation, and that a small College would be more convenient than a larger society. p. 176

Richard at Driffield to George in London. 28th February, 1778.

Finding it impracticable to get the new room built by that time (Lady Day [25th March]) I have sealed one of the garrets and with a little paper shall soon make it the pleasantest room in the house. I design it for myself. The boys sleep in the Green Room, and Mr. [Richard] Long will have the Blue. This must be the plan till the new room is finished, for which all the timber is cut out, and I have open’d a Slate Quarry at Harnhill which promises well. . . . My young friends are well, and turn out better than I at first expected, especially (William) Long the other [possibly the son of Mr. Dawkins] is rather too nice and delicate he seems to have a good disposition at the bottom but has been ruined, by a false mode of education. p. 178

Richard at Driffield to George in London. March, 1778

John Balchen is arrived. I met him this Morning at Barnsley and put him on the old horse, which conveyed him safe home he is very well after his Journey, and already intimate with D[awkins]. and L[ong]. who with my Mother are playing at Whist, while I write so you will not wonder at the stile of this. p. 179

Richard at Driffield to George in London. April, 1778.

… and betwixt ourselves … I prefer him [Richard Long] as a pupil to either of the other two [his brother William and the son of Henry Dawkins] not that I have any reason to complain of them, for I sincerely think had I picked Westminster and Eaton I could not have met with two boys of their Age, less exceptionable on the whole … my Pupils please me more every Day John is here still, and as stout [i.e. strong] as ever
he frequently walks 8 or 10 Miles a Day, and makes a good Playfellow to the others He is a very honest good natured fellow and does not want sense, but there is a certain Cockneyishness about him, something of the Jerry Sneak in his manner and expression, that makes him appear to the greatest disadvantage, and I fear it is too late to remedy it now. [Jerry Sneak = a hen pecked husband] p. 185
Driffield Vicarage where Richard Long was tutored

Richard at Driffield to George in London. 20th April, 1778.

Our family here is going on very well, and my Pupils please me more every Day. Balchen grows Stout and Hearty, eats and sleeps like an Emperor and is indeed much hardier than any of us never taking Cold tho’ always abroad. p. 185

Unfortunately John’s robustness did not last as some three years later, aged twenty two, he died of tuberculosis; as did his siblings, Mary, Sarah, and Eliza Balchen. Another letter from Richard mentions a visit by the Dawkins family:

Richard at Driffield to George in London. 7th August, 1778.

My young Friends were sent for to Cirencester last night by Mr. [Henry] Dawkins, I was invited but it was too late to return that evening so waited on him this morning. The Party consisted of Himself [Henry Dawkins] Lady Julia [Henry’s wife and the daughter of the Earl of Portmore], his eldest son [James] and daughter [Sarah] and a Mr. Gale. We passed the morning in the Woods, dined at the Ram and afterwards drank Tea at Driffield where they expressed themselves extremely satisfied with our accommodation and said the two Boys [Dawkins and Long] were prodigiously improved and behaved with much more affability than I expected.
In the center is Henry Dawkins and on either side of him are two portraits of Lady Julia Dawkins his wife. Julia was the daughter of the Earl of Portmore. Their son, together with Richard and William Long, was tutored by Richard Dennison Cumberland

Tomorrow they take the Boys and their Son with them to Oxford for a few Days and I am to meet them at Fairford. Mr. [Beeston] Long is I suppose returned to town by this or will in a Day or two Let me know that I may write to him. pp. 200-201

The next letter captures the gap in wealth between the Cumberland and Long families.

Richard at Driffield to George in London. 12th September, 1778.

Richard Long has lately received 20 pounds to purchase a Horse, as soon as he can meet with a good one, and readily accommodated me with the cash till then, otherwise I should, as you may imagine have been distressed indeed…. The Thing I now aim at is, to be able to pay Mr. C. [Cropp] with £50 due at Xmas from Mr. L. [Long] and £50 from the Farm… p. 208

Richard at Driffield to George in London. 18th November, 1778.

Now [Richard] Long is returned we pass our time very agreeably, and indeed I find the larger our number, the easier to keep up proper discipline. We dedicate the whole morning to business and an hour or two in the evening, the afternoons are too short and dark to do anything to the purpose … p. 217

George in London to Richard at Driffield. 9th December, 1778.

Yesterday afternoon I had a message from Mr. [Beeston] Long that he should be glad to see me in Bishopsgate Street, when I came he took me into the parlour, and there made following proposal in your favor. He said he had conversed with his son Richard since his return who expressed himself very well satisfied with his treatment as did William [his brother], but Richard said he thought Mr. Cumberland had too much care on his hands to manage for them all when at home, and lamented the difficulty you had in the country of getting a servant fit for your purpose, as they were all so ignorant there was but little to be made of them he said himself and Mr. Dawkins had considered this and as it was their wish to make everything easy on your part, they should be very ready to add a servant to your family at their own expense and Mrs. Long [Sarah Cropp] had been thinking if it was agreeable she might as well send one down from London, as she imagined they were more likely to get a good one here than you can be in the country .

To all this on your part I returned them thanks, and told them I would venture to say the offer would meet with your approbation, as from what I could judge you might very well employ her and that I would write you word of their consideration they said their principal end was to lessen our mother’s trouble, and that when you came to town it might be settled, in the mean time they wished you to be informed of it. Mr. Long said it would not be worthwhile to send Richard down till Oxford term in January that then William might accompany him part of the way and you take them with you and then
Bishopsgate Street

took my leave but not before he had told me how much he approved of my instructions to Mr. George [Long] which by the by is a lucky hit for me, as it will put I think a few pieces in my pocket about Xmas, when I shall really want them for what with one piece of expense or other I shall just make the ends meet, unless my [lottery] tickets are prizes and I get an addition to my salary don’t say I shall never get anything by my drawing. pp. 212-219

George Cumberland drawing in a wood by George Townley

Richard at Driffield to George in London. 23rd May, 1779.

Mr. [Richard] Long is returned, in pretty good Spirits, and flatter myself we shall pass an agreeable Summer the Weather is delightful and I want nothing to make me happy but your Company or at least Correspondence If you believe this you will write instantly to your sincerely affectionate Brother. p. 232.

Six months later, in November 1779, Richard died at Oxford although Clementina includes no letters between the Cumberland brothers that refer to this event which was announced in the Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser on Friday, 19th November.
Last Thursday died, at Oxford, Mr. Richard Long, second son to Beeston Long, Esq. of Bishopsgate-street.


JANE LONG (1756 – 1834)

Jane was born in 1756 and baptised on 13th March, 1756, at St. Martin Outwich.
Jane Daughter of Beeston & Sarah Long baptized. March 15th.

Jane married her first cousin Charles Long who was the son of Beeston’s brother Charles Long of Hurts Hall in Suffolk. The Gentleman’s Magazine recorded Charles Long thus:

Charles [Long], the eldest [son of Charles Long of Hurts Hall], was born in 1747, and married on the 25th of December, 1786, his first cousin, Jane, the daughter of Beeston Long, of London, Esq. and by her had issue two sons, Charles and Dudley, who both died in their infancy. Mr. Long deceased on the 25th December, 1812, and was interred in the chancel of the church of Saxmundham, where, on a mural tablet against the north side, is an inscription to his memory. This beautiful monument is from the chisel of Nollekins, and consists of a sarcophagus, over which is the figure of an angel seated on a rock, his right hand covering his eye, and his left hand holding an inverted torch; at the bottom of the sarcophagus are two escallop shells. The inscription is as follows:


In December, 1812, The Gentleman’s Magazine took note of Charles’s passing:

In his 65th year, Charles Long, esq. of
Hurts-hall, Suffolk.

Below a chart showing the Long-North family relations.













Charles Long’s mother was Mary North who had married Charles the brother of Beeston Long. Mary’s mother was Catherine Yale whose father had a college named after him in New England (see Appendix for details of the North/Long families).

The Gentleman’s Magazine took note of Charles’s passing:

A description of Hurts Hall can be found in the Views of the Seats of the Noblemen and Gentlemen in Suffolk by Henry Davy.

Another description of Hurts Hall, which was demolished at the end of the nineteenth century, can be found in History, Gazetteer and Directory of Suffolk (1874) by William White.

Hurts Hall, the seat of William Long, Esq., is a large and handsome white brick mansion, situated a little south of the town, in a beautiful and well-wooded park of nearly 250 acres. The manor was rebuilt in the early part of the present century, by the late Charles Long, Esq., who judiciously laid out and planted the surrounding grounds, and expanded the rivulet into a fine sheet of water, which at each extremity is skillfully concealed by wood. The front of the mansion consists of three semi-circular projections; the entrance hall is adorned with a handsome geometrical staircase and the whole interior is fitted up with taste and elegance.
Mary North who married Beeston Long’s brother Charles and was Jane’s mother in law Jane Long who married Charles the son of Charles and Mary (North) Long

Twenty two years after her husband’s death, Jane’s death notice appeared in Jackson’s Oxford Journal on 30th August, 1834:
Mrs. Long, of Hurts Hall, near Saxmundham, sister to the Lord
Farnborough and the Rev. Wm. Long, Canon of Windsor.



Beeston Long, Jnr. the son of Beeston and Sarah (Cropp) Long was born in 1757 and baptized on 5th March at St. Martin, Outwich.
Beeston son of Beeston & Sarah Long baptized Mar 5
Beeston Long from an engraving by Henry Meyer

He married Frances Louisa Neave on 10th July, 1786; so far, no record of this marriage has been located. The London Morning Chronicle announced the marriage the following day.


Frances was born on 25th July, 1767, and baptized on 21st August at St. Bennet Fink. She was the eldest daughter of Richard Neave and Frances Bristow.

Frances Louisa Neave
Daughter of Rich Neave
& Frances Neave, his wife
was born July the 25 : 1767
and baptized August the
21 following by Mr
Beeston and Frances (Neave) Long had the following nine children, the first five of whom were baptised at St. Martin Outwich:
Beeston Richard, Son of Beeston & Frances Louisa Long (said to be born 23rd of July 1787) was baptized August 18th, 1787.

Frances Louisa Daughter of Beeston & Frances Louisa Long Baptized July 16th 1788.

James Henry son of Beeston and Frances Louisa Long born January, 27 1791. Baptised February, 26, 1791.

Charles Thomas son of Beeston and Frances Louisa Long, born June 19, and baptised July 13th [1792].
Harriet Daughter of Beeston and Frances Louisa Long born Dec 9, 1793, and baptised Jan 25 1794.

After 1795 four more children were born at Sutton in Surrey and they were: Caroline-Jane born in September, 1795, and baptised on 3rd October; Amelia Ann born in August, 1798, and baptised on 2nd September; Maria born on 24th March, 1800, and baptised on 13th April; and William born on 8th October, 1802, and baptised on 30th October. Despite having had nine children only four survived to adulthood: Caroline-Jane (d. 1824), Amelia-Ann, Maria, and William of whom only two, Caroline and William, had children.

Beeston Richard Long died, aged 16 in 1803, as The Gentleman’s Monthly Miscellany notice indicates:


Beeston was a senior partner of the firm of West India merchants, Long, Drake & Co. Like his father and his father-in-law, he was a director of the Bank of England and then, in 1805, elected a Deputy-Governor and in 1808 Governor.
Frances Louisa (Neave) Long
by George Romney Sir Richard and Lady (Bristow) Neave
by Thomas Gainsborough

Beeston and Frances (Neave) Long lived at Coombe House, near Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey. It was later the home of the Prime Minister Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool, who died there in 1828. The house, since demolished, was situated in what is now called the Coombe Hill private estate.

The following appeared in The European Magazine in 1817:

BEESTON LONG, Esq. is the son of Beeston Long, Esq. of Bishopsgate-street, who was Chairman of the West India merchants, and Governor of the Royal Exchange Assurance Company. He was born at his father’s City residence, in the year 1757, and was educated at the Reverend Mr. Blacking’s Academy, at Greenwich. In July 1787, he was married at Bishopsgate-church to Frances Louisa, daughter of Sir Richard Neave. He is a Director of the Bank of England, of which he was elected Deputy-Governor in the year 1805, and Governor in the year 1808. In the year 1817, he was chosen Chairman of the London Dock Company, and fills the same situation in the Committee of West India Merchants. He is a member of most of the commercial, benevolent, and philanthropic societies in London.
He has one sister and two brothers, the Right Hon. Charles Long, Treasurer of the Army Pay-office, Whitehall; and the Rev. William Long, of Studfield, near Saxmundham, in Suffolk.
His present residence is Coombes, in Surrey, and in Leadenhall street, where the firm of Long and Company has been long known as the oldest and most respectable house in the Jamaica trade, established in London.

On 6th November, 1795, the following advertisement was placed in the newspapers by a group of City of London merchants that included Beeston Long. It was prompted by an attack that occurred on 29th October, 1795, as King George III’s carriage made its way to the opening of Parliament. Stones were thrown at the carriage shattering its glass windows. On his way back to the palace the King’s carriage was again assaulted by a mob and the door to the coach thrown open by a rioter. The crowd, described as “… all of the worst and lowest sort,” shouted anti-war slogans and insults at the King, including “No Pitt, No War, Bread, Bread, Peace, Peace! Down with George!” Five individuals were arrested but later released and there were no trials.





In 1805 the combined French and Spanish fleet headed toward the British West Indies where they positioned themselves to begin to menace the islands. However Admiral Horatio Nelson pursued the enemy fleet across the Atlantic and when he arrived he showed enough determination to protect the islands that the French left and sailed once more back to Europe. Nelson noted:

I must not move, after having saved these Colonies and 200 and upwards of sugar-laden ships, until I feel sure they are gone. … The Combined [French and Spanish] Squadron passed to the leeward of Antigua on Saturday the 8th, standing to the Northward. My heart is almost broke, and, with my very serious complaints, I cannot expect long to go on. I am, etc., Nelson.
Immediately after Nelson’s arrival back in England, a meeting of the West India merchants was convened at the London Tavern; and the gratitude of that community for the protection afforded to their islands by Nelson’s actions was expressed in a resolution adopted on 23rd August, 1805, Sir Richard Neave, Bart., in the chair as follows:

“That the prompt determination of Lord Nelson to quit the Mediterranean in search of the French fleet; his sagacity in judging of and ascertaining their course; his bold and unwearied pursuit of the combined French and Spanish Squadrons to the West Indies and back again to Europe, have been very instrumental to the safety of the West India Islands in general, and well deserve the grateful acknowledgments of every individual connected with those colonies.”

A deputation, consisting of the Chairman, Mr. Beeston Long, with the Treasurer Mr. Samuel Long, and Mr. Samuel Turner, was appointed to wait upon Lord Nelson, to express their sentiments, and to offer him in person their unfeigned thanks.

The deputation, accordingly, went to Lord Nelson at Gordon’s Hotel in Albemarle Street, where his lordship had taken up his temporary town-residence, and handed him a copy of the above resolutions. Nelson later returned the following answer:
London, 28th August, 1805.

I beg leave to express to you, and the Committee of West India Merchants, the great satisfaction which I feel in their approbation of my conduct. It was, I conceived, perfectly clear that the Combined Squadrons were gone to the West Indies, and therefore it became my duty to follow them. But I assure you from the state of defence in which our large Islands are placed, with the number of Regular Troops, and numerous, well-disciplined, and zealous Militia, I was confident, not any Troops which their Combined Squadron could carry, would make any impression upon any of our large Islands, before a very superior force would arrive for their relief. I have the honour to remain, Sir, and Gentlemen, With the highest respect, Your most obliged and obedient Servant, Nelson.

In 1813 the West India Merchants commissioned Sir Richard Westmacott to produce a bronze statue of the admiral which stands in the center of Bridgetown, Barbados

Beeston died on 7th August, 1820, and his passing was noted by The Gentleman’s Magazine:
Coombe House from a print dated 1880


The Neave Family

Beeston’s father in law, Richard Neave, married Frances Bristow on 16th February, 1761. Frances Bristow was the daughter of John Bristow. She was born about 1746 and died on 18th January, 1830. For more on her family see the appendix.

Like the Longs, Richard Neave made his fortune trading in the West Indies and America. At various times he was chairman of the Ramsgate Harbour Trust, the Society of West Indian Merchants and the London Dock Company as well as a director of the Hudson’s Bay Company. He was a director of the Bank of England for 48 years, made deputy governor in 1781, and Governor from 1783 to 1785 (a post later held by his grandson, Sheffield Neave, and his son-in-law Beeston Long). In 1806, both Richard Neave and Beeston Long served as vice-presidents of the British Institution.

Neave’s social ambitions were realised when he was appointed High Sheriff of Essex in 1794 and in the following year gained the title of 1st Baron Neave of Dagnams Park in Essex. Before Dagnams, Neave lived at the Bower House in Havering-atte-Bower. When he bought Dagnams, Neave had the original demolished, and replaced it by a red-brick house (see Appendix).

Neave’s friend George Read of Delaware wrote to warn him in 1765 that the British government’s attempts to tax the colonies without giving them direct representation in Parliament would lead to a revolt.

“dear Sir,—The scene in America has greatly changed since you left us. Then political disputes were confined to parties formed in the respective colonies. They are now all resolved into one, and that with the mother-country. The stamp-act you made on your side of the water hath raised such a ferment among us—that is, among one and all of the colonies on the continent—that I know not when it will subside. Before you will receive this I doubt not but you will see in our public papers the opposition generally made to the distribution of the stamp-papers, and to these publications I shall refer you for particulars. How the disturbances raised here will be received in England, I know not. I sincerely wish the furious zeal of the populace may not be resented by your people in power [so] as to prevent them from lending a candid ear to our just complaints, and repealing a law so destructive to the liberty of the subject in America, and which, in time, will prove detrimental to the trade of the mother-country. As to this I shall explain myself to be understood, viz., if this law should stand unrepealed, or, indeed, any other enactment in lieu thereof imposing an internal tax for the purpose of revenue, the colonists will entertain an opinion that they are to become the slaves of Great Britain by the Parliament’s making laws to deprive them of their property without their assent, by any kind of representation. This will naturally lead them into measures to live as independent of Great Britain as possible, [and] they will, gradually, go into the making of woollens and ironmongery, your two great branches of manufactory; and, although from the high prices of labor in general among us they will be greatly impeded in the first attempts, yet the necessity of persevering will surmount and possibly remove that difficulty. The spirit hath seized them already, and prevails surprisingly. Home-spun cloth is worn as well by the beaux as the men of gravity of all ranks, and though only fashion with the first, it will soon grow into habit, which, when once fixed, will not be readily changed. From this consideration alone every friend to the mother-country and the colonies ought to wish and to afford a helping hand to obtain an alteration in the late system of politics in England.”

George Read

Richard Neave’s son, Thomas, became the 2nd baronet on the death of his father on 28th January, 1814. A descendant, Airey Neave, was a Tory MP and supporter of Margaret Thatcher. He was blown up by an IRA car bomb in 1979 which was depicted in the 2011 film The Iron Lady.
Margaret Thatcher and Airey Neave

In 1759 Richard Cropp bought the manors of Duxford and Lacy from James and Elizabeth Barry. On his death in 1796 Richard left the two manors for life to his wife Mary and thereafter to his nephew Charles Long. Charles left his Duxford estate to his brother Beeston’s son, William Long of Hurts Hall, Saxmundham (Suffolk), who died in 1875 and who was succeeded by his son William Beeston Long. On W. B. Long’s death without issue in 1892 his lands passed to his nephew William Evelyn Long (d. 1944). W. E. Long in 1937 retained the nominal lordship of Temple and Lacy’s manors, which presumably passed to his son W. G. Long, but had sold the land in Duxford attached to them in 1906 to James Binney of Pampisford Hall (d. 1935).


SUSANNAH LONG (1758-1815)

Susannah was born in July, 1758, the second daughter of Beeston and Sarah (Cropp) Long, and baptised on 26th of that month at St. Martin Outwich.
1758 Susannah Daughter of Beeston & Sarah Long baptd July 26th.

She married the Reverend George Chamberlaine on 1st November, 1787. There does not appear to have been any issue.
Friday, November 2, 1787
Yesterday was married at St. George’s, Ha-
nover Square, the Reverend George Chamberlaine, Rector of Crales in Essex, to Miss Long, youngest daughter of the late Beeston Long, Esq.
Susannah died on 12th June, 1815, and was buried at All Saints Church, Wyke Regis in Dorset. It was Susannah who received the jewelry of Richard Cropp’s daughter through his will.

George Chamberlaine was the incumbent of All Saints from 1809 until 1837 and was responsible for the building of Holy Trinity Church at Weymouth. A road in Wyke Regis is named after him. T.C. Earle commented that Chamberlaine was “a pretty high blade for a parson.”

The Church of England Magazine noted the consecration of Holy Trinity at Weymouth:

Bristol.—The consecration of the new church at Weymouth, founded at the sole expense of the Rev. George Chamberlain, rector of Weymouth and Wyke Regis, took place on Saturday se’nnight, by the Lord Bishop of Winchester. A grand procession, comprising the Lord Bishop of Winchester and suite, the Worshipful the Mayor and Town Council, the Archdeacon of Dorset and suite, the clergy of the deanery, M. Wyatt, Esq. of London (the architect), and an immense number of gentry, was in attendance.

After Susannah died George married Margaret Dupre as the following notice from the parish register of All Saints, Wyke Regis, indicates:

1816 30th September; Revd. George CHAMBERLAINE (Widower) of Wyke Regis & Margaret DUPRE (Spinster) of this parish by licenc.; Witnesses: Robert ADAIR, Frances PICARD.

The Universal Magazine also announced the marriage:

At Warmwell the Rev. George Chamberlain, rector of Wyke Regis and Weymouth, to Margaret, second daughter of Dr Dupre, of Melcombe.

In 1821 George felt compelled to publish a selection of correspondence between himself (the Rector of Wyke-Regis in Dorset) and various clerical officials. In doing so he believed that he was protecting the rights of the clergy to maintain:

… the custody of the Key of his Church; the distribution of the Sacrament Money; and the power of a Churchwarden (unless authorised by custom) to dispose of Pews and Sittings, without the consent of the Minister.

He was aware however that:

… the disputes between individuals (of consequence only to the parties concerned) are not fit subjects to be intruded upon the public attention; but, in this instance, the questions at issue, which have been so strenuously contended for by me, are of general interest to the Parochial Clergy.

He also authored in 1833 A Friendly Address on the Death of the Rev. Joseph Addison.

Among the monumental inscriptions from the graveyard opposite All Saints Church, Wyke Regis in Dorset is the following:

In a vault on the west side of this Churchyard lies interred all that is mortal of the Rev. George Chamberlaine 28 years rector of this Parish who died 3rd October 1837 Age 74 Also of MARGARET CHAMBERLAINE his second wife who died Dec 4th 1847 Also SUSANNA CHAMBERLAINE the beloved wife of Rev’d GEORGE CHAMBERLAINE who departed this life June 12 1815 Age 34 years

In December, 1847, The Gentleman’s Magazine noted Margaret (Dupre) Chamberlaine’s passing:


The following is taken from Genealogical Notes of the Chamberlaine Family of Maryland and gives more detail of this family.
Joseph Chamberlaine, third son of Thomas and Ann Penketh Chamberlaine, married in 1740 Miss Ann Prescott, a sister of George William Prescott, a wealthy banker, and died in April, 1775, leaving a widow and five children, George, John, Richard, Mary, and Elizabeth.

George, son of Joseph and Ann (Prescott) Chamberlaine, was born in 1742, and entered the army in 1770. He married Miss Hays, a sister of Sir Samuel Hays an Irish baronet, who died leaving one son George (now 1795 in Holy Orders, and Rector of Long Parish near Andover in Hampshire), who married Miss Susannah Long, a daughter of Beeston Long, the Great Jamaica planter, and merchant in London.

Mr. George Chamberlaine [father of the above Reverend] contracted a second marriage with Miss Elizabeth Bond, a sister of his brother-in-law, and lived at Devonshire Place, Cavendish Square, London, and had a country seat called “Burwood” near Cobham in Surry. Their daughters, Mariana and Elizabeth, were living in London in 1795, and said to be beautiful and accomplished women.
Burwood House near Cobham in Surrey home of the Chamberlaine family

John, son of Joseph and Ann (Prescott) Chamberlaine, was born in 1744. Having acquired a small fortune by merchandise, he in 1794 “was out of business, giving his undivided attention to the care of his property which consisted of houses and lands” holding however, the position of Chief Director and Treasurer of a Canal Company. This gentleman never visited Maryland but kept up some intercourse by letter with his Oxford (Maryland) cousin.

Richard, son of Joseph and Ann (Prescott) Chamberlaine, was born at Chester in 1746. We learn from his letters that he came to Maryland and settled for a time in Oxford, and entered into business with his relatives there, and that his financial condition was somewhat improved by their management, as he owned the Meliora, and invested largely in commercial houses, he returned to England in 1791; and in 1795 was living with his mother and unmarried brother at Chester. His health, delicate from infancy, unfitted him for business, and later in life brought on a mental trouble ending in derangement. His sister Martha died unmarried in 1769, and Elizabeth, the youngest of the family, married in 1770 the late Benjamin Bond, and died (died 3rd January, 1771) leaving one daughter who died in 1782. On January 23rd, 1791, Mr. Bond married a Miss Enright of Warwickshire and inheriting a vast fortune from his maternal grandfather [Vulture Hopkins], took the name Hopkins. He died in 1794 leaving large legacies to the Chamberlaines, the brothers of his first wife, and a large fortune to his only daughter.

Benjamin Bond Hopkins had an illegitimate (?) son Captain Henry Hopkins. Henry married his cousin Marianne the daughter of George and Elizabeth (Bond) Chamberlaine. This marriage is shown below as is the marriage of Marianne’s sister Elizabeth Chamberlaine to Captain George Henry Towry. George Henry’s sister Anne Towry married Lord Ellenborough (below).



Below Benjamin Bond Hopkins and the two houses he built: Wimbledon House (left) and Painshill Mansion (right).

The page below is from Fragmenta Genealogica printed at the private press of Frederick Arthur Crisp in 1904.


Charles Long was born in January, 1760, and baptised at St. Martin, Outwich, on 26th January of that year. In January of the following year his brother George was born and his baptism appears in the parish record, the first child baptized in 1761.
1760 Charles Son of Beeston & Sarah Long baptized Jany 29.
1761 George Son of Beeston & Sarah Long baptized Jany 31st.

On 28th May, 1793, Charles married Amelia Hume, the eldest daughter of Abraham and Amelia (Egerton) Hume of Wormleybury in Hertfordshire. They had no children. The marriage was noted in the papers:


And two days later Charles was presented to the king by his father in law:


The biographical details below are based on the DNB (first edition):
Charles attended Mr. Blacking’s ‘academy’ at Greenwich and in 1788 entered Emmanuel College, Cambridge. He left without any degree although while there he made a good friend of William Pitt (the future Prime Minister).

Charles represented a number of constituencies in Parliament from 1789 until his elevation to the peerage in 1826. From early in his career he was a respectable official and a successful placeman. (According to the OED a ‘Placeman’ is someone who is appointed to a position, especially in government service, for personal profit and as a reward for political support; a yes-man). In 1791 Charles was appointed joint secretary to the treasury, resigned with Pitt, his patron, in 1801, and on Pitt’s return to power in 1804 became a lord commissioner of the treasury.

He became a member of the Privy Council on 5th October, 1805, and in February, 1806 he was advanced to be secretary of state for Ireland, and was sworn of the Irish privy council.

William Pitt addressing The House of Commons in 1793 with
Charles Long among the government MPs

In 1810 Long was appointed joint paymaster-general, and eventually became the sole occupant of that office. He was dispatched to France in 1817 as a commissioner to settle the accounts connected with Wellington’s army of occupation. While a member of the House of Commons he voted steadily with the Tories, and spoke only so far as his office required.

On 27th May, 1820, he was created a civil grand cross of the Bath, and at the request of Lord Canning he retired in 1826 from his post of paymaster-general, and was created a peer,

Sir Abraham Hume, Charles’ father in law
Amelia (Egerton) Hume, Charles’s mother in law
Baron Farnborough on 13th June. He enjoyed a pension of £1,500 a year until, on the death in 1829 of the slightly insane Francis Henry Egerton, eighth earl of Bridgewater, his wife’s maternal uncle, he inherited property of the value of £4,000 a year, when he resigned his pension.

From the time of his elevation to the peerage he devoted himself principally to artistic pursuits. He was a recognised judge of pictures and architecture, formed his own considerable gallery of paintings and sculpture, erected his celebrated mansion, Bromley Hill Place in Kent, and with the assistance of his wife, Amelia, laid out its extensive ornamental gardens.

He was the personal friend of both George III and George IV, and assisted them with his taste in the decoration of several of the royal palaces.


He was a fellow of the Royal Society from 1792, and of the Society of Antiquaries from 1812; was elected a trustee of the British Museum in 1812, and was also a trustee of the National Gallery, deputy president of the British Institution, and chairman of the committee for the inspection of national monuments.

In 1838 Charles donated 15 paintings to the National Gallery which can be found listed in the appendix.

Left, Charles Long’s bookplate. The style of drawing suggests the plate was made by George Cumberland. The two portraits (center and right) are of Charles Long
Together with George Cumberland he toured north Wales on horseback in 1784 and from which Cumberland later penned An Attempt to Describe Haford in 1796 which he dedicated to his cousin Charles Long and from which George’s drawing of Llangollen Bridge is shown below. After their tour of north Wales, the cousins traveled around Switzerland, after which George wrote that they were both agreed that Hafod ‘still flourished unrivalled’.
Hafod House visited and written about by George Cumberland Llangolen Bridge by George Cumberland over which he crossed with his cousin Charles Long on their tour of Wales

Below the title pages of three of Charles Long’s pamphlets: The New Era of the French Revolution published in 1795, A Temperate Discussion of the Causes which have Led to the Present High Price of Bread published in 1800, and Short Remarks upon Recent Political Occurrences published in 1807.

In 1811 Cumberland wrote an appreciative description of his cousin’s ‘seat’ Bromley Hill. In 1816, Charles published Remarks on the Buildings and Improvements in London, and Elsewhere in which he suggested many of the new streets and buildings which were then being laid out in the capital. His suggestions were countered in a response titled A Letter to the Right Honourable Sir Charles Long.
George Cumberland’s description of Bromley Hill Charles Long’s pamphlet on improving London A response to Long’s improvement suggestions

In 1829 Abraham Hume published Notices of the Life and Works of Titian which he dedicated to his son in law Charles Long:

Charles was a quite capable watercolourist himself as the drawing below of a North Devon landscape shows.
North Devon landscape by Charles Long now at The Tate Gallery

In 1829, opponents of the Catholic Relief Bill were horrified when they learned that Charles Long had switched sides and had decided to vote for the bill. Incensed, they published the following political attack in The Age on 29th March, 1829.


It may be justly said that Lord Farnborough – as far as regards the Popery Bill – had more honesty in youth than he has in old age. So long ago when he was Secretary to Mr. Pitt (and plain Charles Long-he was one of Lord Liverpool’s last batch of peers) he obtained Mr. P’s consent to allow him to vote against Catholic Emancipation. Now that he has no place to lose, or rather to keep, nor any personal obligation to the Duke, he tells all his friends and political enemies that he positively shall vote for the present Catholic Relief Bill!! — Omnibus fiat justitia!

Not only was Charles open to attack but so too was his wife as this squib from a newspaper dated 18th December, 1831, shows:


THE QUID PRO QUO — “Lord Farnborough, an unwearied friend of modern art, is, we understand, entitled to the praise of having recommended Stanfield, and other eminent artists, to the especial patronage of the King. Lady Farnborough is no indifferent landscape painter, as many of her Ladyship’s specimens in the annual exhibition at Somerset House testify.”
Is the above, which we copy from a paper of yesterday, a paid-for puff of Stanfield’s or Lady Farnborough’s? One fact we know; that Stanfield some time since, and before he was recommended to the notice of the King, made Lady Farnborough a present of several of his drawings. Perhaps this fact may open the eyes of Royalty: if not, we may be tempted to tell a few more anecdotes of the especial patronage of Lord and Lady Farnborough.
The following passages are taken from Art in England: 1821-1837 by William T. Whitley.

…. Lord Farnborough was still the most prominent and the most intimately connected in the management of the affairs both of the British Institution and the National Gallery. Artists often appealed to him on this account, and he suffered much at their hands, as he complains in a letter to his friend George Cumberland:

You know that I love the arts, and much of the pleasure and happiness of my life has been derived from them, but you have no idea how much ill-will I have incurred from being supposed to possess much more power to assist artists than really belongs to me, and when I have felt myself quite unable to do what has been desired, it has often been imputed to want of inclination not, as really was the case, to want of means, and I have not escaped a good deal of abuse in consequence, for I need not say that an unsuccessful artist is not the most placable man alive.
I shall, however, render the arts all the service I can, and I think the British Institution has already done a good deal in extending the number of admirers of the Fine Arts. If it has produced this effect it has done the cause a good service.

As he justly claims in this letter, Lord Farnborough rendered much service to the arts, especially in connection with the foundation of the National Gallery, to which he afterwards presented Gainsborough’s famous landscape, The Watering-Place, and bequeathed his collection of pictures (see The Appendix).
The Watering-Place by Thomas Gainsborough

He appears to have been generally liked and respected, although his veracity is challenged in a spiteful anecdote recorded by John Mitford in an unpublished note of his conversations with Samuel Rogers.

“He said,” writes Mitford, “on my asking him if he (Samuel Rogers) knew Lord Farnborough – ‘Yes, we were very intimate. I bought that picture Reynolds Cupid and Psyche of him for £200. I used to go to Bromley Hill, his seat in Kent, and slept in Pitt’s room. We differed and parted. Fox said of him that he never opened his mouth but to tell a lie. ‘ ”
Lord Farnborough had been the principal unofficial adviser of George IV in the matter of buying pictures, and for a time served William IV in the same capacity. The King was a sailor and the first commission given by him through Lord Farnborough was for views of the principal British naval ports Portsmouth and Plymouth to be painted by an artist who had also been a sailor, Clarkson Stanfield. The picture, Mount St Michael, Cornwall, is said to have “riveted the admiration” of the King when he visited the Academy and made him anxious to possess examples of its painter’s work.
Mount St. Michael, Cornwall by Clarkson Stanfield

The Reverend William Holwell Carr, Vicar of Menheniot, Cornwall, died December, 1830. He was rich and well connected, keenly interested in art, and one of the best known connoisseurs and collectors of his day. He was persuaded to leave his pictures to the nation by Lord Farnborough, who said in a letter of this year addressed to George Cumberland: “There are many persons as well as the Reverend Mr Carr, who would bequeath to us valuable pictures, but though our present apartments are quite full, the Government will not build us a gallery with walls to hang them on”.
Left and right two portraits of Charles Long

Long was more successful with helping to persuade the Royal Navy to establish a gallery devoted to naval art at Greenwich Palace. The following is extracted from the website of The Greenwich Palace Museum:

In 1823 the Painted Hall (left), of Greenwich Palace was converted into the National Gallery of Naval Art, with over 300 naval-themed paintings on display, however it first required the approval of the King (George IV) who visited Greenwich on his way to and from Scotland (by yacht) in 1822 when representations were successfully made to him through one of the Directors of the Greenwich Hospital, Charles Long, Lord Farnborough – then the Paymaster General and the King’s principal unofficial art advisor (Sir Thomas Lawrence, of course, was the official one).


Charles died at his home Bromley Hill Place on 17th January, 1838, and was buried on 27th January at Wormleybury.
On the 18th inst. at his seat, Bromley Hill, Kent, in the 78th year of his age,
the Right Hon. Lord Charles Farnborough C. G. B.

The memorial below by Nollekens is in the parish church at Saxmundham in Suffolk and was placed there by his nephew William, the son of his brother Samuel.


The Gentleman’s Magazine noted in its obituary that Charles:

…. possessed a few good pictures: a landscape by Rubens, one by G. Poussin , a fine large Canaletti, two pictures (small) by Alola, the famous white horse by Vandyck, the infant Samuel by Joshua Reynolds [below], and a few more. In the drawing-room at Bromley-hill is one of the last marble busts that Canova ever executed; and a beautiful statue of Flora, by Westmacott, is in the entrance hall.
AMELIA (HUME) LONG (1772-1837)

Charles’s wife, Amelia, was the elder daughter of Sir Abraham Hume of Wormleybury in Hertfordshire. She was born on 29th January, 1772, in Hill Street, Berkeley Square. She was well known in her day as a judge of art and a skilled horticulturist, and largely assisted in laying out the gardens of their home at Bromley Hill. She was also a talented artist in her own right and regularly exhibited at the Royal Academy. Her sketch book is held by the Victoria and Albert Museum and the British Museum has a number of her watercolours.
Amelia (Hume) Long’s drawing of Bromley Hill

Left a copy of a lost portrait of Amelia (Hume) Long by Sir Joshua Reynolds
The latest edition of the DNB notes that Amelia:

… is now recognized as one of the talented group of amateur women watercolourists who made a vital contribution to early English watercolour painting.

From Somerset House Gazette and Literary Museum.



“Boy with Cabbage-nets, No. 3. Painted by H. Edridge. In the possession of Lady Long.” When we read in the Catalogue, that this drawing is the property of Sir Thomas Lawrence and that of Lady Long, and so on, the possessors being alike eminent for their taste, we might safely rely upon the circumstance as a test of the merit of the work, the sanction of such authority being enough. The judgment of the President of the Royal Academy [Thomas Lawrence] is sufficiently recorded: that of Lady Long may not be so generally known out of the pale of connoisseurship; but to the world of art, it is known that this lady has a talent for painting and drawing, that might fairly rank her with the professors of the living school. This little picture by that ingenious artist, the late Mr. Edridge, is a copy in small from an esteemed picture by Sir Joshua Reynolds. It is copied with great freedom, and has much of the feeling and expression of the original.
Below, two examples of Amelia’s watercolours.


A drawing by Amelia of the Thames and The City from the site of Waterloo Bridge was exhibited at the London Museum in the autumn of 1961.


Amelia died at Bromley Hill Place on 15th January, 1837, and was buried at Wormleybury in Hertfordshire. The newspapers noted her departure as follows:


In the parish church at Wormleybury there are two elaborate monuments by Westmacott. One was placed there by Charles Long in memory of his wife (on the right below). The other was placed by members of the Hume family in memory of Amelia’s father, Abraham Hume, (on the left). The latter provides a succinct biography of the man.
Sacred to the memory of Sir Abraham Hume, of Wormley Bury, the second and last baronet of his branch of an ancient and honorable Scottish family, who died on the 24th day of March, 1838, in the 90th year of his age. He succeeded to his paternal title and estate in 1771, and married in the same year, Amelia, daughter of John Egerton, Lord Bishop of Durham, and sister of John William and Francis Henry successively Earls of Bridgewater; by her, who died in 1809, he had issue two daughters, Amelia and Sophia, the former of whom was married to Charles Lord Farnborough, and died without issue in 1837, the latter became the first wife of John Lord Brownlow (afterwards created Earl Brownlow), and died in 1814, leaving three children, namely, Sophia Frances, married in 1836 to Christopher Tower, Esqr. of Weald Hall, Essex, John Hume Cust (by courtesy Viscount Alford), and Charles Henry Cust…. (see the Appendix for details on the Brownlow and Cust families).
Left John and Charles Cust, and right John as an adult, being the nephews of Charles and Amelia (Hume) Long
From left to right: Charles Long, Baron Farnborough (1760-1838), his father in law Sir Abraham Hume (1749-1838) and George Hamilton-Gordon, The Earl of Aberdeen (Prime Minister) (1784-1860) painted by Pieter Wonder circa 1826
GEORGE LONG (1761-1782)

George Long was baptised on 31st January, 1761, at St. Martin Outwich.
1761 George Son of Beeston and Sarah Long baptized Jany 31st

He joined the navy and in The Cumberland Letters there is a passing reference to George Long by Richard Dennison Cumberland who writes from Driffield to his brother George in London on 7th August, 1778.

A few days since they went to Portsmouth in hopes of meeting their Son George who has been in the [naval] engagement. pp 200-201

George joined HMS Superb as a junior officer. The following is from the history of HMS Superb:

HMS Superb was a 74-gun ship, built at Deptford Dockyard, launched on 27th October 1760. It was 1,612 tons, 168ft long and 47ft wide. From 1763–1770 she was a flagship based in Portsmouth and took part in several skirmishes against the French. Between 1779–1783 Superb was the flagship of Vice Admiral Sir Edward Hughes in the East Indies where she was involved in several actions with the French Admiral Suffren. In 1782 she took part in a skirmish off Sadras (near Trincomalee), the action, with Superb in company with Exeter bearing the brunt of the fighting, was indecisive. Superb was very much cut up, ‘main yard shot away and not a brace or bowline left and five feet of water in the hold’.

In 1782, when he was only twenty-one years old, George was killed in the attempt to take Fort Trincomalee from the French on the island that is now called Sri Lanka.
A French Plan of Fort Trincomalee

In 1782 The New Annual Register, or, General Repository of History, Politics … published a letter from George’s commander in chief describing the action in which George fell:

His Excellency the generous, brave, and illustrious Sir Edward Hughes, K. B. Commander in Chief of his Britannic Majesty’s squadron in Trincomale Bay.

Major Geils persisting in his opinion that the lower part of the fort might be taken by assault, although not so clear respecting a cavalier very high, mounting fix pieces of cannon, the assault was ordered, and the necessary dispositions made for the attack to begin at daylight in the morning of the 11th [January, 1782], and accordingly the storming party, composed of 450 seamen and marines, and their officers, with each flank covered by a company of pioneers, and seamen carrying the scaling ladders, and armed with cutlasses, with a reserve of three companies of seamen, and three companies of marines, with two field-pieces to support it, followed by the Company’s troops, advanced at day-light towards the fort, and the serjeants party in front, getting in at the embrasures unperceived by the enemy, was immediately followed by the whole of the storming party, who soon drove the enemy from their works, and possessed themselves of the fort; and all the ships and vessels in the harbour Immediately surrendered. In this assault I had the misfortune to lose Lieutenant George Long, my second lieutenant, a most worthy and deserving officer, who was killed in advancing bravely to the assault at the head of his company, and also twenty non-commissioned and private seamen and marines; Lieutenant Wolsey, who commanded a company of seamen, Lieutenant Samuel Orr, of the marines, who commanded their grenadier company, and did duty as brigade major, and forty non-commissioned and private seamen and marines were wounded. The enemy lost but few men, as they mostly threw down their arms, and their forfeited lives were spared by that disposition to mercy which ever distinguishes Britons.

Below right, the monument to George at Saxmundham church and left Admiral Sir Edward Hughes.
Sacred to the memory of George Long, Lieutenant in the Navy; who in the attack by storm of Trincomalee, which he led, fell most honourably before that important fortress in the moment of victory. He was a seventh son of Beeston and Sarah Long, and lost his life the 11th Jan. 1782, aged 21 years.
The Naval Battle for Trincomalee by Thomas Whitcombe
WILLIAM LONG (1763-1835)

William, the youngest child of Beeston and Sarah (Cropp) Long was born in September, 1763, and baptised on 21st September, 1763, at St. Martin Outwich (last line).
1763 William Son of Beeston & Sarah Long baptized . Sept. 21.

He joined his brother Richard as a pupil of Richard Dennison Cumberland’s under whose tutelage he entered Emmanuel College, Cambridge. He joined the priesthood and thanks to his brother Charles’ close relation with the Prime Minister, William Pitt, he quickly found himself a parish in Suffolk and eventually the Cannonry of St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle.

On Wednesday, 29th August, 1804, the Prime Minister, William Pitt, wrote to King George III saying that he:

… humbly begs leave to submit to your Majesty that not finding any of the applications he has received for Church preferment urgent at the present moment, he is induced to request your Majesty’s permission to recommend the Reverend Mr. Long (brother to Charles Long) for the vacant Canonry at Windsor, and he presumes to hope that from the favourable sentiments which your Majesty has always condescended to express towards Mr. Long; your Majesty will not disapprove of Mr. Pitt’s proposing an arrangement which will be so peculiarly gratifying to a person for whom he naturally feels much interested. William Pitt.
King George III William Pitt

The King was gracious enough to grant the Prime Minister his request and William’s appointment was duly made.

William did not marry and he died in July, 1835, aged seventy-two. His obituary appeared in The Gentleman’s Magazine:

Rev. William Long. July [15th ] At Bromley-hill, Kent, aged 76, the Rev. William Long, Canon of Windsor, Rector of Sternfield, Suffolk, and of Pulham, Norfolk; only surviving brother to Lord Farnborough. Mr. Long was the fifth son of Beeston Long, esq. of Carshalton, by Susannah [actually Sarah], daughter and heiress of Abraham Crop, Esq. He was a member of Emmanuel College, where he took the degree of LL.B. in 1788. In that year he was presented by Charles Long, Esq. to the rectory of Sternfield and to that of Dennington, both in Suffolk. In 1801 he was presented by the King to the rectory of Pulham in Norfolk, when he resigned that of Dennington. In 1808 he was appointed a Canon of Windsor. His death was very sudden, occurring within a few minutes after he had been engaged in showing some visitors of distinction over his brother’s beautiful garden at Bromley-hill. He was never married.

Mr. Long had a taste for elegant literature, and read most of the best productions in history, biography, and criticism, that appeared. He possessed a considerable knowledge of Painting, and was a liberal supporter of the arts; scarcely a year passed but he purchased some pictures of modern artists; and he handsomely bestowed Sir Joshua Reynolds’s ‘Banished Lord’ to the National Gallery [now at The Tate]. He was also from his knowledge and judgment made Director at the British Institution, of which his brother Lord Farnborough is Vice-President.

While he resided in the country, he was friendly and hospitable to his neighbours, and a kind benefactor to the poor. His table was elegant, and his society select. His manners had all the politeness of a man of the world, tempered with the decent gravity of the clergyman.

George the Third once, and justly, on the terrace at Windsor paid him the compliment of saying — ‘Mr. Long, I hear you are a very good parish priest’ — and the good old King was not often wrong in his knowledge of these matters. Mr. Long preached the funeral sermon of George the Fourth. He had many friends sincerely attached to him; and his name will be long remembered with love and respect.

A few weeks after his death the newspapers noted that:

By the demise of the Rev. William Long, brother to Lord Farnborough, the valuable clerical preferment of a minor canon of St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, has become vacant.
Having looked at the families of three of Susannah (Banner) Cradock’s children namely that of Richard Banner, Esther (Banner) Purcell and Susannah (Banner) Cropp, we now turn to Susannah’s second marriage to Benjamin Tudman.


The sections above have looked at three families of Susannah Cradock’s first marriage to John Banner. In particular we have traced the descendants of two daughters: Esther who married John Purcell and Susannah who married Abraham Cropp. In this section we look at Susannah’s second and third marriages.

Susannah (Cradock) Banner’s second marriage to Benjamin Tudman took place on 2nd December, 1708, at St. Andrew by The Wardrobe (second to last line).
December 2. Benjamin Tudman and Susanna Banner By License

Benjamin was the son of John Tudman of Throgmorton Street. His baptismal record has not been found.

Tudman was a goldsmith, banker, army clothing contractor, as well as a director of the South Sea Company. His marriage to the widow Banner was also Tudman’s second marriage.

Susannah and Benjamin had no children together. Tudman’s first marriage was to Mary Pegge and took place on 9th December, 1680, at St. Olave, Old Jewry/Jury (image below).
St. Olave, Old Jewry/Jury

Benjamin Tudman of the Parish of St Mary Woolnorth London & Mary Pegge of the Parish of St Dunstans in the West were married December the 9th 1680

They had three children: a son Benjamin, Jnr. who was baptised at St. Mary at Hill on 22nd June, 1683. A daughter Mary whose baptism has not been located but who was buried on 20th January, 1697 at St. Mary Woolnoth:
The Twentieth day of this month was buried Mary the
daughter of Benjamin Tudman Goldsmith the uppermost
back pew of the Women on the left hand in the middle Isle
from the Chancell.

A third child, Margaret (but often referred to as Peggy) whose baptism has not yet been located married her father’s business partner Stephen Child.

As for Benjamin, Jnr. we know a little of his life thanks to the diary kept by Joseph Grano, who met and described Benjamin in the debtors prison of The Marshalsea and which is detailed in the appendix under Benjamin Tudman, Jnr.

Below the burial record for Benjamin’s first wife Mary, the mother of his children, dated 28th May, 1707, at St. Mary Woolnoth:
The eight and twentieth day of this month was buried in the middle isle of the church under her pew No —- on the south side of the isle Mrs Mary Tudman the Wife of Mr Benjamin Tudman of this parish of St Mary Woolnoth Goldsmith and Banker in Linnen

The reference to Benjamin as a ‘Banker in Linnen’ on Mary (Pegge) Tudman’s burial record is obscure and may refer to his role as a clothing contractor to the army. Below Goldsmith’s Hall.

Goldsmith’s Hall Interior of St. Mary Woolnoth

On 23rd September, 1707, the following advertisement was placed in a London newspaper indicating that a burglary had taken place at Tudman’s house at Stratford in Essex.


23rd September, 1707

Whereas the House of Mr Benj. Tudman at Stafford in Essex was broken open on Monday the 15th of this Instant September in the Night time, and the Goods following were Stolen, Viz. a Silver Mug or Cup engrav’d with a Coat of Arms (3 Bars dan fitty) 4 Silver Spoons with a Crest a Talbots Head on a Wreath, a Tea Spoon, 6 Knives colour’d Wood Hafts, and several other things of wearing Apparel.
If anyone who will discover the Person or Persons concern’d in the said Robbery, so as one or more of ’em be apprehended and convicted, shall receive of the said Benj. Tudman a Reward of 20l. besides the benefit allow’d by Act of Parliament.

According to Carswell, in 1707 Tudman was prosecuted for improperly using armorial bearings at the funeral of his first wife Mary. The references to arms and crests in the advertisement above may have been made in support of his heraldic aspirations. However no reference to Tudman’s prosecution has yet been located in any of the papers on or about 1707.

As we shall see, the house at Stratford in Essex mentioned in the advertisement above, which Susannah inherited from Benjamin, would feature quite prominently among the assets which her third husband, John Blunt, had to provide parliament after the South Sea Company’s collapse.

Tudman’s goldsmith firm was originally established by Thomas Williams in about 1677. It was located at No. 76, Lombard Street under the sign of The Crown. The company eventually evolved during the 19th Century into Messrs. Willis, Percival, and Co. but did not survive into the twentieth .

In 1694 the firm of Williams and Tudman was embroiled in a court case which started when a certain Daniel Foe, before he was prefixed with a De, had received money from a man called Joseph Williams (no relation to Thomas). Some of this money was in cash and some in the form of a bank promissory note for £12. 10s. made out to Foe. Since Foe owed Thomas Williams money he took the promissory note to the firm of Williams and Tudman. Thomas Williams accepted the promissory note as discharge for the money that Foe owed him. He and Foe had done business before and Williams knew Foe well as a merchant and trader. Thomas then took the promissory note to Joseph Williams to collect the money in cash. Joseph refused to accept the note claiming that a promissory note could only be exchanged for cash by a goldsmith or banker and as he, Joseph, was neither he could not therefore exchange the note. So Thomas took Joseph to court in an attempt to recover his money and he won. In doing so he considerably expanded the role that promissory notes could play in the economy. The case today is considered one of the most significant steps taken toward the acceptance of paper money as currency. Meanwhile Joseph decided to sue Foe for other monies owed by Foe and so it went on.
Daniel Defoe
By 1697 Thomas Williams had died as the following advertisement on 16th August of that year indicates:

Whoever has any plate or jewells in the hands of Thomas Williams late of Lombard Street goldsmith deceased are desired to fetch them away by Michaelmas next otherwise they will be disposed.

Below left a watercolour of Lombard Street in 1808 showing Tudman’s banking house at right (No. 76), but by then with a clock attached where the sign of The Crown once hung (right).

No. 76 Lombard Street on the right, with clock and left the sign of the Crown

We can piece together some of Tudman’s commercial life through various advertisements he and his business partner Stephen Child placed in the newspapers of the age and which show the typical concerns of a banker, having mostly to do with the recovery of lost notes or documents.

Lost a Bank note Numb. C.203, dated the 30th of December 1704 payable to Mr. Benj. Tudman and Company, or Bearer, for 53l. 15s. Whoever shall bring the said Note, or give notice of it, So that it may be had again, to Mr Robert Haseue at the Bank of England, or at Price’s Brew-house near Golden Square, shall receive 10s. reward. Payment is stopt at the Bank.
Lost or Mislaid on or about the 11th of February last, a Cash-Book kept with Messeurs Tudman and Child, Goldsmiths, at the Crown in Lombard-street. The said Book is entirely full on the Debtor side, and a Balance due from said Goldsmiths but of no use to any Body but the Proprietor, Payment being stopt. Whoever brings the said Book to the said Messeurs Tudman and Child, shall receive of them 10 s. Reward.
Dropt out of a Gentleman’s Pocket on Friday the 10th Instant, a Blue gilt Leather-Case with sundry Receipts and other Papers therein, as also one Bill of Exchange for 300 l. on Mr. Daniel Hayes, drawn from Amsterdam, and a Note of Mr. Daniel Short for 20 l. which Bill and Note are stopt for Payment, so of no use but to the Owner. Whoever brings the said Letter-Case and Papers to Messeurs Tudman and Child, Goldsmiths, in Lombard-street, shall have one Guinea Reward.
From the minute books of the board of governors of Bridewell Hospital we learn that Benjamin was appointed a Governor on 14th July, 1699. And from thereon till his death, Tudman makes frequent appearances among the pages of the board’s minute books. It may have been through his connection with Bridewell that Tudman made the acquaintance of his future wife’s first husband, John Banner who was likewise a governor.

Below are two instances of Benjamin’s appearance among the Bridewell Hospital minute books. The first dated 1699 shows his nomination to the board.


Bridewell Royal Hospital: Minutes of the Court of Governors. 14th July, 1699.
Also At this Court The persons hereafter named were
nominated to be Governrs. of these Hospll. (vizt)
New Govrs. nominated Thomas Coleman Esqr. in Eyer Street neare Pickadilly by Mr. John Fellowe – and
Mr. Benjn. Tudman a Goldsmith in Lombard Street by Mr: Depty. Fazakerley .
The Court at Bridewell Hospital

The second is a report written by Benjamin in 1701 supporting an inmate’s application to maintain himself outside the hospital.
Bridewell Hospital Minutes. 28th November 1701
Also Upon Reading to this Court the Report of Mr. John Rolfe and Mr. Benjamin Tudman That upon Enquiry they do find That Jonathan Gautlett is sett up for himselfe in Tinpott Alley in St. Thomas Apostle and hath three Loomes at work with other material for carrying on his Trade And hath the Character of a sober person and a good husband It is Ordered by this Court That Mr. Trear do give and pay unto him Ten pounds of the profitts of Mr Locks gift to be allowed Mr. Trear in his next Accompt.

Benjamin died at the end of October, 1712, and his burial record for 4th November, 1712, from the parish records of St. Mary Woolnoth shows that he was buried in the middle aisle (see below).
The fourth of this month was buried Benjamin Tudman (brought from St. Edmonds the King) in the middle isle.

His body may have been brought from St. Edmond’s the King in Lombard Street (shown below) to St. Mary Woolnoth because he wished to be buried near his first wife, Mary. This move from one parish to another is similar to that undergone by Susannah’s son John Banner noted above.

Benjamin Tudman’s Will

Tudman wrote his will on 20th June, 1712. He styles himself as Esq. of London but does not identify as belonging to any particular parish.

He leaves the majority of his estate to his ‘dear and loving wife’ Susannah (Cradock) (Banner) and in particular “all the lands, grounds, and appurtenances of his estate at Stratford in Essex”. He also appoints her as the full and sole executrix of his will.

However Susannah may well have experienced some hostility from her two Tudman step children, Benjamin, Jnr. and Margaret, as in his will Tudman writes:

And I do strictly […] demand and require my said children to be dutiful and respectful to my said dear loving wife and to taker her advice in all reasonable things She having been a tender and affectionate Wife to me and a kind and loving Mother to them.

Benjamin also mentions his brothers Francis and John. The will was witnessed by John Blunt who would later marry Benjamin’s widow. A second witness was Sam Blunt, a nephew of John’s, who married John’s daughter Rachel. Samuel Blunt was sword bearer for the City of London. After he died Rachel married a man named Parkes (see Susannah (Cradock) Blunt’s will).

On 2nd January, 1717, an advertisement appeared in The Daily Courant announcing that the contents of Tudman’s house at Iver in Buckinghamshire were up for sale:

To Morrow, being the 3d of January, the Household Goods, Plate, Linnen, Pictures, China, and other Curiosities of Benjamin Tudman, Esq., brought from his House at Iver in Bucks, to the late Dwelling House of Mrs. Ashby’s, over against the Red Lyon and Bull in Red Lyon-street, Holbourn, viz. A fine Crimson Damask Bed and other standing Beds, Beding, Silk and Mohair Curtains, Easy Chairs and Wall [?]-Tree ditto, Peer and Chimney-Glasses, Sconces, Union Sutes, Card-Tables, Cabinets, Buroes, Skreens, and India Boards, Stoves and Brass Hearths, Carpirs, Clocks, a Chamber Organ, a Ring of Bells, and all sorts of Kitchen Furniture. The Goods to be seen this Day and to Morrow, till the Time of Sale. To begin at One o-Clock, and continue every Day at the same Hour till all be sold. Catalogues to be had at the House. N.B. The House to be Lett.

In 1703, Stephen Child son of the banker Sir Francis Child, went into partnership with Tudman and when Tudman died in 1712 Stephen Child took over his business. According to John Carswell, Child was a dissenter and a Whig.

Child also married Benjamin’s daughter Margaret (Peggy) on 6th January, 1703 at St. Mary’s, Leyton in Essex (IGI M16395-1). Stephen and Peggy (Tudman) Child had at least six children, although only two survived to adulthood.

Their first, born on 3rd May, 1705, was still born as the parish record from St. Mary Woolnoth shows:
The third day of this month Margarett the wife of Mr Stephen Child Goldsmith of this parish was delivered of a Male still born infant

A second child, Samuel, was born on 5th June, 1706 and baptized two days later at St. Mary Woolnoth:
June 1706 Baptized 7th
Baptized 7th The 5th instant was born Samuel the sonne of Mr Stephen Child of the Crowne in Lombard Street Banker gt 600 l. 12d:

A son Benjamin was born on 12th October, 1707, and was baptised on 15th of that month at St. Mary Woolnoth:
The Twelth day of this month was borne (Benjamin) the sonne of Mr Stephen Child of this parish of St. Mary Woolnoth Goldsmith and Margarett his wife and was baptized the fifteenth day instant.

A daughter, Pegge, was born on 27th October, 1708 and baptised on 1st November at St. Mary Woolnoth:
October 1708
Pegge Child: The twenty seventh instant was born (Pegge) the daughter of Stephen Child & Pegge his wife Partner with Mr. Benj. Tudman of this Parish Banker & she was baptized November ye first day of the same year —

Another daughter Mary was born on 25th May, 1711, and baptised on 7th June at St. Mary Woolnoth:
May 1711
The Twenty fifth of this month was borne – (Mary) the daughter of Stephen Child Goldsmith in Lombard Street and Pegge his wife and was baptized the seventh of June.

Although none of the above children lived much past their infancy, no burial records for them have yet been located. Only two daughters – Susanna and Jane – survived to adulthood.

Susanna was born on 19th July, 1713, and baptised on 30th July at St. Mary Woolnoth:
The nineteenth day of this month was born Susanna the daughter of Stephen and
Peggy Child and was baptized the thirtieth day.

The register of the parish church of Richmond in Surrey shows that Jane Child was baptized on 23rd August, 1726.
(IGI P01334-1)
Stephen died at his house in Richmond in May, 1762, and his passing was noted by the papers:


Stephen Child, Esq; at his house at Richmond, in Surry.

The Will of Stephen Child

Stephen Child of Richmond, freeman and citizen of London, wrote his will dated 29th November, 1743, in order to make my family Easy and that my two Daughters may have proper share of my estate…

He describes a series of agreements, the first one being a marriage settlement made around 15th January, 1703, between himself and Benjamin Tudman that refers to an indenture between the two men dated 7th January, 1702, in which the two became partners as Goldsmiths for a 30 year term. Stephen states that he has two daughters viz. Susanna the wife of Anthony Ewer Esquire and Jane unmarried. Stephen says that he has already given five thousand pounds to Anthony Ewer as part of the marriage settlement ” … for the better provision of my daughter Susanna as well as the benefit of the said Anthony Ewer”. He gives Susanna a further £3,000 worth of South Sea Annuity stock and other monies, etc. He gives to his:

… dear daughter Jane … all that my house and garden on Richmond Green as well as another house on Richmond Green rented out at the time to William Little called ‘The White House’… as well as two thousand five hundred pounds in South Sea Stock as well as all the rest of my stock or stocks that I may be intitled unto in the several other companys and all other Goods effects and personal estate.

He also bequeaths one hundred pounds to his brother John Child.

He appoints his two daughters as joint executrixs of his will although he notes that:

I have left my daughter Susanna one of my Executors and yet I do order and strictly that she shall not have or receive any part of my Estate whatsoever but what I have particularly in this my said will devised to her.

Stephen directs his executors (i.e. Susanna and Jane) to pay Christ’s Hospital and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital £50 each.

He also wishes to have ten pounds paid to his nephew Francis Child of Hodington in Wiltshire for the use of the poor in that parish. He directs that one guinea be paid to his nephew Anthony Brook. Witnessed by Seth Grosvenor of Richmond.

In a codicil Child adds:

I desire to be buried in the new Ground lately added to the yard in Richmond Surry in a very private manner by Robert Smith the Parish clerk if living at my Decease that my Grave may be Inclosed with birch under Ground as usually done with a Stone or Marble over the Grave with the Words Stephen Child of this parish Obit _________ etc.


Susanna Child and the Ewer Family

Stephen’s eldest daughter, Susanna, married Anthony Ewer on 8th May, 1740, at St. Mary, Teddington in Surrey. They had one daughter – Elizabeth.
Anthony Ewer and Susanna Childs was married may 8 1740.

Sixteen years later, on 28th January, 1756, Anthony died:



Yesterday se’nnight died, at his House in Queen-
Square, Westminster, Anthony Ewer, Esq; of Bushy-Hall in the County of Hertford.
Bushey Hall in Hertfordshire, home of the Ewer family. It was demolished in 1950

Anthony was the son of Thomas and Mary (Montagu) Ewer. Anthony’s mother, Mary (Montagu) Ewer, was the daughter of James Montagu a son of Henry 1st Earl of Manchester. Anthony’s sister, Jane Ewer, married Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury.
Left James Montagu the son of Henry 1st Earl of Manchester. James was the father of Mary (Montagu) Ewer who was the mother of Anthony Ewer who married Susanna Child. Right Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury who married Anthony Ewer’s sister Jane

Susanna (Child) Ewer’s will dated 1799 (proved in 1802) contains specifics about her burial not often found:

I desire to be —–ly interred and privately buried by the side of my late husband Anthony Ewer, Esq. of Watford in Hertfordshire under the communion table a hearse and six horses to be attended by my own maid and man servant and buried by daylight and in a shirt and not to be laid out I likewise request to lie twelve hours before I am moved to be kept one week not to be seized up in my coffin — the night before my internment —- I require it to have a coffin lined with lead

Anthony and Susanna (Child) Ewer had a daughter, Elizabeth, who married Sir Francis Wood on the 5th June, 1779. Francis and Elizabeth (Ewer) Wood had a daughter but that only daughter did not marry. When Elizabeth (Ewer) Wood died some of the Ewer estates passed to the 5th Earl of Shaftesbury as noted in Burke’s peerage:

Lord Shaftesbury came into possession of Swine in November, 1796, on the death of Lady Wood [Elizabeth Ewer], widow of Sir Francis Wood; her maiden name was Ewer; the family of Ewer then became extinct.

At his house on Richmond-green, Surrey, Sir Francis Wood, bart. so created Dec. 1, 1783. He was the second son of Francis Wood, late of Barnsley, in Yorkshire, esq. deceased; and married the daughter of ____ Eure, esq. by whom he had a daughter, who, in the year 1787, was unmarried. His elder brother is the Rev. Henry Wood, D.D. of Barnsley, who had a son living, s.p. at the same time. His younger brother, Charles, who was master and commander in the royal navy, died in 1782, leaving two sons, Henry and Francis W. esqrs. and some daughters.






















On 31st October, 1771, Stephen Child’s second daughter, Jane, married Charles Price.

There was no issue of this marriage and so Stephen ChildDD and Peggy Tudman have no descendants.

Below part of a Price family tree showing Jane Child and her marriage (at age 46) to Sir Charles Price. She died in June, 1810.
In her will, Susannah (Cradock) (Banner) (Tudman) Blunt bequeaths legacies to:

Kinsman Mr. Stephen Child, Mrs. Ewer, the daughter of the said Mr. Stephen Child Cousin Jane Child, another daughter of Mr. Stephen Child.

In 1763 Stephen’s nephew Sir Robert Child, son of Stephen’s brother Samuel, married Susannah (Cradock) Blunt’s great niece Sarah Jodrell, the granddaughter of Susannah’s brother William Cradock. (See Chart)






















When illness which ended in death removed the goldsmith and army clothing contractor Benjamin Tudman from the scene, his widow Susannah consoled herself by marrying one of her late husband’s colleagues on the Court of Directors of the South Sea Company – John Blunt – who must have appreciated her handsome fortune derived from her two earlier husbands.

The marriage took place on 22nd December, 1713, although so far the parish in which this took place has not been identified. He was fifty-three years old and she was forty-five. The resulting union added at least four of her ‘Banner’ children to the seven of his own.

John Blunt was born in 1665 the son of Thomas Blunt, a Baptist shoemaker of Rochester in Kent, and Isabella, daughter of Thomas Blacke, yeoman. He was baptized at St. Nicholas, Rochester, on 24th July, 1665. He attended the Merchant Taylors School and afterwards was apprenticed to Daniel Richards, scrivener of Holborn.
Merchant Taylors School’s Cloisters

Blunt’s first marriage was to Elizabeth Court and took place on 16th July, 1689, at St. James, Duke´s Place.
John Blunt Br. Eliz. Court Spr. Jo Walter Fr

John and Elizabeth had five sons and two daughters.
Elizabeth died in 1708, although her burial record has not yet been found, and she was interred in a vault built for her by Blunt at Moorfields, the dissenters’ cemetery.



Since the inception of the South Sea Company, Blunt has been regarded as the main protagonist in the drama that brought about the bursting of the South Sea Bubble in which thousands lost millions when the company’s shares collapsed in 1720.

The nature of the affair will be described here only in so far as it impacted on the fortunes of John and Susannah (Cradock) Blunt’s families.

Of the South Sea Company and its collapse, Tobias Smollett wrote:

The scheme was first projected by Sir John Blunt, who had been bred a scrivener, and was possessed of all the cunning, plausibility, and boldness requisite for such an undertaking. He communicated his plan to Mr. Aislabie, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a Secretary of State. He answered every objection, and the project was adopted. … The South-Sea scheme promised no commercial advantage of any consequence. It was buoyed up by nothing but the folly and rapaciousness of individuals, which became so blind and extravagant, that Blunt, with moderate talents, was able to impose upon the whole nation, and make tools of the other directors, to serve his own purposes and those of a few associates.

Mr. Aislabie, The Chancellor
of the Exchequer Tobias Smollett

According to the poet Alexander Pope, Blunt was:

… a Dissenter of the most religious deportment and professed to be a great believer. He declaimed against the corruption and luxury of the age, the partiality of Parliaments and the misery of party spirit. He was particularly eloquent against Avarice in great and noble persons.

John Carswell describes Blunt as being:

Burly, overbearing, glib, ingenious, and determined to get on. He was well fitted to make his way in the jungle of business, and from the first he was successful….. In the techniques of his profession he was unequalled, and his coarse character contained just that trace of titanism which was to carry him for a moment to the summit of politics and finance. He was the driving force behind the company – in the prime of his life, with powerful jowls and heavily-lidded eyes, an industrious domineering man whom it was equally difficult to like and resist.

About Susannah and John’s marriage Alexander Pope wrote in his Epistles to Several Persons the following:

A Nymph of Quality admires our Knight;
He marries, bows at Court, and grows polite:
Leaves the dull Cits, and joins (to please the fair)
The well-bred cuckolds in St. James’s air.
Saint James’s Park

And before it all burst, John and Susannah basked in public adulation which was officially recognized when King George III honoured Blunt with a baronetcy. The Weekly Journal or Saturday’s Post for 11th June, 1720, reported that:

His Majesty has been graciously pleased to create John Blunt, Esq. one of the Directors of the South Sea Company, a Baronet of Great Britain, for his extraordinary Services done that Company, and thereby raising publick Credit to a Height not known before.

But by the end of August, 1720, the company was beginning to teeter on the edge of a financial abyss and the fall, when it came, was fast and catastrophic. We have noted above Abraham’s Cropp’s involvement at the last meeting before the company finally collapsed. In a little over two weeks Blunt had sunk from being the most courted to being the most despised and hated man in London.

In his Use of Riches Alexander Pope described the situation as it unfolded as if it were a prophetic vision yet to come and revealed only to Blunt by a wizard:

Much-injured Blunt! why bears he Britain’s hate?
A wizard told him in these words our fate:
‘At length corruption, like a general flood
(So long by watchful ministers withstood,)
Shall deluge all; and avarice creeping on,
Spread like a low-born mist, and blot the sun;
Statesman and patriot ply alike the stocks,
Peeress and butler share alike the box,
And judges job, and bishops bite the town,
And mighty dukes pack cards for half-a-crown.
See Britain sunk in lucre’s sordid charms.
However, one of the first victims following the collapse was John Blunt’s nephew, Charles, whose death was reported by The Weekly Journal OR Saturday’s Post on 10th September, 1720:

Sunday Morning Charles Blunt, Esq; Cousin [actually nephew] to Sir John Blunt, one of the Directors of the South Sea Company, cut his own Throat at his House in Broad-street; upon his falling down on the Floor, the Servants ran up Stairs and found their Master weltering in his Blood; a Surgeon was immediately sent for, but came too late, for the poor unhappy Gentleman had done his business too effectually: The Coroner’s Inquest sat on his Corpse, and brought in the Verdict Non compos mentis: He has left a Wife and three or four Children, and ’tis said, died worth 250000 l.

Below the record from St. Peter le Poer in Broad Street, showing that Charles was buried on 7th September in the middle aisle.

Charles Blunt Esq. in the Middle Isle
Sept the 7th 1720.

St. Peter le Poer

The official Parliamentary inquiry into the collapse concluded that the Company had amazed all Europe:

… but whose foundation, being fraud, illusion, credulity, and infatuation, fell to the ground as soon as the artful management of its directors was discovered.

The directors were arrested, including Sir John, and were taken into the custody of the House of Commons on 23rd January, 1721.
The Sub-Governor of the South-Sea Company, with nine of the Directors, and three of their Officers, have been taken into Custody since our last; Sir John Blunt and Sir John Lambert, Baronets, are confined at a Messenger’s House in Tavistock-Street; and Sir Theodore Jansen and Sir John Fellows are confined at Mr. Hollingshead’s House in Brownlow-Street in Drury-Lane: The others are, Sir John Chapman, Knt. Jacob Sawbridge, Francis Hawes, William Gore, Edward Gibbon , and William Holditch, Esquires; Mr.Grigsby, Mr. Simond, and Mr. Clark.
Following the arrest of the Company’s directors, the House of Commons then set up a committee of secrecy to investigate the whole affair which met at the South Sea House itself.

Once his examination began, and to the horror of many, John Blunt became a willing key witness to all that had occurred.

Afterwards, some of his colleagues tried to pry out of him what had happened at his examination but Blunt refused, telling them that he was under an obligation of secrecy and that ‘The examination is very strict, and nothing but the truth will do’. The committee, having interrogated all those involved, concluded there had been a plot: ‘of the deepest villainy and fraud that Hell had ever contrived to ruin a nation.’

On 4th February, 1721, after the House of Commons was done with Blunt, the House of Lords turned its attention to him and it is said, that of all the scenes of the South Sea Bubble, Blunt’s examination by the Lords was probably the most extraordinary.
He was anxious, he said, to treat the House with all possible respect, but he had already been examined by the House of Commons, and as he did not remember his answers, he might, by answering the Lords questions contradict himself, and as he thought it hard to be compelled to accuse himself so he must refuse to answer their Lordships questions. Again and again he was directed to withdraw, called back and told he must answer. Each time he prevaricated, and finally refused to take the oath at all. Seething with frustration the Lords dismissed him.
The House then proceeded to review Blunt’s extraordinary behaviour and came up with the following Resolution:
“That Sir John Blunt having been asked several Questions, by the Committee of the whole House, upon Oath, and having refused to give any answer is guilty of the highest Contempt of this House, manifestly tending to defeat all Parliamentary Inquiries and Examinations, and of dangerous Consequence to the Constitution.”
A debate then ensued in which tensions grew. Some peers went so far as to accuse others of being secretly allied with Blunt and soon tempers began to fray and some were lost. The Duke of Wharton impugned Lord Stanhope’s honor by suggesting he might be suffering from a venereal disease and Stanhope who was by then “seized with a transport of anger” told Wharton that his father would have easily sacrificed him for his own preferment.

Duke of Wharton Lord Stanhope
And so it went until suddenly Stanhope leaned forward, overcome by a violent headache, and collapsed. He was carried from the chamber and a day later was “seized with a suffocation” and died instantly from a cerebral hemorrhage. King George was so upset to have suffered the “loss of so able and faithful a minister, of whose service his Majesty had so great need at this critical juncture” that he could not eat his dinner that night and retired early to bed. Stanhope’s collapse might have been precipitated by heavy drinking the night before.
After the parliamentary inquiries were over, it was decided to impose a levy on the estates of the directors by means of an act of Parliament known as the South Sea Sufferers Bill. To begin the process, the directors were made to provide Parliament with a complete list of all their estates and from this Parliament would then levy a fine on each. The inventory that Sir John Blunt produced (see title page below) ran to eighty pages while that of his wife’s step son in law Stephen Child’s was slightly less.
Title page of Stephen Child’s inventory
In an attempt to protect her estate from being counted among her husband’s, Susannah (Cradock) (Banner) (Tudman) Blunt published a petition on 17th July, 1721, which she presented to both houses of Parliament and which read, in part, as follows:

‘…. if the Bill for raising Money … should pass into a Law, the Petitioner’s Husband will be divested of his whole Estate; whereby he will not only be disabled from performing his Promise of making an Addition to her Fortune, but the Petitioner be deprived of the Possession and Income of her own Estate during her said Husband’s Life [and she prays that] their Lordships will take the Petitioner’s miserable Case into Consideration, and grant that the Estate she brought her said Husband on Marriage may be vested in Richard Mynshull of The Inner Temple and Abraham Crop of London, Merchant, her present Trustees, for her separate Use and Disposal; or that the Petitioner may be otherwise relieved.

The decision of both houses was that Susannah’s petition be rejected.


But Susannah did not give up easily and at the end of October, 1728, she and three of her daughters were found handing out her husband’s petition (The Case of Sir John Blunt) to the members of the House of Commons as they entered the chamber. The newspapers at the time reported on her activities:





From The London Evening Post 24th October, 1728.

On Tuesday last, Sir John Blunt’s Lady and Three Daughters, attended at the Door of the House of Commons, and delivered to the Members, as they passed, the printed Case of Sir John, as it relates to his Lady; with whom, it sets forth, he had a large Fortune; that her Settlement is only of her own Fortune, the Income whereof, during his Life, will, by the Bill now depending, be taken away with the rest of his Estate: That he solemnly promised her before Marriage, he would make a considerable Addition to her Fortune, and publicly declared it; and therefore did put several Sums into South-Sea Stock and Subscriptions for her Use and Benefit, which he hath brought with the Gain thereof, into the Inventory of his Estate. So that she has no manner of Profit or Advantage from the Rise of the Stock; and that she hath, by a former Husband, Eleven Children and Grandchildren; and her Children’s Fortunes being in the Redeemable Annuities, subscribed into the South-Sea Company, the greatest part thereof is sunk and lost thereby.

Despite their best efforts, lasting almost eight years, to protect as much of their property from being leveraged as possible, there was little that John and Susannah could do.

In order to meet the levy placed on his estate by Parliament, assets had to be raised which included a house at Stratford in Essex that was placed on the market for let or for sale (The Daily Post, 2nd March, 1722).
To be SOLD, or LET,
At Stratford in Essex, over against Sir John Blunt’s,
a Lease of about Nine Years of a large House, with four Rooms of a Floor besides Office-Houses with a large Garden, and valuable-Greens, and a Field adjoyning, with Coach-house, Stabling for 7 or 8 Horses, and a large Barn, with Brew-house, Wash-house, and all other Conveniences for a Family. Enquire at the said House, or at Mr. Strahan’s against the Royal Exchange.

This house may have been the house Susannah inherited from Benjamin Tudman but as John Blunt owned a number of properties in Essex and Susannah eventually died at her Stratford home it is not possible to determine exactly which house this is.
The South Sea House, where Henry Man served as Deputy Secretary

In 1723 Henry Blunt, John’s son; Benjamin Tudman, Jnr., and George Goodwin made an attempt to claim against Blunt’s estate as this newspaper article indicates:



Trustees-Office South-Sea House, July 11, 1723. Whereas Notice has been given in writing to the Claimants on the Estate late of Sir John Blunt, Bart. (one of the late Directors of the South Sea Company) that the Trustees in whom the Estate of the said Sir John Blunt is vested, will inquire into the Claims made on his Estate on the 16th, 17th, 23d, 2sth and 26th Days of this Instant July. And whereas the Places of Abode of Henry Blunt, George Goodwin, and Benjamin Tudman, cannot be found; Notice thereof is hereby given by the said Trustees, that they will inquire into the Claims of the said Henry Blunt, George Goodwin and Benjamin Tudman, made on the Estates late of the said Sir John Blunt, on Tuesday the 30th Instant at Nine in the Forenoon, at their Office in the South Sea House in Broad-street, London, at which Time the said Claimants are required to attend.

Other assets belonging to Blunt were listed by the newspapers and gradually disposed of such as those that appeared in The Daily Journal on 20th December, 1728.

The Estate late of Sir John Blunt, Bart. being the Moiety of the Manors of Eastham Burnells, Westham Burnells, and Tenements in the Parishes of Barking, Woolwich, Eastham, and Westham in the Counties of Essex and Kent, put up at 3500l. and sold for 4820 l. to Captain Bell.

The public, enthralled by the process, began to speculate on the amounts that could be raised from the Directors’ estates:

‘Tis hoped that the Directors Estates will produce much more than Twelve Hundred Thousand Pounds, as was at first talked of, since we are assured Sir John Blunt’s and Mr. Grigsby’s only, amount to Seven Hundred Thousand Pound; however, the Whole Accounts are so voluminous, that they will take up the Committee near a Fortnight’s Time to Ballance, and till that is done, and an Estimate made of the Particulars, there can be no Certainty.

In the end, Sir John Blunt raised more than £183,000 and of this he was initially allowed to keep only £1,000, but his allies in Parliament eventually raised that to £5,000.
In his True State of the South-Sea Scheme, Blunt defended his record, accused the Bank of England of driving the company to exploit speculators, and finally blamed:

The distemper of the times, which captivated the Reason of Mankind in General, not only in England … who leaving the usual Methods of Labour and Industry … were all tainted with the fond Opinion of being rich at once.



It was Blunt’s pervasive tone of righteous indignation throughout his True State that led Alexander Pope to begin his poem with a tongue in cheek: ‘Much Injured Blunt!’

Stephen Child, as a Director of the South Sea Company, had to make a full accounting of all his assets which amounted to £64,687. However he claimed in a separate case to Parliament (see his broadsheet in the Appendix) that his involvement in the Company was minimal and he protests his absolute ignorance of any “mischievous Designs” and concludes that “Wife and Family are destitute of all other Subsistence” as he has “no employment and [is] out of trade and business”. However, as with Blunt, Parliament rejected his appeal and placed demands on his estate that required Child to sell some of his assets. In the end, Parliament was more lenient with Child than it was with Blunt, perhaps in part because of whose son he was, allowing him to keep £10,000.

Stephen Child, Esq; one of the late Directors of the South Sea Company, was on Wednesday last cleared by the Trustees, and had his Allowance out of his Estate according to the Act of Parliament.


In March, 1727, while in the process of having his estate levied by Parliament John Blunt employed a member of the House of Commons, John Ward, to help him hide fifty thousand pounds of his soon-to-be forfeited estate in a secret conveyance. However in the midst of the process Ward was arrested on an unrelated charge of forgery and thereby his dealings with Blunt were revealed. Blunt confessed and was not punished, but Ward was expelled from the Commons, placed in the pillory and finally imprisoned for a while in The Tower .

In 1732, a year before he died, Blunt’s armorial ambitions got the better of him and, like Tudman, he was prosecuted for the use of arms to which he was not entitled:


On Tuesday a Court of Honour was held at the Hall in the Office of Arms at Doctors Commons, when the Articles against Sir John Blount Bart. for assuming the Arms of Blount Lord Montjoye (now borne by Sir Edward Blount, of Sodington in Worcestershire, Bart. of that Family) were read and admitted, after several Arguments made against them by Dr. Andrews, and Dr. Paul, and which were supported by Dr. Henchman, etc.

It is ironic that the members of the Blount family that Blunt tried to attach himself to armorially were friends of Alexander Pope. In a letter that Edward Blount wrote to the poet he says: “I have a secret pleasure, to have some of my descendants know, that their ancestor was ‘great with Pope’.” In the letters which passed between them, Edward appears to have been a scholar, a man of sense, and of liberal principles. (From: The Genealogical History of the Croke Family).


One of the last times that Blunt’s name appeared in the newspapers was when he placed two advertisements in The Daily Journal. One appeared on 5th May, 1729 and the other on 17th April, 1732.
Stratford, May 5.
WHEREAS Thomas Parker, Coachman to Sir John Blunt, and before that, Coachman to Mr. Sallway, of Statford in Essex, hath absented himself from the Service of the said Sir John Blunt, and without his Leave, ever since Tuesday Morning the 29th of April last, these are therfore to warn every Person against receiving or entertaining the said Thomas Parker; and if any Person will bring the said Thomas Parker to the said Sir John Blunt’s, at Startford, so that he may be brought to Justice, such Person shall recive a Reward of 5 s. for so doing.
John Blunt. Stratford, April 17, 1732.
Whereas John Eastlake Footman to Sir John Blunt, and who before lived with Mr. Watson, a Blackwell-Hall Factor in Lothbury, hath absented himself from the Service of his said Master Sir John Blunt, ever since Tuesday Morning the 13th Instant; these are to require him to return immediately to his said Master’s Service, and to warn all Persons not to receive, harbour, or entertain him, as they will answer the contray to their Peril; and who ever shall bring him to his said Master at Stratford, on or before the 27th Instant, shall receive a Reward of 5s.
The Deaths of John and Susannah Blunt and their Wills

On 8th January, 1732, The Daily Courant denied reports of Sir John’s death.

The Report of the Death of Sir John Blunt, as mentioned in several Papers of yesterday, is without Foundation, altho’ he continues
very much indisposed.

Blunt died at Bath in Somerset on 24th January, 1732/33, aged sixty-three, as reported in the newspaper:
Last Week was remarkable for the Death of two famous Men, viz. Sir John Blunt, the Chief Projector of the fatal South-Sea Scheme of 1720, who died at Bath on Wednesday; and Mr. Woolston Author of the Discourses on our Saviour’s Miracles, who died on Saturday night.

It is probably safe to say that the author of the Discourses mentioned above is less well known today than is Blunt. Another newspaper reported on his death some days later:

Sir John Blunt, Bart. so much noted for the Share he had in the fatal South Sea Scheme, having been long indispos’d, dy’d at Bath on Wednesday Morning.

After its arrival in London, Sir John’s corpse was first laid out in state at Armourers and Brasiers Hall:

On Monday Night the Corpse of Sir John Blunt was brought from the Bath to Founders Hall; and will be interred in a private Manner at the Burying-Ground in Moorsfields, where the Corpse of his late Wife was deposited.

Last Night the Corpse of Sir John Blunt lay in State at Armorers and Brasiers Hall in Coleman-street, and was interr’d the same Evening with great Funeral Solemnity at the Burying-Ground in Moorfields in a Vault with his Wife.

His wife being Elizabeth (Court) Blunt who died in 1708.

Below left Armourers’ and Braziers’ Old Hall where John Blunt’s corpse lay in state before being buried at Moorfields. The hall was torn down in 1840.
Armourers’ and Braziers’ Old Hall where John Blunt’s body lay in state
Moorfields – the dissenters cemetery where
John Blunt was buried in the same vault as his first wife

The Will of Sir John Blunt

By his will, written at Bath in Somerset and dated 13th February, 1730, Blunt was able to bequeath £13,000 to his family. He identifies himself as Baronet of Stratford Langhorne in Essex, and notes that he writes the will himself, falling back on his early training as a scrivener. Below is the final part of his will after John has distributed his estate, most of which went to his wife, Susannah (Cradock) (Banner) (Tudman).

I wholly bequeath unto my dear and loving wife Susanna who I hereby make and ordain the sole and only Executrix of this my last will and testament and I require and command all my children to behave themselves dutifully and respectfully to her and to the end my said dear wife may quietly enjoy the severall legacies and bequests herein given devised or bequeathed unto her or for her benefit without any trouble or interruption from any of my children I think fitt hereby to declare that the Residue hereby given and devised to her is not very considerable and that before any of my children respectively shall take or receive any benefitt or advantage by this my will or by the Legacies or bequests hereby to them respectively given or bequeathed each of them respectively shall in Due form of Law Seal and Execute to my said Executrix a Generall Release in writing of all claims and demands whatsoever in respect of my Estate except for or in respect of any restitution or satisfaction which shall or may hereafter be made of or in respect of my estate of above two hundred thousand pounds which hath been most unjustly taken from me by a cruel and unjust Act of Parliament for it is my will and I do hereby direct that in case it shall at any time hereafter please God to inspire the Nation with that due sense of Justice as to make any Restitution or Satisfaction of or for or in respect of all or any part of my said Estate so unjustly taken away that whatever shall be had or received for or in respect of such restitution or satisfaction shall; be equally divided between my said six children…

The Blunt baronetcy was assumed by John’s eldest son Henry, (Harry) although soon after disaster struck the family as reported by The Weekly Miscellany of 24th February, 1733:
On Monday Night between 11 and 12 o’Clock, a Fire broke out in the upper Part of the House of Sir Harry Blount, in Laurence-Pountney Lane, which entirely destroy’d that House, and damag’d the adjoining. This dreadful Accident is said to be owing to the Carelessness of a Servant in the Nursery; the Family were all saved, but had fearce Time to preserve some Part of their Plate, &c.

The family survived the fire and some few days later Lady Blunt was delivered of a baby boy.
A few Days since the Lady of Sir Henry Blunt, who was lately
burnt out on St. Lawrence Pountney-Hill, was safely deliverd of
a Son, at his house in Dean’s-Court in Doctor’s Commons, and on
Monday last he was baptized by the Name of Henry.
22nd March, 1733

Eighteen month’s later tragedy befell Sir Henry once more although ‘mortification’ was not as close as feared and he eventually died in 1759.
A few Days since, as Sir Heny [sic] Blunt, Bart. Son of the late
Sir John Blunt Bart. was a Hunting in Essex, leaping
over a small Ditch, he bruis’d himself in so terrible a man-
ner, that it is fear’d Mortification will ensue.
2nd December, 1734

The Death of Susannah (Craddock) (Banner) (Tudman) Blunt

Ten years after the death of Sir John Blunt, his widow Susannah (Cradock) (Banner) (Tudman) Blunt died at Stratford in Essex on 8th September, 1743.
On Wednesday Night last died at her House at Stratford, the Lady Blount, Relict of Sir John Blount, Bart. one of the Directors of the South Sea Company in 1720.

Among those listed as buried in the registry of St. Vedast in Foster Lane, on 16th September, 1743, is: Dame Susanna Blunt, a Stranger, buried in ye North Isle. Her burial at St. Vedast was made in accordance with her will as in it she states that she wishes to be buried near the remains of her first husband John Banner.

On 22nd February, 1745, an advertisement was placed in the newspapers:
To be LETT,
The House late inhabited by the Lady BLOUNT, near Stratford in Essex, consisting of five Rooms on a Floor, with Coach-Houses, and Stabling for ten Horses, and all convenient Offices, all in very good Repair, with four Acres of Garden Ground well-planted with all sorts of Fruits.
Enquire of Mr. William Houghton in Beam’s Buildings, Chancery-Lane; or of Mr. Henry Balchen, in Mansfield-Street, Goodman’s Fields.

The Henry Balchen of Mansfield Street noted above was the uncle of Mary (Balchen) Man and Elizabeth (Balchen) Cumberland and it was probably at his house that Mary’s son Henry Man was born in 1748 and after whom he was named. Henry Balchen lived at Mansell Street not Mansfield Street as the advertisement would have it. William Houghton and Henry Balchen were both named in Abraham Cropp’s will. William Houghton was also referred to in Abigail Cropp’s will as having married her cousin Olimpea.
Mansell Street and Goodman’s Fields

The Will of Susannah Blunt

Susannah’s will was prepared on 29th November, 1742, and proved on 10th September, 1743. She is described as Dame Susannah Blunt, widow, of the parish of Westham in the county of Essex and her sole Executrix is her daughter Susannah (Banner) Cropp, wife of Abraham Cropp, Esq. She bequeaths to the following:

Son Richard Banner Esquire and wife. She also forgives his debt owed to her and gives him the interest from two thousand pounds of South Sea Annuities ‘standing in the name of Abraham Cropp and Abraham Henckell Esquires’.
Son-in-law Abraham Cropp and his wife [Susannah];
Grandson James Cropp;
Granddaughter Sarah Cropp;
Grandson Richard Cropp [Richard is added in the left margin and is barely visible].

Her five Purcell grandchildren: James, John, Edward, Thomas, and Maria Theresa. Maria Theresa gets over one thousand pounds, James five hundred, and the other three Purcell brothers an annuity of twenty five pounds each to be paid out twice a year. Also, when her son Richard Banner dies her granddaughter Maria Theresa Purcell is to receive the interest that he had been receiving from the South Sea Annuities mentioned above.

[Susannah appears to have out lived most of her ‘Banner’ children including John, Sarah, Elizabeth, and Esther (Purcell) as she only mentions two – Richard Banner and Susannah Cropp]

Sister Sarah (Cradock) Boulter and brother Richard Cradock.

Her Kinsman: Captain John Balchen and his brother Henry Balchen and Henry’s wife Mary. Mrs. Martha [Hitchcock] Balchen, “widow of my late kinsman, Richard Balchen”, and their children viz: three sons William, James (see following paragraph), and one unnamed son and three daughters Elizabeth [who married George Cumberland], Mary [who married John Man], and Ann [omitted is Susannah].

To James Balchen another son of the said Martha Balchen three hundred pounds be paid into the hands of Captain John Balchen and Henry Balchen to be by them placed out at interest for his use till he is out of his apprenticeship and then the same is to be paid to him absolutely for his own use the interest whereof is to be for his clothing during his apprenticeship.

[A search of apprenticeship records has so far not uncovered any for James.]

And, as we have already noted, she names her kinsman Mr. Stephen Child, Mrs. Ewer, the daughter of the said Mr. Stephen Child, Cousin Jane Child, another daughter of Mr. Stephen Child.

Mrs. Watson, widow of the late Doctor Watson of Walbrook, London. [not sure who this is but the Watsons are mentioned in her sister Sarah’s will as well as John Blunt’s and Jonathan Boulter’s]

Friend Mrs. Cotton of Bethnal Green in the County of Middlesex. [This may well have been the mother of Thomas Cotton who in 1746 married Susannah’s granddaughter Maria Theresa Purcell]
Mrs. Mary Henckell of Manor Street, Chelsea in the County of Middlesex.

Sir Harry Blunt, Baronet, son of my late husband Sir John Blunt, Bart., and to his lady.

Also, the following brothers and their wives and sisters of the said Sir Harry Blunt:
Mr. William Blunt and his wife.
Mr. Charles Blunt and his wife Elizabeth.
Elizabeth [Blunt] Young, widow.
Mrs. Parkes, wife of Mr. Parkes, watchmaker

Mrs. Parkes is Rachel Blunt who first married her cousin Samuel Blunt who witnessed Benjamin Tudman’s will. Two newspaper articles referring to Rachel are shown below. The first refers to her second marriage to John Parkes:
The same Day Mr. John Parkes, an eminent Merchant, was married to Mrs. Blunt, Relict of Samuel Blunt, Esq. and Daughter of the late Sir John Blunt, Bart. a Lady of great Merit and considerable Fortune. Daily Post 30th May, 1739

The second article announces Rachel (Blunt) Parkes’ death:
Yesterday the Corps of Mrs. Rachel Parkes, the Wife of Mr. John Parkes, Merchant and Watchmaker, in Cornhill, was decently interr’d in the Parochial Church of St. Mary at Islington. She was the Daughter of Sir John Blunt, Bart., and Sister to Sir Henry Blunt, Bart. in Lawrence-Pountney-Lane; and was a Gentlewoman both of a Considerable Fortune and Accomplishments, and a loving and caring Wife of strict Virtue, and great Merit, which makes the Loss of her greatly lamented. Daily Advertiser 6th September, 1744.

All the rest and residue of her estate she leaves to her daughter Susannah Cropp her sole executrix.

She wishes that her ‘body be interred in Foster Lane church, Cheapside in London near the remains of my late husband Banner’[i.e. St. Vedast].

She … ‘nominates and appoints my friend Abraham Henckell of London Merchant and my kinsman Henry Balchen trustees to see the due and true performance of this my last will and testament.’
Probate was granted on 20th September, 1743, to Susannah (Banner) Cropp.
The family tree of the Blunt family below is from The Baronetage of England by William Bateham page 197, and shows Susannah (Craddock) Blunt’s death occurring in 1752, nine years after it in fact did.


This may have been because of a mistake that appeared in an issue of The London Evening-Post on 21st December, 1752.

On Thursday last died at her Seat at Twickenham, Lady Blount, Widow of the late Sir John Blount, one of the South-Sea Directors in the Year 1720.

There was a Blount family of Twickenham, one which was particularly close to the poet Alexander Pope, (see note on Edward Blount above) but which had nothing to do with Sir John Blunt of the South Sea Company, nor his widow. And, as we have noted, it was this Blount family whose armorial bearings John Blunt had tried unsuccessfully to assume. An attempt which was repeated by his son Sir Henry Blunt in March, 1736:–

Yesterday was held a Court of Honour in the Painted Chamber, Westminster, before the Right Hon. the Earl of Effingham, Deputy Earl-Marshall of England; when the Examples exhibited against Sir Henry Blunt, Son of Sir John Blunt, Bt. for bearing (as they alledge) Arms which did not belong to him, were learnedly argued by the Civilians on both sides for some time, and were admitted; after which the Court adjourned to the 19th of this Month.
Yesterday Sir Edmund Isham Bart. Judge of the Earl Marshal’s Court, gave the following Sentence between Dr. Henchman and Sir Henry Blunt, Bart. That Sir Henry Blunt had usurp’d the Arms libell’d against; that he shall within 35 Days disclaim them, expunge, blot out and deface them, wherever painted or engrav’d; pay 100l. and certify the Earl Marshal that he had obeyed this Sentence before the 26th of October next, to which Day the Court was adjourn’d. And
We are inform’d that Sir Henry Blunt, not being willing to have his Right to the Arms he bears try’d there, did not oppose their Sentence, but has appeal’d to the Court of Delegates, where he intends to have it determin’d.

From The Heraldry of Worcestershire: Being a Roll of the Arms Borne by the Several Noble, Knightly, and Gentle Families ….

The Court of Chivalry, or Earl Marshal’s Court; (before which tribunal offenders against heraldic law were summoned to appear), had from abuses become a public grievance, and “as obnoxious as the Star Chamber.” Its dissolution was proposed in Parliament by the Earl of Clarendon as early as 1640. As it cannot imprison (says Blackstone), and as by the resolutions of the superior courts it is now confined to so narrow and restricted a jurisdiction, it has fallen into contempt and disuse. “It nevertheless lingered on till about the year 1737, when an action was brought against Sir John Blunt [actually Henry], of South Sea notoriety, for usurping the arms of the distinguished family of Blount, of Sodington. But the whole business was imprudently begun, and unskilfully conducted the lawyers who were consulted laughed at it ; and although the court proceeded so far as to fine some of the parties, it was unable to carry its decision into effect; and so the Blunt family carry to this day with impunity the time-honoured bearings of the Blounts, of Sodington.

Whatever armorial ambitions Sir John Blunt, and later his son, may have had were more than made up for by at least one of their descendants. For instance, a direct descendant was Edmund Walter Blunt (1869-1939) who married Sibel Mackenzie the eldest daughter of the 2nd Earl of Cromartie who died without leaving a son. The title passed to the earl’s daughter, Sibel (Mackenzie) Blunt, thus making Edmund Blunt the 3rd Earl. Their son Roderick Blunt became the 4th Earl and the Chief of the Clan Mackenzie.
Blount of Sodington The Arms of the Earl of Cromartie now borne
by a direct descendant of Sir John Blunt’s

Because of the heavy involvement of Susannah Cradock’s family in the South Sea Company and the extraordinary number of familial connections that existed among its directors, a separate ‘paper’ concerned only with the families of the directors, and how these are related to one another will be produced later.


























As noted, Sarah was the eldest daughter of Richard and Hester (Palmer) Cradock and the sister of Susannah (Cradock) Blunt. She was born in 1667 and baptized on 2nd April, 1667, at St. Mary’s, Hornsey.
Sara Cradock the Daughter of Mr Richard Cradock and of Mrs Esther his wife. Baptiezed the second day of April 1667.

On 25th June, 1713, at the age of forty-six, Sarah married Jonathan Boulter at All Hallows, Staining. She was his second wife and there were no children.
June 25th Jonathan Boulter, of Bermondsey in Surry
& Sarah Cradock, of St Clement’s Eastcheap
+ Licen: Marry’d by Mr. Heath.

We know little of Sarah (Cradock) Boulter’s life. Abraham Cropp’s will mentions a charity school in Lambourn Road, Bermondsey, belonging to her and that is about all. That is, until right at the very end, when an incident occurred at Sarah’s house on 11th October, 1748, the day before she died, and which was reported by The London Evening Post on 13th October.

This event heralded the beginning of a long and complicated court case involving Sarah’s will and her intentions . The plaintiff in the case was Gilbert Jodrell, the husband of Sarah’s niece Mary (Cradock) Jodrell (died March, 1745). The defendants were the Balchen family supported by members of the Cropp and Roffey families. The incident described below, which Elizabeth (Balchen) Cumberland and her mother Martha (Hitchcock) Balchen observed, was later re-told by them in graphic detail during the trial.


London Evening Post, 13th October, 1748

Last Tuesday Night three well dress’d Men went to the House of Mrs. Boulter, a Bedridden Gentlewoman of eighty Years of Age, in Crutched-Fryars, and Relict of Mr. Boulter, formerly in Partnership with Mr. Roffey, an eminent Distiller in Barnaby Street, Southwark, and demanded Admittance into the House, under Colour of being Heirs at Law to Mrs Boulter, who was very ill at that Time; on which Mrs. Balchen, who had the Care of the Family, sent a Message to Mr. Cropp, an eminent Merchant in Fenchurch-Street: (who is Mrs. Boulter’s next Heir by Marriage) who came to the House next Morning; but on being denied Admittance, he applied to Sir Daniel Lambert, Knt. Alderman of Tower Ward, who ordered the Peace Officers to force open the Door, on which the Company, who had taken Possession of the House, retir’d to a Two-pair of Stairs Room, the Door of which was also broken open, and the persons secured.

Sarah Boulter died on 12th October, 1748, and was buried on 20th October at St. Magnus the Martyr (see burial record below – second to last line).
Boulter Mrs Sarah Boulter ……………………………………… 20

Note that the record above also shows the burial of Sarah’s brother Richard Cradock, Jnr. on 20th July, 1748 (third line from the top). It was in part Richard’s death before Sarah’s which precipitated the crisis over Sarah’s will and which led to the “home invasion” described in The London Evening Post (above). Another death, that of Sarah’s niece Mary (Cradock) Jodrell’s on 12th March, 1745, also contributed to the legal wrangling as to who should benefit under Sarah’s will. The men who pushed their way into Sarah’s house claiming to be Sarah’s ‘heirs at law’ were under the orders Sarah’s niece’s husband, Gilbert Jodrell.
Above looking along Fish Street, toward the Monument and St. Magnus

Eighteenth century burial records often vary in how much description is given as to where a particular person is buried. Although a burial record may state ‘In the church’ this could also mean in the graveyard of the church and not necessarily inside the building itself. If someone was buried within the church then usually on the burial record the location within the church is given such as ‘chancel’ or ‘middle aisle’, etc.

For instance, there were three other burials, besides Richard and Sarah’s, at St. Magnus the Martyr involving members of the Cradock family. In each case their burials occurred within the church and a description of the location is given on the record.

First, Susannah (Bourne) Cradock, Richard Cradock, Snr. and Susannah (Cradock) Barnes’s mother and Sarah (Cradock) Boulter’s grandmother. Susannah was buried on 14th February, 1695/96 at the age of 91 in the South chapel near the vestry door.
1695 Burials Anno Domo
Mrs Susanah Craddock in to the ___ Vault [?] in
The South Chapell of ye Vestrey Doar ye 14 Febry 14

Second, Susannah (Cradock) Barnes daughter of the above Susannah and Richard Snr.’s sister. She was buried on 27th April, 1706, likewise in the vault near the vestry door [fifth name on the list below].
Barnes Mrs Susanna Barnes was Burried in the Vault near ye Vestrey Door on ye 27th April 1706

Third, Richard Cradock, Snr. was buried on 13th June, 1712, and again the location is in the vault by the vestry door.
Craddock. Rd: Craddock Esq: in the Vault by the Vestry door: June 13

Thus at least three members of the Cradock family are buried within St. Magnus the Martyr. Whether Sarah and Richard, Jnr. were as well we cannot tell from the record itself but the absence of any location suggests they were buried outside in the churchyard. However, those who had been buried in the churchyard were subsequently removed and buried elsewhere as a result of the building of a nearby access road for the new London Bridge at the beginning of the 19th Century. The images below show on the left St Magnus the Martyr and on the right the Old London Bridge being torn down circa 1824 with St. Magnus the Martyr in the distance.

St. Magnus the Martyr left and right the pulling down of the old London Bridge
with St. Magnus in the background

After her death Sarah’s household effects were put up for auction.

On Wednesday next the 10th Inst. and the Two following Days;
THE Household Furniture and valuable Effects of Mrs. SARAH BOULTER, deceased; at her late Dwelling-House in Crutched-Friare, the Corner of the Gateway going into Savage-Gardens.
Consisting of Variety of Household and Kitchen Furniture, Linnen, fine Chints, Quilts and Counterpanes, Sideboard of Plate, fine old China and Japan both useful and ornamental, two exceeding fine new Persia Carpets, the deceased’s Wardrobe of Wearing Apparel, Jewels, and Town Coach with Harness, and one Coach Horse, etc.
The whole to be viewed to the Time of Sale, which will begin each Day at Half an Hour after Eleven o’Clock; and Catalogues delevr’d the Days of the Viewing at the Place of Sale.

The Will of Sarah Boulter

Sarah’s will was prepared on the 4th April, 1745, some three years before her death, and proved on the 6th March, 1754 (a long time). She is described as Sarah Boulter, widow, of Crutched Fryars, London. Her executor and main beneficiary was intended to be her unmarried younger brother Richard Cradock, Jnr. of the Middle Temple but, as we have seen, Richard died before Sarah. Whom Sarah intended in the place of Richard, as well as the disposal of her estate in general, led to the court case already referred to.

Sarah leaves a series of small legacies mostly of one hundred pounds or less to each of the following:

A. Children and grandchildren of her sister Susannah: Mrs. Susan [Banner] Cropp [wife of Abraham]; Mr. Richard Cropp; Mrs. Sarah [Cropp] Long; Richard Banner and his wife [Mary (Davies)]; unnamed Mrs. Purcell, now living with the said Richard Banner. [The identity of Mrs Purcell is a puzzle although the most likely candidate is Catherine (Brooke) Purcell, Richard’s sister Esther (Banner) Purcell’s sister in law]

B. Children of her brother William Cradock: Mary (Cradock) Jodrell [wife of Gilbert]; Sheldon Cradock and his wife, unnamed.

C. Cousins – The Balchens: Mr. Henry Balchen, living in Goodman’s Fields; Ms. Elizabeth Balchen [wife of George Cumberland, Snr.]; Susan Balchen; Mary Balchen [wife of John Man]; and unnamed Balchen [Ann], sisters of the said Elizabeth Balchen; Mr. James Balchen and Mr. William Balchen; Widow (Martha) Balchen [née Hitchcock]. She was the mother of Susan, Ann, Mary [Man], Elizabeth [Cumberland], James, and William [Balchen]. In her will Sarah notes that Elizabeth Balchen had been living with her and caring for her for six years.

D. The Roffeys: Mrs. Mary Roffey, widow [of Nathaniel Roffey, Snr.], of Peckham, Surrey and her sons: William Roffey, distiller, of Barnaby Street, Surrey, and his wife [unnamed]; Samuel Roffey, distiller, of the same place, and his wife [unnamed]; James Roffey and his wife[unnamed]; Nathaniel Roffey, Jnr., merchant, of Devonshire Square near Bishopsgate and his wife[unnamed]; John Roffey, “who is now beyond sea”; and Jonathan Roffey.

E. Others: Mr. James Watson, of Peckham and his wife, unnamed. [He may be the Dr. Watson also mentioned in the wills of Jonathan Boulter, Susannah (Cradock) Blunt, and John Blunt.]

F. Servants: Coachman Samuel Medley; Housekeeper Hannah Penn; and “the rest of my servants who shall be in my service at the time of my decease.”
Sarah leaves the bulk of her estate to ‘My loving brother, Richard Craddock, Esq., of the Temple, London’ including:

‘all my wearing apparel both Linen and woolen to be disposed of as he shall think fit together with all my diamonds, jewels, and plate and I give devise and bequeath to my said brother Richard Craddock all my South Sea stock Bank stock Old and New South Sea Annuity stock and the dividends and interest and produce now due or hereafter to grow due thereon and all my ready money arrears of Rents Rates and Securities for money and all the rest residue and remainder of my estate whatsoever and wheresoever and what nature or kindsoever to hold absolutely forever and I do hereby institute and appoint Richard Craddock sole executor….’

Sarah then adds a ‘Memorandum’ dated 11th June, 1748, in which directs the administrator of her estate to:

… pay Elizabeth Balchen, now living with me; her mother Martha Balchen; Martha Balchen’s other children, William Balchen, Susannah Balchen, Mary [Man] Balchen and Ann Balchen, Mr. Henry Balchen and his wife.

Unfortunately she does not specify the amount that the Balchens are supposed to be paid which only added fuel to the fire in the court case that followed her death.



Jonathan Boulter married twice. His second marriage to Sarah Cradock we have already noted while his first to the widow Elizabeth (Tyers) Roffey took place on 29th April, 1690, at All Hallows, London Wall (as shown below, last line). There were no children of this marriage either.
Jonathan Boulter & Eliz. Roffey

Before her marriage to Jonathan Boulter, Elizabeth née Tyers had first married James Roffey, although the record
for this has not yet been located. James and Elizabeth (Tyers) Roffey had two sons: Nathaniel and James.

In 1683 James Roffey, distiller, died and was buried on 7th October, at St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey. He is the fifth burial entry on the parish record below.


James wrote his will a few days before he died on 3rd October, 1683. In it he identifies himself as a distiller, living in the parish of St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey in Surrey. He leaves his entire estate to ‘my dear and well beloved wife Elizabeth’. He names his two sons – Nathaniel (who would marry Jonathan Boulter’s niece Mary Welden) and James – who are both very young. One of the witnesses to James Roffey’s will was Jonathan Boulter who would later marry James’s widow Elizabeth (Tyers) Roffey.

All Hallows, London Wall St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey in Surrey

Sarah Boulter, Jonathan’s sister, married James Welden on 25th May, 1676, at Holy Trinity, The Minories.
Mr Welden and Boulter May 25th. 1676
James Welden bachelor of St Pancras ? and Sarah Boulter
spinster of St Giles the Fields
James and Sarah (Boulter) Welden had three children: Mary the wife of Nathaniel Roffey who was the son of James and Elizabeth (Tyers) Roffey (details below), James, and Sarah who married William Gouge on 21st January, 1698, at St. Mary Sommet.

In 1705 James Welden died although his burial record has not been located. In his will dated 25th February, 1705, James Welden names his three children and makes his Mary wife his main beneficiary.

In 1710 Sarah the widow of James Welden died although so far no burial record has been located. In her will dated 6th March, 1710, Sarah (Boulter) Welden, widow of James Welden of St. Giles in the Fields and sister of Jonathan Boulter, bequeaths the bulk of her estate to her daughter Mary (Welden) Roffey wife of Nathaniel Roffey, Snr., as well as a small legacy ‘unto my Brother Jonathan Boulter and his wife’ [Elizabeth (Tyers) (Roffey) Boulter].

In 1712 Elizabeth (Tyers) (Roffey) Boulter died and her burial, which took place on 7th July at St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey, is recorded on the last line below.
7 Elizabeth the wife of Jonathan Boulter a distiller

In her will dated 7th July, 1711, but not probated until 7th December, 1733, Elizabeth refers to herself as:

The Wife of Jonathan Boulter of the Parish of St Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey in the County of Surrey, Distiller and late wife and relict of James Roffey distiller deceased.

Elizabeth’s will mentions a marriage settlement dated February, 1689, made between herself, Elizabeth Roffey widow and her husband Jonathan Boulter as one party and her brothers Thomas and Jonathan Tyers, Woolbuyers, as the other party. For some reason, this marriage settlement may have caused legal problems which kept Elizabeth’s will from being probated for over twenty years. Her will also names Jonathan Bradley as her sister’s son.

Thus to summarize – Jonathan Boulter married twice, first to Elizabeth Tyers, widow of James Roffey, and second to Sarah Cradock, but had no children by either marriage. Elizabeth’s son Nathaniel Roffey, Snr., by her marriage to James Roffey, married Jonathan Boulter’s niece Mary Welden, the daughter of his sister Sarah, wife of James Welden.

James and Sarah (Boulter) Welden’s son James, Jnr. married an Anne unknown and they had a daughter Sarah Welden who married her first cousin William Roffey, son of Nathaniel and Mary (Welden) Roffey (see chart).

In August, 1742, Jonathan Boulter died and his passing was reported with surprising accuracy by The Universal Spectator and Weekly Journal on 21st August, 1742, as follows:




On Saturday died, in the 85th Year of his Age, Mr. Bolter, an eminent Distiller in Barnaby-Street, who was never known to have had any Sickness ’till his Death: He had two Wives, the first whereof was the Widow of Mr. Roffey, a Distiller; and the last a Sister of Sir John Blount, with whom he had a fortune of 20,000 l. that was settled upon her as a Jointure; but had no Issue by either. He died worth upwards of 100,000l. the greatest Part whereof will fall among the Family of the Roffey’s, Grandchildren to his first Wife by a former Husband.

The reference to Sarah as Sir John Blunt’s sister is typical of the eighteenth century where the distinction between a sibling and an in law was not always maintained.

The Will of Jonathan Boulter

We are fortunate to have a number of wills of the Boulter, Roffey, and Tyers families and from them we are able to better understand the relations among these families.

In his will Jonathan Boulter describes himself as a ‘London Distiller’ of the parish of St. Olave, Hart Street. He appoints his daughter Mary, the wife of Nathaniel, Snr., as his main beneficiary and sole executrix. He signs his will on 21st July, 1733, and probate was granted to Mary (Welden) Roffey on 25th August, 1742.

The appointment of his daughter Mary might lead one to assume that Jonathan had a daughter however, as we have seen Jonathan had no issue and so he may well have ‘adopted’ his niece Mary as his daughter, especially as Mary’s parents James and Sarah (Boulter) Welden had died quite young. Of course in the eighteenth century ‘adoptions’ were not regulated or administered and adopting could be quite informal. Whatever the case Jonathan makes Mary his executor and main beneficiary.

Jonathan Boulter’s mother, Mary, made a will dated 9th August, 1705, in which she refers to herself as a widow living at Syston in the county of Leicestershire. Among others, she names her granddaughter Mary Welden as the daughter of her daughter Sarah (Boulter) Welden. This would confirm that Mary was Jonathan’s niece, not his daughter as stated in his will.

The lease of the house in which Jonathan and his wife Sarah are living at Crutchet Fryars, and where Sarah eventually died, is to revert to Mary after Sarah’s death. Sarah is also to enjoy a certain annuity.

Mary inherits: Messuages, Barns, Garden, and Appurtances there belonging situate and being at Enfield in the County of Middlesex; real estate at Siston in the County of Leicestershire Manor of Steeple Grange and Maylin, and all that my Messuage, lands, tenements and hereditaments thereto belonging, and all other my Mannors, hereditaments, lands and premises in the said county of Essex; my Freehold and Copyhold estate situate lying and being at King’s Walden or elsewhere in the County of Hereford; my Freehold estate at Shipley or elsewhere in the County of Sussex; my Freehold and Copyhold estate most near Hammersmith in the Parish of Fulham in the County of Middlesex; My messauges tenements and appurtances Situate and being in Queen Street and Parker Lane in the parish of Saint Giles in the Fields in the County of Middlesex or some other parish near adjoining.

Jonathan was also entitled to the Revision of a Small estate Near Dorking at or near adjoining in the County of Surrey.
He then bequeaths to his six surviving Roffey ‘grandsons’ [in fact his great nephews] in birth order: James, William, John, Samuel, Jonathan, and Nathaniel, Jnr.

Nephew Henry Boulter and Mary his wife and his children.
James Welden [his nephew being the son of his sister Sarah and her husband James Welden].

‘My niece Sarah Welden only daughter of my nephew James Welden’ [This is his great niece who married William Roffey].
My cousins William and Sarah Gough [actually Sarah was the sister of James Welden who married Jonathan’s sister Sarah Boulter. Sarah’s husband’s name was William Gouge]
My Niece Mary Noons.
Lady Blount [Susannah (Cradock) Blunt – his sister-in-law].
My brother Doctor Watson and his wife [Also named in the wills of Sarah Boulter, Susannah (Cradock) Blunt, and John Blunt but whose identity is not known].
My brother Richard Cradock [his brother-in-law]
The Reverend Mr. Read and Mr. Newman.
The children of my cousin Thomas Robinson deceased.
Mr. [Abraham] Cropp and his wife.
Cousin Anna Starcy of London, Milliner.
Jonathan Bradley [the brother-in-law of Elizabeth his first wife?].

He forgives ‘Susan [Susannah] Balchin all sums of money she shall be indebted to me at the time of my decease.’ Susannah (Barnes) Balchen was the daughter of Henry and Susannah (Cradock) Barnes; she married John Balchen and was Sarah (Cradock) Boulter’s first cousin. She was the grandmother of Elizabeth (Balchen) Cumberland and Mary (Balchen) Man.

Susannah (Barnes) Balchen died in November, 1737, aged 74, four years after Jonathan wrote his will and five years before his death and so nature took care of her debts.

In an advanced Age, at her House in Mansel-street, Goodman’s Fields, Mrs. Balchen, Mother to Capt. Balchen, Commander of the Onlsow, in the Service of the East-India Company.
Jonathan bequeaths: ‘All my part or share in Captain Balchin’s ships which I am part owner of.’

This is Captain John Balchen, the son of Susannah (Barnes) Balchen whose debts were forgiven, the uncle of Mary Man and Elizabeth Cumberland, and whose will Abraham Cropp executed. The ships were the Onslow and the James & Mary.

Parker’s Penny Post reported on 30th August, 1732:

Tuesday last: a large Ship was launch’d at Blackwall and call’d the Onslow in Compliment to the Right Hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons. She is designed for the East India Company’s Service, and is to be commanded by Capt. Balchen.

Jonathan also bequeaths sums to the poor of the village of Ratcliffe On The Wreake in Leicestershire where he was born, as well as to the poor of the parish of Siston (now Syston) in Leicestershire.

For details on the properties that Jonathan disposed of in his will see Appendix X.
A map of Bermondsey. Barnaby street dissects the map in a south easterly direction

There is an earlier Cradock connection with Bermondsey through Sarah (Cradock) Boulter’s mother Esther (Palmer) Cradock who inherited property located on Bermondsey Street in Southwark from her uncle Doctor Baldwyn Hamey.

Nathaniel Roffey Snr., was the son of James and Elizabeth (Tyers) Roffey. His baptismal record has not yet been located.

Nathaniel Roffey, Snr. and Mary Welden married on 7th May, 1706, at St. Bennet Fink, Threadneedle Street. Mary was the daughter of James and Sarah (Boulter) Welden, the niece of Jonathan Boulter.
Nathaniel Roffey of St Mary Magdalen in Surry & Mary Welden of St. George in ye Fields was maried ye 7 day of May 1706

Nathaniel and Mary (Welden) Roffey had a number of children, perhaps as many as thirteen. However beyond just two grandchildren, there appear to be no descendants.

In 1718 Nathaniel Roffey, Snr. was appointed Sherriff of Surrey:

St. Bennet Fink’s, Threadneedle Street

And typical of a merchant of the time Roffey advertised for the return of lost documents:
LOST or mislaid, an East India Bond for 100l. No. 4141, dated April 16, 1724, payable to Sir Gregory Page . Whoever brings it to Nathaniel Rofey, Esq; Distiller in Bermondsey-street, Southwark, shall have Ten Guineas Reward, and no Questions ask’d.
NB. It is of no Use to any but the Owner, Payment being stopt at the India-House.

Nathaniel, Snr’s death in June, 1733, was noted by the newspapers:
Yesterday died at his House in Bermondsey, alias Barnaby-street, Southwark, Nathaniel Roffey, Esq; an eminent Distiller, and one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the County of Surrey.

Below Nathaniel Roffey Snr.’s burial record dated 30th June, 1733, at St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey; he appears on the last line.
30 Nathaniel Roffey from Bermondsey Street

In his will dated 1733, Nathaniel names the following seven children: James, John, William, Samuel, Jonathan, Nathaniel, and Sarah. Mary their mother who would die thirty-two years later likewise names all these children in her will except for Jonathan who appears to have died by then (1764). (The Appendix contains a detailed description of some of the property belonging to Nathaniel Roffey, Snr.)

The distribution of Nathaniel Roffey, Snr.’s estate caught the attention of The London Journal on 7th July, 1733:

Nathaniel Roffey Esq; one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, who died a few Days ago at his House in Southwark, has left by his Will to his six children, viz. five Sons and one Daughter, 1000l. each, payable at the Age of Twenty-three; and the Residue of his real and personal Estate to his Wife, during her Life, and after her Death to devolve to the said Children.

On 25th March, 1764, aged 83 years, Nathaniel’s widow Mary (Welden) Roffey died and her passing was noted by the papers on 27th March, 1764.

On Monday died at her house at Clapham, Mrs. Roffey, mother of Samuel Roffey, Esq; Banker in Lombard-Street.

And again:


Below the burial record for Mary at St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey, on 2nd April, 1764; the cost of which appears to have been £1 17s. 8d., excluding the Warden who cost 6s.
April 2 Mrs Roffey from Peckham Buried in Church with Prayers in Do.

The monumental inscription below is taken from a description of St. Mary Magdalene found in The History and Antiquities of the Parish of Bermondsey by G. W. Phillips.
Some of the Roffeys and Weldens were ‘dissenters’ i.e. Baptists or Quakers, and some were not which is perhaps why the latter show up as baptized/married/buried in Anglican churches, and the former do not.



Notices of William Roffey’s birth and baptism have not been found, nor have those for his wife Sarah Welden.

On 7th May, 1734, at St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey, William Roffey the son of Nathaniel and Mary (Welden) Roffey, Snr. married Sarah Welden the daughter of James and Anne (unknown) Welden, Jnr. William and Sarah were first cousins.
Were married William Roffey of the
parish of St. Mary Magdalene Bermondsey
in the County of Surry Batchelor and
Sarah Welden of the same parish Spinster
by a metropolitan licence Roffey

William and Sarah (Welden) Roffey had two surviving children Boulter and Sarah. One child, Nathaniel, was born at Bermondsey but died and was buried on 27th May, 1740, at St. Mary Magdalene. The record is accompanied by an itemized list of the cost: Minister 5s. 3d., Clark 1s. 6d., Sexton 2s. 6d., Grave Diger [sic] 9s., totaling: 17s. and the additional cost of tolling the bells 3s.


27 Nathaniel son of Wm Roffey Bermondsey Street
Buried in the Church.

On 19th August, 1745, a case was brought against John Farmer at the Surrey Assizes for forging a Bill of Exchange which he attempted to cash with William and Samuel Roffey. However, Farmer managed to elude arrest and so the case against him could not proceed.

These are to Certify That at the Session of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden at Kingston upon Thames in and for the County of Surry on Thursday the Fifteenth day of this Instant August John Farmer late of the Parish of St. George Southwark in the sd County of Surry Labourer was and Stands indicted for that he on the Twentieth day of April now last past feloniously did falsly make forge and counterfeit a certain Bill of Exchange purporting to be signed by One Mary Williams & for feloniously uttering and publishing the same as a true Bill of Exchange then knowing the same to have been false forged and counterfeited with an intent to defraud William Roffey and Samuel Roffey of the Sum of Thirty Pounds against the Statute in Such case made & provided To which said Indictment He the said John Farmer hath not as yet pleaded Nor been arraigned thereupon Dated this Nineteenth day of August in the Nineteenth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King George the Second. 1745

A poem to William appeared in 1750 in Juvenilia: Poems on Various Subjects of Devotion and Virtue, by Thomas Gibbons. The first page is reproduced below left and its author right. Thomas Gibbons (1720-1785) was Independent minister of Haberdasher’s Hall (1743) and tutor of Mile End Academy (1754). He received the honorary degrees of M.A. from the College of New Jersey (1760) and D.D. from Aberdeen (1764).
Thomas Gibbons

A marriage license was issued at Long Ditton in Surrey on 24th November, 1763, to William Cowley of Long Ditton, gentleman, bachelor, aged 28, and Sarah Roffey [daughter of William and Sarah (Welden) Roffey] of Kingston, aged 25. Witnessed by Thomas Jones of Long Ditton, gentleman. Sarah died a few years later on 7th June, 1767, probably in childbirth.

The painting below by Sir Joshua Reynolds of the Roffey family, shows William in the center seated, his wife Sarah (née Welden), their daughter Sarah, and son Boulter.
The Roffey Family by Sir Joshua Reynolds

The date of the painting is not easily fixed. Most sources have Reynolds painting this picture in 1765. For example, one recent work, Sir Joshua Reynolds: A Complete Catalogue (2000) by David Mannings agrees on this date. Reynolds was paid £200 on 20th May, 1764, (see the last line in his account book below) which would suggest that the painting was done sometime between 1763 and 1765 when Sarah was still living.

Sir Joshua Reynolds Sir Joshua’s account book

Although Sarah married William Crowley in November, 1763, her husband does not appear in the painting which is somewhat odd. What may have happened is that Sir Joshua having painted the Roffey family after Sarah’s marriage, did not originally include her as she had by then established her own household at her husband’s domicile. However in 1767 Sarah died and Sir Joshua may have been asked to add her.

This was not the only painting Reynolds did of the Roffeys. In September, 1765, he painted William and wife Sarah. He also painted two portraits of William alone: one in January, 1766, and another in June, 1769. In October, 1765, he painted a portrait of son Boulter.

In Sir Joshua Reynolds: First President of the Royal Academy by Sir Walter Armstrong, William Roffey is mentioned as being someone frequently visited by Sir Joshua although the author expresses complete ignorance as to who these Roffeys were or as Armstrong puts it: “ … of whom I know nothing but that Sir Joshua seems to have visited him [William] a good deal.”
Kingston upon Thames in 1767

In September, 1785, William Roffey’s death announcement appeared in The Gentleman’s Magazine:

DIED.] On Monday at Surbiton-house, near Kingston upon Thames, William Roffey, Esq. aged 72.

William Roffey of Kingston upon Thames, Esquire, made his will on 11th February, 1784, in which he appoints his wife Sarah as sole executrix. He names his son Boulter and his son in law William Cowley as beneficiaries. His daughter Sarah is not mentioned having died in 1767.

The following transcription of a wall monument in the parish church at Hammersmith is from The History and Antiquities of the Parish of Hammersmith… by Thomas Faulkner, and memorializes William Gouge, his widow Sarah (the sister of James Welden who married Jonathan Boulter’s sister Mary), Sarah (Roffey) Cowley, the daughter of William Roffey, and William himself.
According to Faulkner the Gouge family … resided at the house, opposite Bradmore Lane. Mr. Gouge was a benefactor to this Parish [Hammersmith], and in the year 1738, he paid £5. 5s. for liberty to bury in the Church, and £5. 5s. for laying down a stone.

Although we are unable to confirm conclusively we believe that William Gouge who married Sarah Welden was the great grandson of William Gouge (1578-1653) and grandson of Thomas Gouge (1609-1681) who were well known non-conformist ministers who made their home in Hammersmith.

William Roffey corresponded with a number of well-known dissenting ministers such as Phillip Doddridge, Isaac Watts, and Benjamin Colman – see the appendix for some of this correspondence as well as the lives of the two Gouges.


As with his other Roffey siblings no record of Samuel’s birth or baptism has been located. He was a Quaker and although he started out in the family distilling business he eventually became a banker, having his business at No. 71 Lombard Street, and his residence at Lincoln’s Inn Fields.



Samuel Roffey married twice. First to Ann Baker, as indicated in the Allegations for Marriage Licences Issued by the Commissary Court Surrey (1673-1770): …

On 3rd October, 1739, Samuel Roffey of St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey, distiller, bachelor, 21, and Ann Baker of Camberwell, spinster, 21; were married at Camberwell in the College Chapel of Dulwich.

The event was later reported in the newspapers on 11th October:

The same Day Mr. Roffey, of Barnaby-Street,
Southwark, was married to Miss Baker (Daughter to
Mr. Baker, a Haberdasher near the Monument) an agreeable young Gentlewoman with a handsome Fortune.

Ann was born on 17th July, 1718, the daughter of William and Elizabeth Baker and baptised on 30th July.
Ann ye Daughter of Will &
Elizth: Baker was Born ye 17th
day of July & Baptised ye 30th
of ye same month. 1718.

Ann (Baker) Roffey died ten years after her marriage to Samuel (apparently without issue) as the following newspaper announcement dated 11th September, 1749, notes:
A few Days since died Mrs. Roffey, Wife of Mr. Roffey, a very eminent Distiller in Barnaby-street, Southwark; and last Saturday her Corpse was interr’d in Bunhill-fields Burying Ground, in a very handsome manner. – She was the Daughter of Mr. Baker on Fishstreet-Hill, and in all Scenes [of] Life behaved so amiably, that she gain’d the Affections of all that knew her, and therefore is most justly lamented.

Ann’s burial record has not been located as she was interred in the Friend’s burial ground at Bunnhill and whose records for that period have not been preserved.

Five years later, Samuel married Mary Warner on 20th June, 1754. She was aged thirty-eight.
Last Thursday Night was married, with a special Licence, Samuel Roffey, Esq; of Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields to Miss Warner, of John’s-Square, an Heiress with a Fortune of 50,000l.

Mary was born in 1716, the third daughter of Poulett Warner and Mary Brooksbank. Her father, Poulett, was born on 17th December, 1689, the eldest son of Andrews Warner, and his wife Elizabeth, only surviving child of Richard Cutts, of Clare. Poulett Warner was married on 12th May, 1713, to Mary the eldest daughter of Joseph Brooksbank, of London, by Mary the daughter of . . . Stamp, of Ockingham. Poulett Warner died on 26th August, 1721, aged thirty-two, and is buried at Wickhambrook. (For more details on Mary’s family see Appendix)
Samuel Roffey’s Career

Having continued a while the family distilling business Samuel founded a banking house at the sign of The Union at No.71 Lombard Street. His partners were originally Mr. Neale and Mr. James who were later joined by Mr. Alexander Fordyce with disastrous consequences as we shall see.


Like many a banker, lost bills of exchange were advertised such as the one that appeared on 28th December, 1765:


In May, 1765, a fire at Montreal in Canada destroyed over 110 homes and hundreds were killed. Among the most generous subscribers for the relief of the sufferers was the firm of Roffey, Neal & Co. who contributed £21.
From the List of Subscribers for the Relief of the Sufferers at Montreal, 1765

Another advertisment for lost bills of exchange appeared on 26th Februray, 1766:

LOST four Bills of Exchange, as under, of no Use to the Owner, Payment being stop’d.
Any Person bringing them to Mess. Roffey, Neale, James and Fordyce, Bankers in Lombard street, may receive One Guinea Reward for the Bill of 170l. and Half a Guinea for each of the others.
N.B. No greater Reward will be offer’d.

The letter below was placed by Samuel in the papers on 7th October, 1767, and indicates that he had Parliamentary ambitions.


To the Worshipful the Bailiffs and Burgesses of the Corpo-
ration of SCARBOROUGH.
PERMIT me to return you my best and earliest thanks, for the kind reception and encouragement I have met with, in my canvas for becoming one of your representatives in parliament, at the next general election. Allow me also to assure you, that if you shall confer this honour upon me, I will do my utmost endeavour to render myself worthy of it, by a faithful discharge of every duty, that my King, Country, and Constituents, can possibly expect at my hands. I am, Gentlemen,
Your most obliged,
and most devoted humble servant,
Oct. 5, 1767. SAMUEL ROFFEY.

A short notice mentioning Roffey’s bank appeared in The Royal Magazine of March, 1768:
A lad picked up, in Cheapside, a note of hand of Mess. Roffey, Neale, and Co. for 112 l. and immediately went and received in Bank 100l. and the remainder in cash.

Samuel was a generous supporter of the founding of two colleges in North America – Dartmouth in New Hampshire and Brown in Rhode Island.

From Benjamin Franklin’s accounts of 4th August, I767, we learn that he obtained a draft for £12 7s. 6d. ‘in favour of Roffey for a Degree of Doctor of Divinity.’

In 1768 Roffey is found among the trustees of the Indian Charity School run by Eleazar Wheelock and which was the precursor of Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.
Eleazar Wheelock

Below from: Life, Times, and Correspondence of James Manning, and the Early History of Brown University … By Reuben Aldridge Guild:

A letter written by James Manning from London on 10th August, 1770.

We have had a great loss in Mr. Roffey who died in April last and through whose further good offices I hoped your college would have been considerably benefited But God will I hope raise up friends.

The above passage is footnoted by the editor as follows:

Mr. Roffey it appears was a benefactor of Rhode Island College. From the records we find that at a meeting of the corporation held at Newport Nov 16, 1769, it was voted that the thanks of the corporation be transmitted to Mr. Samuel Roffey for his generous benefactions to this institution by the secretary.
William Legge, 2nd Lord Dartmouth James Manning

Below the founding charter of Dartmouth College showing Samuel Roffey of Lincoln’s Inn Fields.
A history of the founding of Dartmouth College includes the following passages:

Among the subscribers thus obtained to the first funds of the college are the names of our own countrymen, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin West, both residing in London at this time; Thomas Llewelyn, LL. D.; Samuel Roffey, Esq., whose name appears upon the earliest records of the corporation as a benefactor of the college.

Last week a banker [Samuel Roffey] gave me twenty guineas, with a promise of much more, on condition that the College, from time to time, will correspond with him, and show fairness and fidelity in the management of what money he and others intrust us with.

I must desire, therefore, that the College will embrace the first opportunity to begin that correspondence, and acknowledge his kindness. You may direct to Mr. Samuel Roffey, banker in Lombard street, London. You must observe, also, that in England, as in Ireland, I solicit for money towards endowing the College, and therefore take care that you all attend to the design of the donors.

An English board of trustees was established with Lord Dartmouth as president, Robert Keene as secretary, and Samuel Roffey as one of its members:


On 13th March, 1770, Samuel is listed as one of the Stewards supervising the Anniversary feast held at Merchant Taylors Hall in Threadneedle Street for the Governors of the London Hospital in Mile End Road as part of an effort to raise money.
15th March, 1770

Less than a month later, Samuel Roffey’s death was announced in the newspapers on 10th April, 1770:
On Sunday died at his House in Lincoln’s inn-fields of the Gout in his Stomach, Samuel Roffey, Esq; in Partnership with Mess. Neale, James, Fordyce and Down.

From the above it is not clear what Samuel’s cause of death was. Historical sources say rather unhelpfully that the phrase ‘Gout of the Stomach’ was used to describe Coeliagra a rarely used term for a sudden painful affection of the stomach or other abdominal organs. From the Greek Koilia (belly) + agra, seizure.




Above Mary (Warner) Roffey
© The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
Roffeys were generous benefactors of a number of orphanages and hospitals in and around London including the London Hospital in Whitechapel shown below in 1756.






Unfortunately, the bank that Roffey founded under the sign of The Union did not survive the speculations of one of its partners – Alexander Fordyce. See the appendix for the story of the collapse of Roffey’s bank.

Thirty three years after Samuel, Mary died in March, 1803, and was buried on the 15th of that month at the Quakers cemetery at Bunhill Fields. Her burial is recorded on the last line below, her age being eighty-five.



The Will of Mary Roffey the Wife of Samuel
Mary Roffey widow of Lincoln’s Inn Fields made her will on 18th March, 1790, with a codicil dated 2nd June, 1802, in which she appoints her sister Lady Elizabeth Duckinfield as her sole executrix. She leaves £5,000 of bank stock to Caroline Maitland the wife of Alexander Maitland and to any surviving children of them. When Mary wrote her will there were no Maitland children, although there soon would be. Alexander’s residence is at Kings Arms Yard, Coleman Street.
She leaves to Caroline (Busby) Maitland her house along with its contents at Peckham in the parish of Camberwell in the County of Surrey as well as a house in Portugal Row at Lincoln’s Inn fields.

She names the following legatees: The Reverend Mr. Bentley, and the Reverend Mr. Smith.
Her relations include: Mr. Nathaniel Warner Bromley and his wife, Mrs. Barrett (mother of Nathaniel’s wife), Mr. Probyn and his wife, Stamp Brooksbank Esquire and his wife, Mr. William Brooksbank and his wife, Mr. Ward and his wife. She also names Mrs. Mary Brooksbank and Mrs. Elizabeth Brooksbank.

Two servants Thomas and Margaret Grinson receive five hundred pounds each and their two children (aptly named Samuel and Mary) fifty pounds each.

Charitable institutions that benefit (based on her husband’s will) include: The Orphan Working School in the City Road; The Asylum in or near St. George’s Fields in the County of Surrey; The Magdalene House for the Reception of Penitent Prostitutes in or near St. George’s Fields; The General Hospital at Bath and The Paupers School at Bath.

The Magdalene Hospital for the Reception of Penitent Prostitutes in St. George’s Fields
All the remainder of her estate goes to her sister Dame Elizabeth Duckinfield, widow.
In a second codicil dated 2nd June, 1802, she adds:

It is my desire to be buried quite private in the vault in Bunfields with my late dear husband and I request Mr. Alexander Maitland to do everything in his power to assist my dear sister that she may have as little trouble as possible for which I beg his acceptance of one hundred pounds.

Boulter Roffey had benefited from his uncle Samuel Roffey’s will but Boulter predeceased Mary, and so certain property that Boulter had inherited from Samuel had reverted to Mary as the following indicates:
A house at Peckham now occupied by Mr. Rees and four small houses adjoining, a house in Bermondsey Street, a farm in Reigate and a piece of garden ground at Hammersmith mine for life only since Mr. Boulter Roffey death I have given them to Mr. Mathew Freeman an eldest brother of the late Mr. John Freeman whose Bonds have given up.
The reason Boulter’s share of Samuel’s will went to Mathew Freeman is that in Samuel’s will he states that should Boulter die without issue then whatever Boulter inherited from Samuel should go to John Freeman. Since John Freeman had died Mary then bequeaths John’s share of Boulter’s estate to John’s brother Mathew Freeman.

Peckham at Camberwell in Surrey in 1770
Probate was granted to Mary’s sister Elizabeth Duckinfield on 18th March, 1803. Elizabeth would only live a few months after her sister.
Alexander and Caroline (Busby) Maitland had a child whom they named Samuel Roffey Maitland(1792–1866). His grandson Frederic William Maitland (1850-1906) was the founding father of the study of legal history in the United Kingdom.
According to Wikipedia:
His written style was elegant and lively. His historical method was distinguished by his thorough and sensitive use of historical sources, and by his determinedly historical perspective. Maitland taught his students, and all later historians, not to investigate the history of law purely or mostly by reference to the needs of the present, but rather to consider and seek to understand the past on its own terms. His death in 1906 at Gran Canaria from tuberculosis deprived English law and letters of an outstanding representative.

JAMES ROFFEY (16?? – 1769)

From the parish record of St. Bennett’s Sherehog, James Roffey, of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch Street, a bachelor and Rebeccah Dunwell, of St. Giles, Cripplegate, a spinster were married by metropolitan license in April, 1730.

Sarah (Cradock) Boulter in an addendum to her will states that she wishes that her diamond necklace and her diamond buckle should go to James Roffey’s wife.

In 1765 James’ wife Rebeccah died and was buried on 5th March, in the chancel of Bath Abbey .

James Roffey, a widower without children, died at Landsdown near Bristol in December, 1769, and was buried in the chancel of Bath Abbey on 24th December. He left a will of twelve pages.
28th December, 1769
James Roffey, Esq; who died last Week at Landsdown, we hear has left 1000l. to the General Hospital at Bath, and 100l. per Annum to the Poor of the Parish of St. Peter and Paul of that City.

As with his other Roffey siblings, no birth record has yet been located for Nathaniel, Jnr.

A record showing that Nathaniel, son of Nathaniel of Peckham in Surrey was apprenticed to a James Roffey of London, Merchant, on 15th May, 1736, is shown below (first line). This James was probably Nathaniel’s uncle.


On 3rd June, 1743, Nathaniel, Jnr. married Mary (Molly) Chamberlain at St. Sepulchre, Holborn. The Universal Spectator and Weekly Journal noted the marriage in its issue of 23rd July, 1743:

A few Days since Mr. Roffey, an eminent Merchant in Copthall-Court, Throgmorton-Street, was married to Miss Molly Chamberlain, of Steward Street , Spital-Fields, an agreeable Lady, with a Fortune of 5000l.

At some point in the early 1740’s Nathaniel entered into a business partnership with William Chamberlain/Chamberlin and, typical of persons engaged in a commercial enterprise, a lost note is sought:
WHEREAS a Bill of Exchange was drawn from Gibraltar, the 7th of February, 1746-7, on Mess. Roffey and Chamberlin, of London, for £280 12 2, and protested for Non-Acceptance, the 3d of July, 1747, by Mr. Anthony Wright; the said Bill was afterwards protested for Non-Payment; but not known by what Notary Publick; a Copy of the said Protest is wanted by Persons who will be obliged, if the Gentleman who did it, will leave his Name at the Bar of Lloyd’s Coffee-house, when he will be applied to about it.

Listed in the Yale University’s library guide to the William Beckford Collection is a letter from Beckford to Roffey and Chamberlin dated December, 1756 (Box 4 Folder 82).

Unfortunately Nathaniel, Jnr. was not as successful as his father and brothers, declaring bankruptcy in the autumn of 1747. And, over a twenty five year period and long after Nathaniel had deceased, the process of paying creditors off wound its way through the bankruptcy courts as the following notices indicate:
THE Creditors of Messrs. ROFFEY and CHAMBERLIN, Bankrupts, (as well those who have executed the Deed of Trust of Oct, 8, 1747, as those who have proved their Debts under the Commission) are desired to meet the Assignees of the said Bankrupts To-morrow the 13th Instant, at the Black Swan Tavern in Bartholomew-Lane, at Four in the Afternoon, on special Affairs.

Mess. Roffey and Chamberlin, of London, Merchants, having assigned all their Effects to Mess. Barrows Smith, John Stevens, Josiah Knight, Samuel Roffey, and Edward Maude, in Trust for the Satisfaction of their Creditors; All Persons indebted to them, are to pay the same to the said Trustees, or some of them, forthwith, or they will be sued without further Notice. And all Persons who have any Effects of the said Roffey and Chamberlin in their Hands, are desired to give Notice of the same to the said Trustees; and such as have any Claims on their Estate, are desired to bring them in to the Trustees.

On 11th December, 1764, The London Gazette reported:

THE Commissioners in a Commission of Bankrupt awarded and issued forth against Nathaniel Roffey and William Chamberlain, of London, Merchants and Partners, intend to meet on the 11th Day of January next, at Eleven of the Clock in the Forenoon, at Guildhall, London, in order to make a Dividend of the said Bankrupt’s Estate and Effects; when and where the Creditors, who have not already proved their Debts, are to come prepared to prove the same, or they will be excluded the Benefit of the said Dividend. And all Persons, who have made any Claims, are to come and prove the same, or they will be disallowed.

No death record for Nathaniel, Jnr. has yet been located. His will was written on 8th April, 1753, and proved on 9th January, 1756. He made his wife Mary his sole benefactor and executor. There were no children. Mary may well have been the sister of Nathaniel’s business partner William Chamberlain.

There were two more sons of Nathaniel and Mary (Welden) Roffey, Snr.’s viz. John and Jonathan but so far we have been unable to locate any records that refer to them. Both these sons are mentioned in Sarah (Cradock) Boulter’s will and John is referred to as being “now beyond the sea” which suggests he may have been a mariner.

Tuesday the 14 Day of March 1748
and in the twenty second year of the
reign of King George the second of
Great Britain
Calvert Mayer

This Day Mr. Nathaniel Collyer Keeper of the Guildhall having presented this court Nathaniel Roffey life made free of this City the second of three granted unto Mr ? by the court the 11th of October last for the Mayoralty of Sir Robert Lodberton it is ordered that the said Nathaniel Roffey be admitted into the Freedom of this City by the —– in the Company of Wheelwrights paying unto the Chamberlain for this citizen’s life the sum of forty six shillings and Eighteen pence
NB If this order is not
within William Man
Thos Schackelton Andrew Boson
Robert Walker
ELias Jones
J Knapp

Wax Chandler 14th March 1748
Allowed & taken for Security in the Lord Mayors Court London
BOULTER ROFFEY – The Son of William Roffey

Boulter was the son of William Roffey and Mary Welden. His birth is recorded as being on 15th February, 1742/43, in Barnaby Street, Bermondsey. His ‘baptism’ among the dissenters’ records is listed as occurring on 30th March 1743.



Boulter never married.

There is a record dated 5th February, 1765, of Boulter Roffey apprenticed to Edward Grubb of St. Olave as an Attorney. Boulter would have been about eighteen (last line).
8 Edward Grubb of St. Olave London Attorney Boulter Roffey

At the end of January, 1783, a short news item appeared in Parker’s General Advertiser and Morning Intelligencer declaring that Boulter had been apprehended on a charge of attempting ‘to commit an unnatural crime’ with a male servant whose last name was Davis. The information upon which the warrants for Roffey and Davis’s arrests had been made was provided by someone the paper named as Landsdown.

According to Parker’s General Advertiser of the 28th January, 1783, Boulter and his servant were brought before the magistrates at Kingston, and were released on bail for £800 and ordered to stand trial at the next Surrey assizes.
On Friday last was apprehended at Kingston, in Surry, B_____ Ro_____, Esq; and a servant of the name of ________ D________s, in consequence of a warrant granted upon the information of _______ Lansdown, he having detected the said persons in an attempt to commit an unnatural crime. The gentleman and servant were admitted to bail before the magistrate of Kingston in the sum of 800l. to take their trials at the next assizes for Surry.

The person named above as Lansdown was in fact a foot soldier by the name of John Langridge. B_____ Ro ____ is of course Boulter Roffey, identified as a gentleman, and ____ D _____s his servant Davis.

Boulter’s next appearance in the newspapers is three months after his arrest although not as a defendant but rather as a plaintiff. From Parker’s General Advertiser and Morning Intelligencer 22nd March, 1783:
Yesterday a cause came on to be tried at Kingston, wherein Bolter Roffey, Esq. of Kingston, was plaintiff, and Charles Legh and William Rowls; Esq. defendants. The action was for a trespass; when the jury (which was special) found a verdict for the plaintiff, with fifty pounds damages and costs of suit.
How exactly this case relates to the earlier charge made against Roffey and Davis for committing an ‘unnatural crime’ is not apparent, but what Boulter may have been attempting to do was in some way ‘pre-emptively’ clear his name before his case came to trial.

And who were the defendants Charles Legh and William Rowls?

They were in fact two brothers namely Charles and William Legh Rowlls. Their mother was Elizabeth, the daughter of Lucy Francis Legh and Peter Davenport. She married John Rowlls (sometimes written Rowls) of Kingston upon Thames in 1752. She was his second wife. John Rowlls, was a brewer and Receiver General for the county of Surrey. He died in 1779. Their children were: John, William, Charles, and Elizabeth.

Mrs. Elizabeth Rowlls inherited the estate of her uncle, Charles Legh, of Adlington Hall in Cheshire, upon whose death on 26th July, 1781, the male Legh line became extinct. Elizabeth (Davenport) Rowlls then took the name of Legh by Royal Licence on 5th October, 1781. When in 1806 she died without surviving issue, the Adlington estate went to a cousin Richard Crosse.
Adlington Hall in Cheshire, home of the Legh family

Charles and William Rowlls, like their mother, took the name Legh and their names were sometimes written Legh Rowlls. Thus when Boulter Roffey took Charles Legh and William Rowlls to court who he took to court were in fact the brothers Charles Legh Rowlls and William Legh Rowlls.

Given that William Roffey, Boulter’s father, and John Rowlls were in the same trade and both families lived in the same town, the likelihood of the two families knowing each other is considerable. The question remains as to how the case for trespass brought by Boulter against the Legh Rowlls brothers relates to the earlier charge brought against him and Davis by Langridge.

Given that the person bringing the charge against Boulter and his servant, Langridge, was just a foot soldier and not a native of Kingston and that the Legh Rowlls brothers were of the same social standing as Boulter it is feasible that they were the ones guiding Langridge’s actions and whom Boulter refers to in his letter (published below) as being the ‘diabolical instigators’ of the whole affair, i.e. his being charged with attempting to commit an ‘unnatural crime’.

Eight months after Boulter’s arrest, and five months after his successful prosecution of the Legh Rowlls brothers, the following advertisement appeared in a number of newspapers including the Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser on 26th August, 1783, and again on 11th September, 1783. From this we gather that the case against Boulter and his servant could not proceed because Langridge, as the one bringing the indictment, had failed to appear.

WHEREAS John Langridge, late a soldier in the 70th regiment of foot, at the last Lent Assizes for the county of Surry, preferred an indictment, which was brought on to be tried at the Assizes for the said county, held at Croydon, but the said John Langridge did not appear to prosecute the said indictment. A reward of FIFTY POUNDS is hereby offered to any person who shall discover where the said John Langridge now is, if living; or if dead, a reward of Ten Guineas will be given to any person discovering when and where he died, by applying to Mr. Thomas Combs, stationer, Bishop’s-court, Chancery-lane.
N.B. John Langridge was born at Limpsfield, In Surry, supposed to be about thirty years of age: He is short, and rather thick set, with short lank brown hair, of a sallow complexion, thin lips, a squeaking voice, and a jerk in his gait. His business a labouring gardener, formerly worked at Hampton Court, and since at Kingston, and is supposed to have gone from thence into Kent.

A year after his successful prosecution of the Legh Rowlls brothers for trespass, Roffey had caused to be printed a letter signed by himself along with three sworn notices / affidavits which were placed in London newspapers such as The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser on 6th May, 1784, and two days later in The General Evening Post (below).
AN indictment was preferred against me at the Lent Assizes, 1783, at Kingston upon Thames, on the information of John Langridge, a foot soldier, not from motives of justice, for there was no foundation for the charge, but from the interested views of the diabolical instigators of it.
I gave notice of trying the indictment at the ensuing assizes at Croydon, summoned a special Jury, and was prepared with witnesses who could most incontestibly have proved my innocence; but unhappily for me, no evidence was produced against me. I therefore was of course acquitted, without having an opportunity of making my defence. The reason assigned for not proceeding on the indictment was, that John Langridge was dead; yet, after the assizes, it was industriously propagated that I had secreted him, and bought off his testimony; I then advertised a reward of 50l. to discover the said John Langridge, in consequence of which, I received the following certificate, which, with affidavit annexed, I beg leave to lay before the public.

Ightham, Kent, August 16, 1783.
WE do hereby certify, that John Langridge, late of the parish of Limpsfield, in the county of Surrey, and who had resided in this place as a labourer to Robert Batt, Farmer, ever since, on or about the 1st of May last, departed this life on the 20th of June last, at the House of Charles Knight, Victualler, in the said parish of Ightham, and that he was buried there on the 22d of June, at the expense of the said parish of Ightham. As witness our hands the day and year above said.
Buried by M. DRURY, A.B.
ROBERT MORLEY, of Crown-Street, Westminster, Gent. and John Smith, of Kingston upon Thames, in the county of Surrey, Butcher, severally make oath and say, and first this deponent, Robert Morley, for himself saith, that the certificate hereunto annexed, respecting the times of the death and burial of John Langridge therein mentioned, is true to the best of this deponent’s knowledge and belief, he this deponent having examined the same with the registry of burials kept in and for the parish of Ightham, in the county of Kent; and this deponent further saith, that he did, on the 16th of August last, see Mr. Drury, Curate of the said parish of Ightham, and also Henry Heastreet, James Couchman, Clerk of the said parish, and Charles Knight, both inhabitants of the said parish, severally sign the said certificate.
And this deponent, John Smith, for himself saith, that he knew and was well acquainted with the above mentioned John Langridge in his lifetime, and that he was late a soldier in his Majesty’s 70th regiment of foot, and was in March last quartered in Kingston upon Thames, aforesaid, and was the same person as is mentioned in the certificate hereunto annexed.
Sworn at my house, In Southampton-row, Bloomsbury, this 13th day of Sept. 1783, before me. A. THOMSON.



On the 6th of November, 1783, Knight made the following affidavit in the King’s Bench. The King against —— Roffey, Esq., and DAVIS.
“CHARLES KNIGHT, of Ightham, in the county of Kent, victualler, maketh oath, and saith, that this deponent knew and was well acquainted with John Langridge, late a foot soldier in his Majesty’s 70th regiment of foot, formerly of Limpsfield, in the county of Surrey, and had so known him for several years before his death; which happened at or about the time herein after-mentioned. And this deponent further saith, that the said John Langridge came to lodge at this deponent’s house about afew months before his death; that on the 20th June last, in the morning, this deponent was informed by one of his servants, that there was a dead man in the house; upon which this deponent asked what he meant; the servant desired this deponent to go up stairs; this deponent accordingly went up stairs and looked over the chamber door through a large crevice, and there saw the said John Langridge dead, lying across one corner of the bed with his throat cut, whereupon this deponent immediately called some of his neighbours, and they broke open the door, which was fastened within side, and soon after application was made to the Coroner, and an inquest was held upon the body of the said John Langridge, and a verdict brought in lunacy. And this deponent further saith, that he hath heard the said John Langridge say, he must go to the assizes in Surrey, and hang two people. And the deponent saith, that after Langridge’s death, Langridge’s father came to this deponent’s house, and in conversation told this deponent, that his son John Langridge had desired that none of his family would tell any body where he was (if they knew) for that some people wanted him to go to the assizes, but that he did not mean to be there. And the deponent verily believes, that something lay on Langridge’s mind, for some time before his death, this deponent having frequently
heard him fetch deep sighs.
Sworn at Serjeant’s-Inn,
Nov. 6, 1783, before
What appears to have happened is that the foot soldier Langridge, claiming to have observed Boulter and his servant Davis attempting to engage in some form of sexual activity, provided information that led to Boulter and Davis being arrested, charged, and told to appear at the next assizes in Croydon.
Before his trial, and perhaps in an attempt to clear his name, Boulter brought a case of trespass against the Legh Rowlls brothers, who may have had sufficient influence over Langridge such that he was willing to provide information which led to Roffey and Davis’s arrest.

However, when their case came up for trial (probably in April/May 1783) it could not proceed because the main witness, Langridge, did not appear. The reason for this was (unknown at the time) that Langridge had had a change of heart which would lead to his suicide on 20th June, 1783. At the end of August, 1783, a search for Langridge was started and an advertisement seeking his whereabouts was placed in the newspapers (see above).

It was then put about that Boulter was somehow responsible for Langridge’s non-appearance, (‘it was industrially propagated that I had secreted him, and bought off his testimony’). Perhaps these rumors even went so far as to claim that Boulter had arranged Langridge’s death. Thus the certificates and affidavits above were attempts by Boulter to rebut those rumors and to show that Langridge’s non-appearance was a result of his death at his own hands and no one else’s.

The testimony of one witness who sees Langridge’s body through a crack at the top of a locked door and the fact that the door had to be broken down is given as evidence in support of the foot soldier having killed himself. Likewise his state of mind is inferred as depressed from his fetching ‘deep sighs’.

One deponent, Charles Knight, claims that Langridge had begged his father that none of his family was to divulge to anyone his whereabouts because ‘some people wanted him to go to the assizes, but that he did not mean to go there.’ Who were these people? Were the Legh Rowlls brothers pressing Langridge to follow through with his evidence? Perhaps the idea that his testimony could lead to the hanging deaths of Roffey and Davis was too much for Langridge to bear. And, as far as we can tell, the case against Boulter and Davis was never brought to trial.

In the appendix a description of the subsequent lives of the Legh Rowlls brothers is given and provides a possible motive for their ‘trespass’ against Boulter.

A part of a letter addressed to the actress Mrs. Yates from the actor David Garrick expresses some animosity toward Boulter Roffey. Unfortunately, the context in which it was written is too little known to give us a full understanding of Garrick’s intent.

I hope …. I shall be well Enough to see you in a day or two or three Expect Banquo’s Ghost to appear in his pale-brown terrors before you – I would not frighten you if I could, but would always wish [to] give you a little flutter – this Sentiment is ye only one, I have in Common with Boulter Roffey, Esq.

Yours Ever most Affects


The editor of the letters adds: It was at the house of Boulter Roffey that Miss [Frances] Cadogan met Mrs. Yates the actress and Mrs. [Frances] Brooke.
Frances Brooke – writer David Garrick – actor Mrs. Yates – actress

The article below appeared on 17th November, 1785, and is the last article in the newspapers to mention a member of this particular Roffey family.
Extract of a Letter from Kingston, Nov. 16.
“Last Night the House of the Rev. M. Moody of this Town was broke open, and robbed of Linen, Wearing Apparel, &c. to the Value of betwixt 20l. and 30l. The same Villains, it is supposed, broke open the Stable of Boulter Roffey, Esq. next Door to Mr. Moody, and took out a Horse, with which it is imagined they carried away Mr. Moody’s Property. The Horse was found by the River Side early this Morning by the Watchman.”

Boulter’s death record has not been located but must have occurred between 1800 and 1802. He wrote his will on 16th July, 1800, while residing at Upper Wimpole Street, Marylebone; although much of his life seems to have been spent at Kingston upon Thames. His will was probated in 1802.

In his will Boulter leaves the bulk of his estate to John Conway Philip Astley (1768–1821) to whom he was not related. Astley began his career as an equestrian performer and his prowess in the ring graduated into an aptitude for writing and performing popular dramas and he eventually became a circus proprietor. As such, he was one of the leading proponents of ‘Hippodrama’ which featured large and spectacular battle scenes. After a philandering youth he married his co-star, Hannah Waldo Smith (d. 1843), niece of the political economist Adam Smith.
Astley’s outdoor circus near Westminster Bridge

Boulter Roffey and Astley may have been close neighbors as, shortly after his marriage, Astley bought a country house at East Sheen, near Kingston in Surrey. Although Astley had great successes he was not the best businessman and as his debts increased so did his drinking. He died in Paris of a liver complaint, on 19th October, 1821, and was buried in Père Lachaise cemetery.
None of Nathaniel and Mary (Welden) Roffey, Snr.’s children, other than William, produced children and the two that William did produce had no issue. Thus this Roffey family became extinct.

As noted above, Jonathan Boulter, before he married Sarah Cradock, was married to Elizabeth (Tyers) the widow of James Roffey. James had a brother Richard who was a Citizen of London and like many a Roffey also a Distiller (see Chart).

Richard Roffey married, although the record of this has not been located and so we do not know his wife’s name. However they had a child who was baptised Elizabeth and who married a man called Thomas Taylor. Thomas and Elizabeth (Roffey) Taylor did not have children.

Richard Roffey died in March, 1676/77, and his burial took place on 29th of that month at St. Olave, Bermondsey, and is noted among the parish records in the left margin under the word ‘Burialls’.


Richard Roffey, a widower, wrote a will dated 20th March, 1676/77, in which he leaves most of his estate to his only child, Elizabeth, the wife of Thomas Taylor of the Parish of Saint Giles in the Fields. So far no record of Thomas Taylor and Elizabeth Roffey’s marriage has been located.

In November, 1677, Elizabeth (Tyers) Taylor’s husband, Thomas, died. His burial which is dated 22nd November, 1677, at St. Olave notes that he is from St. Giles.


Thomas Taylor from St Giles – 22

Thomas Taylor, distiller of St. Giles in the Fields, made a will on 8th November, 1677, in which the main beneficiary was his wife Elizabeth (Roffey) Taylor. In his will Thomas states that he wishes to be buried at the parish of St. Olave in Bermondsey.

Having inherited from both her father (Richard Roffey) and her husband (Thomas Taylor), the widow Elizabeth (Roffey) Taylor had acquired enough of a fortune to capture the attention of Thomas Tyers who was five years younger than her, and seven months after her husband’s death, she married Thomas on 19th July, 1678.
St. Olave, Bermondsey, where Thomas Taylor was burried

From: Allegations for Marriage Licences Issued by the Dean and Chapter of Westminster 1558-1699.

At Saint Mary Magdalene, Old Fish Street, London. July 19 [1678] Thomas Tyers, of St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey, Surrey, Feltmonger, Bachr, ab’ 23, & Married to Mrs. Elizabeth Taylor, of St. Olave’s, Southwark, co. Surrey, Widow, ab’ 28.

Thomas Tyers was the brother of Elizabeth who first married James Roffey and then Jonathan Boulter and thus he was the maternal uncle of Nathaniel Roffey, Snr. who married Mary Welden. His wife Elizabeth (Roffey) (Taylor) Tyers was also the cousin of Nathaniel Roffey, Snr. (see chart).

Elizabeth (Roffey) (Taylor) Tyers died on 1st December, 1697, and was buried at St. Olave in Bermondsey, on 10th December.
Elizabeth W. of Thomas Tyers 10

There were no children from this marriage. Elizabeth does not appear to have made a will.

From a description of the interior of St Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey, in London Riverside Churches by A. E. Daniell:

A stone on the floor of the north aisle is inscribed to the memory of Elizabeth Tyers who died in 1681; nine children of Nathaniel Roffey and Mary, his wife, who all died young.

The above Elizabeth Tyers who died in 1681 is probably the mother of Elizabeth who married James Roffey and Jonathan Boulter and the mother of Thomas who married Elizabeth (Roffey) Taylor and Ann Thomas (see chart).

This Elizabeth Tyers’ burial at St. Mary Magdalene took place on 1st December, 1681(first entry below):
Mrs Elizabeth Tyers

In the National Archives there is a:

Probate lawsuit Roffey and Brady [Bradley?] v Tyers, concerning the deceased Elizabeth Tyers, widow, of St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey, Surrey. Allegation and interrogatory. (1682)

What this case is about and how exactly it relates to the parties we have discussed here has yet to be determined, except that ‘Elizabeth Tyers, widow’ is the above mentioned Elizabeth who died in 1681 and whose burial record is shown above.

There is another possible mother and father for Elizabeth (Tyers) (Roffey) Boulter and her brother Thomas and that is Grace (Marsh)Tyers who married Nathaniel Tyers of Braintree in Essex (see Appendix under Jonathan Boulter’s land)











After Elizabeth (Roffey)(Taylor) Tyers died her husband Thomas Tyers married Ann Thomas on 7th February, 1697 at St. Margaret Pattens.


And they had three children: Elizabeth, Jonathan, and Ann. In April, 1721, Thomas’ wrote his will which was witnessed by his nephew Nathaniel Roffey, Snr.

The son of Thomas and Anne (Thomas) Tyers, Jonathan, would become one of the 18th century’s most successful entrepreneurs and a considerable patron of the arts. He was the owner and proprietor of the Vauxhall Gardens. The Tyers family tree subsequent to Thomas’s marriage to Anne Thomas is shown below.
According to The Cumberland Letters, in the summer of 1774 Mary (Balchen) Man’s niece, Sally Balchen, the daughter of her brother William, was being courted by a young man named James Read. James was an attorney and according to George Cumberland was “… the son of a Mr. Read a Baker in the Burrough, he has no Fortune but he is going into partnership with his Uncle who is an eminent Attorney, and who ’tis said will leave him the business very soon, having acquired a tolerable fortune … He is a gentleman about 19, excessively thin, and pitted with the Small pox, a Man of few words and what is remarkable in a young Attorney or indeed in any profession A Modest Man…” p. 64

As part of the proceedings a party group gathered and headed off to the pleasure gardens at Vauxhall. George Cumberland, Jnr. wrote:

I went with them all the other night to Vauxhall for the first time this Season. We staid till Eleven o’ Clock and the lover [James Read] proposed a Supper but a Young lady in company an Acquaintance of Cousins insisted on going home; it cost me 3/. p.64
Vauxhall Gardens at the time George Cumberland’s party visited

Three years later in July, 1777, George dined with William Read who by then had married Sally Balchen. Afterward, George joined a group of friends that included his Balchen cousins, and together they re-visited Vauxhall Gardens. Later, George wrote to his brother Richard:

… we all agreed that it was the stupidest place in the World, we join’d in saying we would never go there again.

The Cumberland brothers were probably not aware of the various connections that lead from them to Jonathan Tyers.

The following description of the painting below appeared in The Burlington Magazine titled: ‘A Hayman Portrait of Jonathan Tyers’s Family’ by John E. Ruch. This is a summary:

The profile medallion over the mantel is Frederick Lewis, eldest son of George II. Tyers was grateful to Frederick for his patronage which took the form of frequent visits to summer entertainments at Vauxhall Gardens. Tyers was well aware of the Prince’s popularity and the magnetic value of his presence. He provided a specially furnished supper box for Frederick’s use situated on the principal axis of the main court of the gardens.

Tyers’s children were named Thomas, Jonathan Jr., Margaret, and Elizabeth. The youth far left in the painting wears the academic dress of a university ‘commoner’, and holds a diploma. Thomas Tyers matriculated in December 1738, and thereafter attended Pembroke College, Oxford as a ‘commoner’ until he graduated in 1742. Thomas matriculated when he was close on thirteen which was exceptional, even in that age of young undergraduate students.

In the centre of the group are two younger children. They pose between their mother (Elizabeth) and father, in contrast to the elder brother and sister (Margaret), who are on the outer sides and therefore, symbolically, about to leave their parents’ care. The girl pouring tea was Jonathan Tyers’s younger daughter Elizabeth. The younger son would be Jonathan Jr., who eventually succeeded his father as sole proprietor of Vauxhall.

The older girl, far right, is Margaret. At this time she was a young lady of perhaps eighteen years. She stands having just risen from the chair which still supports her skirt. She is in the act of putting on her gloves, as if she were about to leave home. Needless to say, the woman beside her is her mother [Elizabeth].

The atmosphere is quiet and domestic, comfortable and bourgeois. There is modest pride in material success and family accomplishments. On the other hand there is no flamboyance, and little of the flair for advertisement which might have been expected in the exploiter of a popular, public amusement park. Yet this is the man who had the sagacity to employ Handel, Roubiliac, and Hayman with commissions for Vauxhall.
This group portrait of Margaret Tyers (1722-1786) and her husband George Rogers (1718-1792) was painted by Francis Hayman. Margaret was the eldest daughter of Jonathan and Elizabeth (Fermor) Tyers. There were no children from this marriage.


Above Jonathan Tyers, plaster cast by Roubiliac at the Victoria and Albert Museum and right a caricature of Jonathan Tyers directing William Hogarth in the painting of an outdoor panel for his amusement park at Vauxhall.
One of the promenades at Vauxhall Gardens

Painted in about 1750 by Francis Hayman this painting shows Jonathan Tyers the elder
seated next to his youngest daughter Elizabeth. The man standing is Elizabeth’s husband
John Wood. The painting was probably executed on the couple’s betrothal. Although Elizabeth and John had seven children they appear not to have any descendants. Note the pug dog, a favourite of William Hogarth’s and a symbol of loyalty. This group portrait, painted in 1750/52, also by Francis Hayman, shows seated in the middle Jonathan Tyers’ daughter Margaret and to her right holding the shot pheasant her husband George Rogers and to Margaret’s left her husband’s sister Margaret Rogers. George Rogers was an amateur painter. He married Margaret in 1742. His sister Margaret married Jonathan Tyers, the
younger, Margaret’s brother, in 1756. The Rogers family lived in Southampton and it was there that Elizabeth (Fermor) Tyers, the wife of Jonathan Tyers the elder died.
Here ends the ‘narrative’ part of this paper. The following pages are the appendices which give more detail on what has been discussed in the preceding sections.

APPENDIX ONE: The Three Cases of John Blunt, Susannah his wife, and Stephen Child

The three cases of John Blunt, Susannah Blunt, & Stephen Child being their petitions to Parliament in the hope of having the levies made on their estates, following the collapse of the South Sea Company, reduced.














































APPENDIX TWO: The Banner Family & its Charities

As we have already noted, Susannah (Cradock) (Banner) (Tudman) Blunt’s father in law, Richard Banner, was secretary to the Saddler’s Company and established a charity by a deed dated 6th July, 1698, whereby:

…in consideration of £200, the gift of Richard Banner, the Saddlers Company charged an annuity of £8 on Banner’s certain messuages belonging to them, to be applied for putting forth every year a poor boy, the son of a freeman of the Company, or a poor boy bred up in Christ’s Hospital or any poor boy, as the wardens and assistants of the Company should appoint, to a fit master in trade.

However the charity was not properly administered and various legal proceedings to ensure its proper administration occurred during the 19th century.

Mr. PEMBERTON stated that by deed dated July 6, 1698, the Company of Saddlers, in consideration of 200l. paid by Richard Banner, covenanted to stand possessed of the Mitre and other houses near Cheapside upon trust, that an annual rent of 8l. should be paid out of the premises to the wardens to go to the said Richard Banner for the apprenticing a boy from Christ’s Hospital, and that such boy should be bound by indenture, and directions were given as to the mode of apprenticing the boy. This deed was duly enrolled in July, 1698. The property now consisted of houses which let at large rents equal to about 150l. a year. Between the years 1698 and 1820 only 43 boys had been apprenticed, and between 1821 and 1837 only 3. The Saddlers Company admitted that the charitable purposes had not been carried into effect, that they had retained the rents, and had in their hands between 700l to 800l for arrears. They admitted the small number of objects who had been benefited by the charity; they had advertised when vacancies had occurred; they had not derived any benefit from non-performance of the trust, and no application had been made by Christ’s Hospital.
Mr. KINDERSLEY appeared for the defendants.
Lord LANGDALE directed a reference to the Master to settle a scheme, with liberty to the governors of Christ’s Hospital to attend.
Arms of the Saddler’s Company

A further inquiry noted that:

The former Commissioners found that up to the date of their inquiry the trust had been only partially carried out, the applications for the benefit of the Charity having been infrequent, owing, as was alleged, to the inadequacy of the fee, and under these circumstances they certified the case to the Attorney-General, who filed an information against the Company.

In the result of proceedings in the Court of Chancery direction was given for the investment of an accumulated fund arising from unapplied income, and a Scheme was established on the 16th March, 1840, whereby provision was made for the application by the Company of the income of the Charity in apprenticing poor boys, the premium in any case not to exceed £50. After a sale of £88. 8s. 5d. Consols for payment of taxed costs, the accumulated fund was represented by £613. 10s. ld. Consols, afterwards increased to £1,048. 13s. 0d. like stock by investments of surplus income, but again reduced to £131. 10s. 1d. by a sale in 1877, the proceeds of which were applied in aid of income.
CHARITY COMMISSION – in the MATTER of the CHARITIES of RICHARD BANNER, SARAH EWER, and SAMEUL GUNTON, under the administration of the Saddlers’ Company in the City of London, and In the Matter of “The Charitable Trusts Act, 1855 to 1894, “Notice is Hereby Given that an ORDER has been made by the Board of Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, “ESTABLISHING a SCHEME for the future REGULATION of the above mentioned CHARITIES – A copy of the Order and Scheme may be inspected, free of cost, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. daily, except on Sundays, during a period of one calendar month, to be computed from the first publication of this Notice, at the Saddlers’ Hall, and at the Office of the Commissioners, Whitehall, London, S.W., where also copies of the Order and Scheme may be purchased during the same period, at the price of 6d, which may be remitted by Postal Order, crossed “Bank of England,” or, if the amount be less than 1s. in penny postage stamps.
Dated this 16th day of July, 1897.
D. R. FEARON, Secretary.

Richard and Samuel Banner’s Birmingham Charity

The first Richard mentioned below is the father of Samuel Banner the ironmonger and Richard Banner of Saddlers Hall, and grandfather of the Reverend Doctor Richard Banner and John Banner who married Susannah Cradock.

In a trust deed of 1716 it was declared that Richard Banner had bequeathed £100 with which Samuel Banner was to purchase land, the income to be used to buy six alms-coats annually for poor men of Birmingham, and the residue to apprentice poor boys. Samuel Banner, with the principal and interest upon it, and with an additional sum of £29 5s. 9d., bought land in Erdington, and directed his son Richard [the Reverend Doctor] to put the land in trust, with the additional provision that 25s. was to be expended annually on the purchase of alms-gowns and petticoats for poor women. Richard made these arrangements in 1716. In 1827 most of the income of £20 was spent on clothes for from six to 10 poor men and ten to 30 poor women. It was later said that at that date no money was in practice spent on apprentices, and the last application from an apprentice for a grant was said to have been in 1862.
By 1931 the income, which was then from property in Holly Lane and Moor End Lane, Erdington, and in Caroline Street and Regent’s Place, Birmingham, had greatly increased, and was expected to be £120 to £130 a year. About £60 was being spent on clothing for poor people, and there was an accumulating surplus. By a Scheme of 1932 half the income was to be used in the purchase of clothing for poor men and widows in the city, and half in the assistance by apprenticeship, education and otherwise, of poor boys. In 1956-7 there was an income of over £94 from rents and £26 from investments, and sums of £70 were spent on clothing and £89 10s. on apprenticing and education .


As we have noted Richard Banner, the eldest son of John and Susannah (Cradock) Banner, married Mary Davies the niece of Dr. Griffith Davies. Here we detail some parts of the professional life of Griffith Davies.

The following extract from An Inventory of the Church Plate of Leicestershire … by Andrew David Hedderwick Trollope adds a few details on Griffith Davies. He was the son of:

William Davies, gent. of Dryslwyn in Carmarthenshire; he entered Jesus College, Oxford, at the age of 17, on 17th December, 1684, [which would mean he was born 1667] from whence he took his B.A. and M.A. degrees, finally taking that of M.D. on 4th July, 1698. Dr. Griffith Davies lived in St. Phillip’s parish, Birmingham, and practiced in that town as a physician. He had become connected with Theddingworth, by buying from Sir R. Newdigate, Bart., circa 1715, the manor and advowson. Dr. Davies married in 1710, Elizabeth, only daughter of Sir John Burgoyne, 3rd Bart.; which lady died on 29th July, 1726, aged 47, leaving a daughter Elizabeth, who inherited his estate.

Below, a letter from Dr. Griffith Davies to Sir Charles Holt written on 14th July, 1699, concerning a person who ‘…voided many Hydatides in her urine’ published by the Royal Society in Philosophical Transactions (1683-1775) pp. 897–898. Holt is named by Davies in his will as his ‘good friend’ and his daughter Holt is bequeathed twenty guineas by the doctor.
1. A Letter from Dr Davies to Sir Charles Holt containing a relation of a person who voided many Hydatides in her Urine.

A Gentlewoman between 40 and 50 years of age, in the Autumn 97, drank Some Aluminous Waters for a month or five weeks, and in a months time after the use of these Waters, found a pain in the Renal region, where she never had been afflicted with any before; this pain returned after the first Paroxysm in about a months time, and afterwards more frequently, till about the Christmas following it visited her every day; about which time she sent for me and had when I came to her the Symptoms of a Stone in her Left Kidney, viz. a grinding, and sometimes a very acute pain on that side of the Spina Dorfi, a Vomiting, her Urine during the Paroxysm tinged with Blood, and in it Bloody Ramenta; but what most surprized me, a dozen at least of Hydatides, some of the biggest of them 1 inch long, their circumference equalled that of an ordinary Goose-quill; in shape they exactly represented the Vesicule Natatoriae in Fish, growing smaller about the middle, as those generally do, and were filled with a Liquor, which by taste and smell made me believe to be Urine; I never discovered any Pus in her Urine, nor had she any pain at the Sphincter of the Bladder, nor in the Meatus Urinarius, either before, at, or after making Urine. The Paroxysm lasted generally 5 or 4 hours; as soon as these Hydatides came away, (which they did not all at once making water, but at several times) the pain in her Back, &c. abated very sensibly, and she continued easie and well the rest of the day, excepting an external soreness, which the pain had caused. I thought these Vesiculae at first to be Membranous, since their consistence was so tough as to bear taking out of the Chamber-pot and gentle handling, but afterwards was convinced that they ow’d their origin to a glutinous slimy matter, because upon long standing in Urine or fair Water they quite disappeared and were dissolved, making the water or Urine to look thick and turbid. By the use of Medicines all these Symptoms disappeared, and she continued well when I last heard from her, which was about two months ago,

Birmingham in Warwickshire July 14. [16]99.

Part of a letter to the publisher from Dr. Davies in 1701 concerning an ‘Unusual Colic’ (Philosophical Transactions (1683-1775) pp.965–966):
Part of a Letter to the Publisher from Dr Davies concerning an unusual Colic

Birmingham, Oct. 3d 1701,

SIR, Last May, my Ingenious Friend Dr Shaw of Tamworth, was pleased to desire my assistance in the following case. A person, aged between 50 and 60, had been for 3 or 4 years last past troubled with Gripes, which generally returned once a month, or thereabouts; his Body for the most part costive, and therefore was forced to spur Nature with Daffy’s Elixiror Aloes; sometimes the smoaking a Pipe of Tobacco, supply’d the use of these Medicines. Last April coming from London heated himself very much with his Journey, having walked a good part of the way, and as soon as he came home, had a return of his Colic pains, which continued upon him for 18 days, notwithstanding the methods commonly used in that case, during which time he had no Stool, betides what the first and second Clysters brought away his complaint upon his seizure was of a pain in his right side in the Regio Iliaca. Some time before he dyed his Belly swelled much, and was as tense as any Drum, he vomited for 2 or 3 days at the beginning, which left him, and returned not till just before he dyed, which was at the expiration of the 18th day, at which time he brought up 2 or 3 mouthfuls of black Choler but never during his whole illness vomited any excrement. Dr Shaw who lived upon the spot, prevail’d to have an hasty Inspection of his Abdomen, the Relations (it being a thing Male same in that Neighbourhood) desired it might be done with all secrecy and expedition, which prevented the Doctors taking so nice a view of all the parts within the Abdomen as he would otherwise have done. He found some black Choler in the Stomach, the Duorderm and the rest of the Intestina tennia void of excrement, but incredibly distemper’d with Wind, and tracing the Canalis of the Guts as far as the Cacum, found that of a blackish colour; and from thence for about a yard in length, the Colon mortified and so rotten, that the Excrements had made their way thro it at several places, into the Cavity of the Abdomen; about 2 inches of the moribund Gut was fastened to the Peritoneum on the right side. This part of the Colon was so extended with excrements of a soft confidence, that they when taken out filled two Chamber-pots; at the extremity of the mortification, towards the Rectum the obstruction which occasioned all these misfortunes offered itself to view very plainly for about ten inches of the Colon was doubled, as if you had taken a piece of Tape, and folded it the two contiguous, surfaces of the duplicature adhered so firmly together, that you could not separate them without tearing the exterior coat of the Intestine. Upon separating this coalescence, there fell from that part a whitish Mucus, the adhesion was about 3 inches broad $ the middle of the Duplicator which made the acute angle, and where the excrements stopped, was smaller, and the Membranes thinner than in any other part of the Gut from thence towards the Rectum the Colea was found, and void of excrements, occasioned by the frequent use of Clyfters.
APPENDIX FOUR: The Henckell Family

As noted, Susannah Banner’s husband Abraham Cropp had a sister Elizabeth, the daughter of James and Abigail (Bush) Cropp, who was born on 5th September, 1678, and baptised on the 8th at St. Gabriel’s, Fenchurch:
Elizabeth Ye daughter of James Crop was Borne x x
the 5th of September and Baptized ye 8th Ditto 1678

She married a London merchant of Dutch origin, Abraham Henckell, on 5th October, 1697, at St. Botolph, Aldgate (last line).
Abraham Henckell Batch and Eliz: Crop Both of St. Dunstans ye East
They had the following children:
James born on 12th March and baptized on 14th March 1699/1700 at St. Dunstans in the East, Isaac baptized on 26th December, 1704 at St Laurence Pountney (who died), Jacob born on 24th March 1707 and baptized on 7th April, at St Laurence Pountney, Isaac 1st September, 1708 at St. Laurence Pountney, Peter baptized on 10th August, 1718 (who died) Levinus .

James S of Abraham and Elizabeth Henckell 2 D old (14th March, 1699)
Jacob Henckell son of Abraham & Elizabeth Henckell was Baptized January 7 1705 by Dr Whinrop

Peter Henckell son of Abraham & Elizabeth Henckell was Baptized August 10 1715 by Dr Bultor

Mr Peter Henckell A Child & son of
Mr Abraham Henckell died in this Parish & was Buried at Abchurch December ye 15 1715
Isaac Henckell son of Abraham and Elizabeth Henckell was Baptized December 26 1704 by doctor Whinrop
Levinus Henckell son of Abraham & Elizabeth Henckell was Born September 19 1717 & Baptized by Mr Oliver October 3 1717

Mr Levinus Henckell A child & son of Mr Abraham Henckell died in this parish & was Buried in St Mary Abchurch October 8 1717
Abraham Henckell, like his brother in law Abraham Cropp, placed advertisements in the newspapers which were typical for merchants in those days.
25th July, 1719

Whereas the Mail from Bristol was robbed the 24th Instant of several Letters, amongst which (as ‘tis supposed) was one directed to Mr. Abraham Henckell, with the following accepted Bills, payable in London to him or Order, viz. 2 for 160 l. 2 for 100 l. each, on Mr. Brice Webb, 3 for 250 l. each, 1 for 127 l. 10s on Mr. Robert Smith, I for 140 l. on Mr. Arthur Goodwin, 1 for 75l. 10s. on Mr. Joseph Beck. This is therefore to caution everyone not to Discourse or take in Payment the said Bills or any of them, as not being indorsed by the said Abraham Henckell; and whoever will bring them to his House in Lawrence Pountney-lane Cannon-street, shall have one Guinea Reward, and no Questions asked, they being of no Use to any but the Owner.

Susannah (Cradock) (Banner) (Tudman) Blunt appointed Abraham Henckell and Henry Balchen as joint trustees of her estate.

As elders of the Dutch Church, Abraham Henckell and James Cropp (father of Abraham and Elizabeth), were involved in the churches administration as the following letter indicates:


Abraham and Elizabeth (Cropp) Henckell’s son, James was likewise a successful merchant in the City of London being elected a number of times as a Director and Sub-Governor to the Royal Exchange Assurance Company. It might have been this connection with the Royal Exchange that paved the way to George Cumberland’s early career as a clerk in the company’s offices.

Below, an 18th century business card of the Royal Exchange Assurance Company showing a boat sinking on the left, while on the right flames leap from a building from which a man safely carries away his goods. Unfortunately, on a very cold January night in 1832 the Royal Exchange Assurance office burned to the ground.


Some of James Henckell’s life as a merchant is reflected in the newspapers of the age.

Whitehall, Feb 22, 1730.
Whereas the Warehouses and Accompting House at Dyers Hall in Thames Street have of late been Four Times broken open in the Night Time, and sundry Parcels of Linnens, and other Things of Value, stole from thence: His Majesty, for the better discovering and bringing to Justice the Persons concerned in the said Robberies, or any of them, is pleased to promise His most gracious Pardon to any one of the Persons concerned therein, who shall discover his Accomplice or Accomplices, so as he or they may be apprehended and convicted thereof .
And as a further Encouragement to such Discovery, James Henckell, of Lawrence Poultney Lane, London, Merchant, does hereby promise, That whoever shall discover the Person or Persons concerned in the said Robberies, or either of them, so as he or they may be convicted thereof, shall, upon such Conviction, receive from him as a Reward the Sum of Fifty Guineas.
James Henckell.

Left, the gravestone at the Dutch church under which are interred:
Abraham Henckell who died on 7th September, 1739, aged 71 years, his son Isaac who predeceased him on 6th July, 1730, aged 48 years, and his wife Elizabeth (Cropp) Henckell who died on 30th May, 1749, aged 70 years.
APPENDIX FIVE: The Cropp – Bush – Bennett – Munck Connection

The following Codicil was added by Abigail (Bush) Cropp a year after she wrote her will in July, 1724, and is reproduced here almost verbatim as it is curious and leads to a number of genealogical connections which would probably otherwise not have been made:

A Codicil to be annexed to the last will and testament of me Abigail Crop: Whereas my late brother James Bush of Red Lion Square in the County of Middlesex Esqr departed this life since my making my said will [dated 11th July, 1724] and was at his death possessed of and entitled unto a very considerable estate having first made his last will and testament in writing and after giving and making some specific legacies and dispositions therein contained the said James Bush did by his said will nominate and appoint Judith Bennett spinster sole Executive of his said will and Residuary devisee and legatee of his estate but the said Judith Bennett dying in the life time of my said brother James Bush and it being now pretended that my said Brother did duly make and execute a codicil to his said will and thereby nominate and appoint Mrs. Sarah Bush widow [Sarah was the wife of James Bush’s son Levinus Bush and hence James’s daughter in law] his sole executrix of his said will and residuary legatee and devisee of his Estate in the Room of the said Judith Bennett And Whereas I have great Reason to believe that the said pretended codicil was very unduly obtained and that my said Brother at the time of the pretended execution thereof was and for some time before had been so impaired and destroyed in his memory and understanding as to be incapable of duly making a will or codicil and that the said pretended codicil is really invalid and ought to be annulled and condemned as void and a suit hath been ____________ and is now depending in the proper Ecclesiastical court touching the Validity of the said pretended Codicil and I am endeavouring to obtain letters of administration of the Personall Estate of my said Brother’s estate to be granted to me as a sister and next of Kinn with his said will annext (?) in which suit if I shall prevail I shall be instituted to most part of my late Brother’s estate I do therefore by this my Codicil …. and my Will and meaning is that in case I my Executors and Administrators or Legal Representatives shall by Virtue of that said Suit or otherwise recover or obtain all or part of the estate of my said late Brother.

(and she then details how, if that happens, the property is to be disposed of)…. Signed 21st May, 1725.

As noted above Abigail (Bush) Cropp’s codicil refers to Sarah (Carter) Bush who was the widow of Abigail’s nephew Levinus Bush. Below the marriage of Levinus Bush to Sarah Carter on 23rd March, 1707 and took place in the chapel at Whitehall.


Mar 23 Levinus Bush of Red Lion Square in the Parish of St Andrew Holbourn Batchelor and Sarah Carter of St. Clement Danes, Spinster. At the chapel at Whitehall formerly the Banqueting House.

The chapel at Whitehall where Levinus Bush and Sarah Carter were married








Below the marriage record of Levinus Bennet and Judith Boevey on 6th July, 1653, at All Hallows, London Wall.


There is some confusion as to whom Judith (Boevey) Bennett’s parents are. Some have mistakenly made her the daughter of William who married Catherina Riches, but that William is her cousin. Judith’s parents were William and Anne (Lucie) Boevey. James Boevey, the uncle of Judith, was a renowned philosopher (See chart above).

On the death of the brothers Richard and Thomas Bennett, a monument was placed in Babraham church by Sir Levinus Bennett with the following inscription:

Here lie buried Richard and Thomas Bennett, two brothers, and both of them Baronetts: they lived together, and were brought up together, at Schoole, at the University, and at Inns of Court. They married two sisters, the daughters and heires of Levinus Munck, esq. Sir Richard died Aprill ye 12, 1658, aged 61.— Sir Thomas died June ye 28, 1667, aged 71.


The above monument is said to be one the finest examples of Jacobean sculpturing in England.

In James Bush’s will as well as that of his son’s Levinus Bush each desires to be buried in a family vault in the parish church at Babraham in Cambridgeshire

At the National Archives is a catalogue description of “two bills and two answers”.

Plaintiffs: James Bush, Esq. of Red Lion Square, St Andrew Holborn, Middlesex and Mary [Bennett] Bush his wife, Judith Bennett, spinster of Red Lion Square, Dorothy Page, widow of London, Edward Alexander, Esq. of London and Levina Alexander his wife, James Mitchell, Esq. of London and Jane Mitchell his wife (the said Mary Bush, Judith Bennett, Dorothy Page, Levina Alexander, and Jane Mitchell being grand-daughters and co-heirs of Sir Thomas Bennett Bart. of Babraham, Cambridge, and daughters and co-heirs of Sir Levinus Bennett, Bart., son and heir of said Sir Thomas Benet). Defendants: Maximilian Western, Esq. and Elizabeth Bennett, widow. Year 1717.

Also at the National Archives:

Probate lawsuit Bush v Cropp, concerning the deceased James Bush, Esq. of Red Lion Square, Middlesex. Allegation. (1724).

Below is the death announcement of Judith Bennett on 3rd October, 1724. Although referred to in various sources as Mrs. she was in fact not married.
Some days since died Mrs Bennet, one of the daughters and Co-Heiresses of Sir Levinus Bennett of Bab’ram near Cambridge, and has left a very considerable Estate to her Nephew Mr. Bennet Alexander, Son of Mr. Edward Alexander of Doctors Commons.

An early historical account of the charity established under the wills of James Bush, his son Levinus Bush, and James’s sister in law Judith Bennett taken from A Topographical Description of Babraham, co. Cambridge, published in The Gentleman’s Magazine (1815) is as follows:

Levinus Bush, Esq. by his will bearing date 1722, devised an estate at Babraham, consisting of a portion of the manor, to his aunt, Judith Bennett, on condition that she should give 1000l. at her death to charitable uses. J. Bennett, by her will bearing date 1723, after noticing this legacy, and a legacy of the same amount bequeathed to her by the will of her brother in law, James Bush, then living, for the purpose of building and endowing a free-school and almshouse, gives a further sum of £1000 to charitable uses, and directs that £500 shall be expended in building a school and an alms-house for six poor widows and old maids; that £85 per annum be charged on her estates for the purpose of apprenticing children, and £100 per annum for the support of the school and alms-house. In consequence of Mr. [Levinus] Bush having died before Judith Bennett, his legacy of £1000 became void, and the income of the school and alms-houses was reduced to £50 by a decree of the Lord Chancellor in 1733. The affairs of the Charity having been negligently managed, and considerable arrears incurred, proceedings were from time to time instituted in the Court of Chancery. Trustees were appointed, the arrears ordered to be laid out in stock, and the application of the dividends regulated by decrees and orders bearing date 1757, 1762, and 1793. The whole of the funds of the Charity having amounted to £1353 of Old South-Sea Annuities

Below, the School-house which was established under the wills of Abigail (Bush) Cropp’s brother James Bush, her nephew Levinus Bush’s will and that of her brother’s sister in law Judith Bennett.


And, over the door is this inscription:

Babraham Hall – home of the Bennett Family

On the genealogical chart above, the number of persons of Dutch origin is considerable. One of these, Levinus Munck was born in Ghent in about 1558. He came to England around 1592 and very soon thereafter was employed by Lord Robert Cecil 1st Earl of Salisbury (1563-1612) and soon rose to be his chief secretary and greatest confidant. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Peter Tryan, a Dutch merchant living in London. He worked devotedly for his master in his lifetime and defended his reputation after his death. He also provided Cecil with friendship and support as well as efficient service. His master’s confidence in his integrity and ability was reflected in the importance of the work he did. For instance, he took down Guy Fawkes’ and Thomas Wintour’s confessions when they were imprisoned in the Tower on the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. In November, 1608, Salisbury’s close friend Sir Walter Cope extolled Munck’s “Honestie and efficency”.

Robert Cecil The Arrest of Guy Fawkes

Munck retained his position after Cecil’s death dealing with business from all over Europe. When Munck died in 1623 he left his three daughters property in London, Surrey, and Buckinghamshire, as well as twelve thousand pounds . Below Munck’s notes taken at the inquisition of Thomas Wintour.
Against one sentence of Munck’s notes below is added in the handwriting of King James (image left) ‘uncleare phrase’:

Andreas Boevey who appears on the above chart was of Courtrai in Flanders, and was brought to England in 1573 at the age of seven by his parents, who being Huguenots had fled the Low Countries following their invasion by the Duke of Alva. Andreas had nine children by his first wife Esther Fenn and two, including James the philosopher, by his second wife Joanna der Wilde. The order in which Andreas’s marriages occurred is reversed on the chart for display reasons.

Edward Alexander married Levina (Bennett) Alexander, whose sister Mary married James Bush. Edward assumed the surname of Bennett by Act of Parliament in 1742, and was succeeded in 1745 by his son Richard Henry Alexander Bennett (1742-1814).

Richard married in 1766 (Elizabeth) Amelia Burrell. Amelia’s sisters made good matches too: Isabella Susanna Burrell (1750-1812), married in 1775 Lord Algernon Percy, 1st Earl of Beverley. Frances Julia Burrell (1752-1820), married in 1779 Hugh Percy (1742-1817), Second Duke of Northumberland. Elizabeth Anne Burrell (1757-1837), married firstly in 1778 Douglas Hamilton, 8th Duke of Hamilton (divorced in 1794); she then married secondly in 1800 Henry Cecil, 10th Earl of Exeter and later 1st Marquis. The brother of these four Burrell sisters, Peter Burrell (1754-1820) 1st Baron Gwydyr, married Lady Priscilla Barbara Elizabeth Bertie daughter of the Third Duke of Ancaster (1761-1828). Elizabeth’s parents were Jane Brownlow and Peregrine Bertie 2nd Duke of Ancaster (see below).
8th Duke of Hamilton Henry Cecil, 1st Marquis of Exeter Priscilla Berties who married Peter Burrell

Elizabeth Anne Burrell,
Duchess of Hamilton Frances Julia Burrell,
Duchess of Northumberland Isabella Burrell,
Countess of Beveley

Right Elizabeth Burrell when Duchess of Hamilton. Right her brother Peter Burrell afterwards first Lord Gwydyr and lady Priscilla Bertie his wife and Robert Bertie her brother and the last Duke of Ancaster. All drawn by Richard Cosway.
APPENDIX SIX: The Houghton Connection

We should note that in Abigail (Bush) Cropp’s will there are references to the Houghton family, in particular Olimpea or Olympia whom Abigail refers to as her cousin. William Houghton and Henry Balchen are also involved in the distribution of Susannah (Cradock) (Banner) (Tudman) Blunt’s will.

The following is the marriage record for William Houghton and Olympia Maes at St. Olave, Hart Street, on 26th December, 1682.
Dec 26 William Houghton of St Dunstans in ye West &
Olympia Maes of St. Andrew Holbourne

A son Daniel was baptized on 13th February, 1688, at St. Andrew, Holborn.


Another son Richard was baptised on 17th January, 1692, at St. Andrew, Holborn.


A daughter Olimpea was baptised on 23rd April, 1695, at St Dunstan’s in the West.
23 Olimpea Houghton d of William & Olimpea Bapt in Bull yd [yard].

Some generations later there is a Houghton and Burridge Leigh marriage but how exactly the generations connect has not yet been established:

John Burridge Leigh, Esq. of Rushall, Staffordshire and Olympia Houghton, of St. Mary, Aldermanbury, London, were married by licence on 6th June, 1751.

However some twenty three years after this marriage, John Burridge Leigh committed suicide and the following inquest was held:

An Inquisition Indented, taken for our Sovereign, taken for our sovereign Lord the King, at the Parish of Saint James within the Liberty of the Dean and Chapter of Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster , in the County of Middlesex , the Twenty first day of July in the Thirteenth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord GEORGE the Third, before Thomas Prickard , Gentleman, Coroner of our said Lord the King for the said City and Liberty, on View of the Body of John Burridge Leigh Esquire then and there lying dead, upon the Oath of ….. good and lawful Men of the said Liberty, duly chosen, who being then and there duly sworn and charged to enquire for our said Lord the King, when, how, and by what Means the said John Burridge Leigh came to his Death, do upon their Oath say, That the said John Burridge Leigh not being of sound Mind Memory and Understanding but Lunatic and Distracted on the Twentieth Day of July in the Year aforesaid at the Parish and in the Liberty and County aforesaid a certain Pistol charged with Gun powder and a leaden Bullet which he the said John Burridge Leigh then and there had and held in his Right hand, to and against the Head of him the said John Buridge Leigh did then and there shoot of and discharge by means where of he the said John Burridge Leigh did then and there give unto himself with the pistol aforesaid in and upon the Head of him the said John Burridge Leigh, one Mortal Wound of the breadth of One Inch and of the depth of three inches of which said Mortal wound he the said John Burridge Leigh then and there instantly Died And so the Jurors aforesaid upon their Oath aforesaid so say that the said John Buridge Leigh not being of sound Mind Memory and understanding but Lunatic and Distracted in Manner and by the Means aforesaid did Kill himself. ….

John and Olympia had one son William who was born in 1752. The following is from Bibliotheca Staffordiensis: or, A Bibliographical Account of Books and other …

Leigh, Very Rev. William, born Rushall Hall, Walsall, 1752; son of John Burridge Leigh (High Sheriff, Staffs., 1754) and Olympia (dau. of Henry Houghton, Esq., of Ongar, Essex), his wife; Matriculated Univ. Coll., Ox., 7th Dec, 1771; LL.B.; Rector of Plumstead, Norfolk; Lord of the Manor of Rushall on death of his father, 1773; Dean of Hereford; m. (1) Ann, daughter of — Bedingfield: (2) Elizabeth, dau. of Stratford Canning, Esq. A Sermon, preached at Ashbourn on the 25th February.

Elizabeth (Stratford) Leigh’s nephew was Stratford Canning, 1st (and last) Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe.



APPENDIX SEVEN: The Purcell and Brooke Families

The purpose of this pedigree tree below and the next page is to be found at the very bottom of the page where it states that: ”Richard Giffard [of Saredon] had also a da[ughter] Mary, married to Francis Purcell”. This Francis was the grandfather of John Purcell who married Esther Banner.


The wills of Doctor John Purcell’s two sisters and his brother and sister in law

The Will of Mary Purcell

Mary Purcell, of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, a spinster, wrote her will on 4th January, 1731, which was proved on 18th January, 1739. She appoints her brother-in-law Thomas Penson, husband of her sister Catherine, as her executor.

Mary’s will, bequeaths sixty pounds to her sister Winifred and ten pounds to her nephew James, eldest son of her brother John Purcell [and Esther Banner], doctor of physic. Mary’s will states that she is entitled to a
proportionable share along with her brothers and sisters in certain collieries and coalmines heretofore belonging to her brother Thomas Purcell, deceased, which they have not yet got the “quiet possession of”. The will goes on to say that if the “peaceable” possession of the collieries and coalmines can be recovered at law or in equity, etc. by which she is entitled to a share and which she is empowered to dispose of, she appoints Henry Cranmer of Grays Inn to administer as a trust the moneys payable to her (Mary) from those collieries to her sister Winifred £40, and then to allow her brother-in-law Thomas Penson and Catherine his wife to receive the rents for their lives and that of the longest liver of them, and after the death of the survivor, to assign over half of her share to her nephews John and Joseph Penson, and the other to her niece Mary Penson the children of Thomas and Catherine for the rest of the term. The residue of her goods and chattels and her real and personal estate goes to her brother in law Thomas Penson, sole executor.
Signed: Mary Purcell
Witnesses: James Rider, Wm Leece.

Codicil 5th January, 1731/32, The executor is to pay to her nephew John Penson £10 above what is given to him in her will.

Thomas Penson died before Mary and so he was unable to administer her estate and in his place, his wife Catherine was appointed. Catherine likewise died before she could administer Mary’s estate and so finally her sister Winifred stepped in and on 9th June, 1752, letters of administration were granted to her and the estate was finally settled.

The Will of Winifred Purcell
The Will of Winifred Purcell, spinster, of the parish of St. George the Martyr, Queen Square, was written and witnessed on 21st November, 1758. In it she bequeaths to her niece Mrs. Maria Teresa (Purcell) Cotton (widow and daughter of her brother John) her ‘green damasked gown and unaltered tabby’. She bequeaths seven pounds to her brother Edward and five guineas to her nephew Edward (her brother Edward’s son). She gives her clothes to the daughter (unnamed) of her brother Edward, of Broseley, co. Salop. She also names her brother Edward’s other son Thomas Purcell, and her friend Mary, widow of the late William Lacy. To Frances Lacy their daughter she gives two guineas and ‘my large silver spoon and my bureau’. She appoints her friend Mary Lacy sole executrix to whom she also gives her China tea kettles, tea spoons, tea tongs, and her quilt. The will was probated exactly two years later on 21st November, 1760.
The Will of Thomas Penson, the brother in law of John Purcell MD

Thomas Penson of Gray’s Inn, writes his will on 8th June, 1736, and names his wife Catherine, sons John and Joseph, and daughter Mary Penson. Probate was granted on 13th July, 1737, but with a further admon being granted 1st December, 1740, to Joseph Penson, one of the surviving residual legatees, because Catherine, the widow, was by then deceased intestate.

Catherine (Brooke) Purcell

We have noted above that John Purcell’s brother Thomas left a widow Catherine with whom John was not entirely pleased. Neither it turns out was Catherine pleased with her own family and in writing her will she expresses her displeasure with them while ignoring her Purcell in-laws entirely.

Catherine was the daughter of Thomas Brooke (d. 1675) and Anne Comberford/Cummerford. Thomas Brooke was the son of Thomas and Anne (Nevill) Brooke and Thomas’s father was Sir Basil Brooke the inventor of smelting iron and the so called father of the industrial revolution.

We have already noted that Catherine’s great great grandfather, Sir Robert Brooke, was The Speaker of The House of Commons during the reign of Queen Mary and that John Purcell, Snr. was also a direct descendant of Robert’s via his daughter Mary Brooke who married Sir Thomas Leveson (See Chart).

The Will of Catherine (Brooke) Purcell

Catherine (Brooke) Purcell late of the Hay in the parish of Madeley in the County of Salop, but now of Saint Andrew Holborn in the County of Middlesex, widow, wrote her will on 10th December, 1744, and it was proved on 1st September, 1746. She could be the Mrs. Purcell living with Richard Banner, Esther’s brother, mentioned in the will of Sarah (Cradock) Boulter dated April, 1745.

Catherine’s sister Mary Brooke had married Sherrington Grosvenor and in her will Catherine gives her two nieces Ann and Mary Grosvenor daughters of Sherrington Grosvenor of Holt in the Parish of Kingsbury in the County of Warwick five hundred pounds. To her nephew Sherrington Grosvenor Esq. one pound one shilling to buy a mourning ring.

Her nephew Sherrington Grosvenor married Rose Austen daughter of Sir Robert Austen. Roses’ aunt Rose Austen married Comberford Brooke the brother of Catherine (Brooke) Purcell (see chart and the section on the Austen family).

She bequeaths to her ‘dear Brother John Brooke’ the sum of fifty pounds for mourning and twenty shillings for a ring.

But I declare they [probably her brother and her nephew] do not deserve anything from me they not having given me the least relief though I have for several years last past been driven to such extremities as often to want common necessaries of life and must have perished for want had I not been relieved by my Executors hereinafter named I give to Richard Foster for his kindness towards me the sum of twenty pounds and to Elizabeth and Janet Vaughan Daughters of Thomas Vaughan of Essex Street in the parish of Saint Clement Danes in the County of Middlesex Esq. as a token of my Gratitude for the great Kindness and civility he has shown me the sum of five hundred pounds to be divided between them in such proportion as my executors … shall direct.
She also names William Morris the infant son of Thomas Morris: now living in Brooks Market in the parish of Saint Andrew Holborn in consideration of the great kindness often showed me by the said Thomas Morris and for his procuring me a friend and for several expences he has been at in my support and maintenance and in consideration of the love and affection I have and bear towards the said William Morris for whom I wish I could better provide the sum of five hundred pounds.

She bequeaths all the remainder of her estate to her friend Thomas Morris and appoints Thomas Morris and Thomas Vaughan joint executors.

Catherine must have been quite a well off lady before her marriage to Thomas Purcell having inherited from her grandmother Catherine (Bates) Comberford. This Catherine made her will on 18th January, 1715, and states that she is of Staffordshire and a widow. She leaves the bulk of her estate to her two granddaughters Catherine Brooke and Mary Grosvenor (wife of Sherrington Grosvenor of the Borough of Tamworth). She leaves her two granddaughters all her land and property situated in Wigginton in the parish of Tamworth, Staffs, which she had originally purchased from William Brampton. Also all land and property lying in Hopwas, Staffs, currently occupied by Henry Ashmore and a small meadow in Cawford Meadow within the Parish of Tamworth. She grants to her Grandson John Brooke land called The Wall Furlonge in Tamworth which she bought from James Pritchard deceased and presently occupied by a Mr. William Pritchard. But she gives this land to John Brooke “on the express condition” that within two years of her decease he pays forty pounds to help his two sisters (Catherine and Mary) so that they may use that money to pay her debts and legacies. And if he fails to do this then he must give the land she has given him to his two sisters. She has another property at Hopwas which she had brought off Francis Astbury and which is now occupied by Thomas Astbury and which she gives to her two granddaughters Catherine Brooke and Mary Grosvenor. She also gives both her granddaughters one thousand pounds “at present held in the hand of Lord Cobham”. She gives to her “Cosen Isabell Palin wife of Thomas Palin” [maybe Valin] of Downesdale in Staffs twenty pounds. She gives to her grandson Francis Brooke ten pounds. She also gives Catherine, the daughter of her grandson Francis Brooke Twenty Pounds. Likewise to her grandson Edward Brooke Ten pounds. She makes her two granddaughters Mary and Catherine along with her good friend Richard Nevill joint executors. Probate was granted three years later on 24th November, 1718.
Edward Purcell, the Brother of John Purcell, MD

Edward Purcell who married Elizabeth Langley was the younger brother of Doctor John Purcell. It appears that this Edward Purcell got deeper into debt as the newspaper announcement from 12th July, 1743, indicates:

The following Persons being Prisoners for Debt in the Custody of John Brown, Esq; Bailiff of the Town and Liberties of Much Wenlock, in the County of Salop, hereby give Notice, that they intend to take the Benefit of the late Act of Parliament made in the Sixteenth Year of the Reign of his present Majesty King George the Second, intitled, An Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, at the next General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace to be held in and for the said Town and Liberties, or at the Adjournment thereof, that shall happen next after thirty Days from the Publication hereof, viz. Edward Purcell, late of the Parish of Broseley, in the said County of Salop, Gentleman. Peter Bott, late of the parish of Much Wenlock, in the Country of Salop, Needlemaker. George Pott, late of the Parish of Brosely, the County of Salop, Collier.

N.B. If any Person in the foregoing List of Prisoners shall find, on the Perusal of this Gazette, that there is any Error, such Error, shall upon Notice, be rectified in the next Gazette Gratis.
Extracted from: Broseley and its Surroundings by John Randall:

Edward, the brother of Doctor John Purcell, married Elizabeth Langley whose father Herbert Langley was possessed of the manor of Broseley. This manor afterwards passed to Edward Purcell. And it would seem that as each member of the family came into possession of the manor he appears to have done his best to plunge the estate into debt. In 1728, from an indenture that Edward Purcell of Stafford and Elizabeth his wife, and Mary Langley, widow of Herbert, late of Broseley, (mother and father of Elizabeth (Langley) Purcell), Christopher Ward, and Phillip Purcell, both of Stafford aforesaid, Gent., of the one part, and Michael Stephens of Broseley, in the County of Salop, agreed to a certain release of encumbrances of £2,990, with regard to certain tenements and lands at Broseley, by a sale of a portion of the premises of the Manor of Broseley amounting to about 112 farms, messuages, houses and lands. The case was appointed to come before the Court of Common Pleas Westminster in Easter Term, 1728. Purcell got deeper into debt, and Michael Stephens to whom Purcell was indebted, having taken proceedings, the estate was subject to much litigation.

Edward Purcell was indebted to Mr. Stephens in two bonds; one for £60 and another for £50, and that “…. he had at different times lived with Mr. Stephens, and kept a servant and two horses, and had washing and lodging, meat and drink for himself, servant, and visitors, most of the time for twenty years, and for which he, Stephens, had obtained judgment for £200.” It concludes by saying that “Mr. Stephens delivered him a Bill 5th December, 1729, which is really and justly due £951 6s”

What is curious about this episode of Edward Purcell’s indebtedness is that in 1728/29, while imprisoned at the Marshalsea, Joseph Grano writing in his diary refers to a Mr. Purcell – a gentleman – who was well liked by all who knew him. For details on Grano’s time at the Marshalsea see Appendix Eight. However the editor of the diary refers to this Purcell as Thomas.


As we have noted above, one of John Purcell’s ancestors was Robert Brooke. He was the eldest son of Thomas Brooke of Claverley in Shropshire, and Margaret, daughter of Humphrey Grosvenor of Farmcote in the same county.
The inscription on Robert’s tomb at Calverly church reads:
Here lyeth the body off Robert Brooke, famous in his time for virtue and learning; advanced to be Com’on Serjaunt of the Citie of London, Recorder of London, Serjaunt at the Law, Speaker of P’lyament, and Cheife Justice of the Com’en Pleace, who, visiting his frendes and country, deceas’d the 6th day of September, 1558, after he had begotten of Anne and Dorothee, his wiefs, xvii children. Upon whose sowles God have mercy.
Below the tomb of Sir Robert Brooke showing him between his two wives Anne Waring and Dorothy Gatacre.

APPENDIX EIGHT: Miscellaneous Notes on the Brooke Family


John Brooke (son of Sir Robert and Anne (Waring) Brooke) was born in 1538 and married Anne Shirley. John died in 1598, and was buried at Madeley.
Sir Anthony Fitzherbert’s
New Natura Brevium. His son William married Ann Brooke

The inscription, which was once on John Brooke’s tomb in the old Madeley Church, but which is now on the wall outside the present church, reads:

Here lies John Brooke, Esquire, the son of Robert Brooke, Knight, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and of Anne the daughter and heir of Francis Waring, Esquire. After he had lived, distinguished for his knowledge of the Science of Law and other learning, being of an extremely liberal mind, and famous for his good deeds, he made a holy and pious death in his 60th year, on October 20th in the year of Our Lord 1598.

Anne’s inscription reads:

Here lies Anne the wife of John Brooke, Esquire, descended from the very ancient and renowned family of Shirley. She had by her husband two sons, Basil and Francis, and also three daughters, Dorothy, Priscilla and Milburga. She was a woman of strict discipline, strongly attached to the faith of her ancestors, and an example to all in the way she carried out her duties as a wife and mother. She died at the age of 70, in the 10th year of her widowhood, on September 29th in the year of Our Lord 1608.


On his father’s death John Brooke inherited the Madeley estate (bought from the King by Sir Robert in 1544). He passed it on to his son Basil who, in his turn, passed it to his son Thomas, the father of Catherine (Brooke) Purcell.

John’s brother, Richard Brooke (baptised on 29th July, 1546) inherited another estate called Lapley. He married Mary, daughter of John Giffard of Chillington. Because the family was Recusant (Catholics who refused to conform to the Church of England) Richard Brooke of Lapley had two thirds of his estates sequestered (confiscated) by order of Parliament at Westminster on 29th January, 1607. His son Walter Brooke inherited the Lapley estate.

The next image on the left is Basil Brooke, the above Robert’s grandson and the son of John Brooke, of Madeley, and Anne, eldest daughter of Francis Shirley, of Staunton Harold, Esq., and was grandson of Sir Robert Brooke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas to Queen Mary.

Thomas Brooke, Basil’s son, married Margaret Nevile daughter of Thomas whose ancestor George Nevile is shown below. Thomas Neville’s wife was Mary Sackville the sister of the 1st Earl of Dorset.
Catherine (Brooke) Purcell’s Great Grandfather, father of Thomas who married Margaret Nevile
The father of William Fitzherbert who married Basil’s daughter Ann Brooke was Sir Anthony Fitzherbert (1470–1538) who was an English judge, scholar and legal author, particularly known for his treatise on English law, New Natura Brevium (1534).

Below, the title pages of some of the works of Sir Robert Brooke ancestor of John Purcell who married Esther Banner, the granddaughter of Susannah (Cradock) (Banner) (Tudman) Blunt.


Thomas Moore who married Basil Brooke’s daughter, Mary, was the great grandson of Cardinal Thomas More executed by Henry VIII. Thomas and Mary (Brooke) Moore’s son Thomas married Mary the daughter of Rose Brooke and John Giffard. Below the family of Thomas More by Rowland Lockey.


Above, Sir Thomas More and his family; two of his descendants (both named Thomas More) married members of the Brooke family.

The tree below shows Catherine (Brooke) Purcell’s mother as the last child Anne aged 7 on 30th March, 1663, and her grandmother Catherine (Bates) Comberford/Cumberford.
NOTES on following Brooke Family Chart. The different colored boxes represent different families – pale blue is Leveson, green is Giffard, yellow is Grosvenor, etc. A key at the bottom of each chart indicates what color is which family. Not all family members are shown and so for instance Thomas Brooke and Anne Comberford also had a daughter Margaret who married Walter Mildmay. John Brooke and Ann Shirley had at least another four daughters: Dorothee married Hugh Starkey, Priscilla married Robert Middleman and Milburga married Robert Banfield, etc.

The portrait of the lady below is traditionally identified as Lady Dorothy Shirley, daughter of Sir John Gifford of Chillington. Lady Dorothy’s date of birth is not known
Dorothy Shirley mother of Anne
who marriedJohn Brooke

She first married John Congreve, by whom she had two daughters, and then in 1535 Sir Francis Shirley of Staunton Harold and Ettington (1505-71), who was High Sheriff of Warwickshire and Leicestershire in 1556. Lady Dorothy Shirley died a few months after her husband in 1571 and was buried with him in a joint alabaster tomb monument in the church of St Mary and St Hardulph at Breedon-on-the-Hill, Leicestershire. Their daughter Anne married John Brooke.
Sir Francis and Lady Shirley

























APPENDIX NINE: The Brooke and Austen Families
Susannah Cradock’s daughter Esther Banner married John Purcell. John’s brother Thomas married Catherine Brooke. Catherine’s brother Comberford married Rose Austen. Catherine’s nephew Sherrington Grosvenor married Rose Austen the niece of Rose (Austen) Brooke. The elder Rose Austen was the daughter of Sir John Austen (2nd Baronet, 1641-1698). Sir John married Rose, daughter of Sir John Hale, of Stagenhoe in Hertfordshire. His brother Robert was an MP and married Judith Freke. In 1698 Sir John Austen was succeeded by his eldest son Sir Robert Austen (3rd Baronet, 1664-1706) who married Elizabeth Stawell daughter and coheir of George Stawell, of Cotherston in Somersetshire leaving issue three sons including Sir Robert (4th Baronet, 1697-1743), his successor, and five daughters including Rose who was married to Sherrington Grosvenor, of Holt in Warwickshire. Rose (Austen) Grosvenor’s brother, Sir Robert Austen (4th Baronet and last), married Rachel the sister of the well-known rake Sir Francis Dashwood. It is claimed that this Austen family connects with the novelist Jane Austen’s but exactly how is obscure. Also, Judith Freke who married Robert Austin MP is related to Elizabeth Freke who married Richard Brownlow (see Brownlow & Freke family).








Hall Place home of the Austen Family of Kent
Sir Francis Dashwood whose sister Rachel married Robert Austen.
He is seated next to his mistress Frances Barry








APPENDIX TEN: The Bequests of Charles Long to the National Gallery, London


THE NATIONAL GALLERY – On Monday last the fifteen pictures which had been bequeathed to the nation by the late Lord Farnborough were placed in this gallery. They are all pictures of good reputation, as may be supposed; they are of various schools, but chiefly those of the Low Countries, and they are in general of a small size, though some are of good dimensions, particularly a landscape, i.e. A Scene in Venice, by Canalletti; it is also a work of considerable merit, and is in high preservation. The number of pictures now in this gallery amounts to 163; of these nearly two thirds (105) have been bequeathed to the nation by several royal and noble personages.
Artist Title Painting

Peter Paul Rubens A Landscape with a Shepherd and his Flock

Canaletto Venice: The Grand Canal with S. Simeone Piccolo

Pier Francesco Mola The Rest on the Flight into Egypt

David Teniers the Younger A Man holding a Glass and an Old Woman lighting a Pipe

David Teniers the Younger The Covetous Man

Nicolaes Maes A Little Girl rocking a Cradle

Aert van der Neer An Evening View near a Village

Style of Pier Francesco Mola Leda and the Swan

Studio of Willem van de Velde Calm: Two Dutch Vessels

Gaspard Dughet Tivoli (?)

Nicolaes Maes A Woman scraping Parsnips, with a Child standing by her

Willem van de Velde A Dutch Vessel in a Strong Breeze

Attributed to David Teniers the Younger Peasants making Music in an Inn

Style of Anthony van Dyck The Horses of Achilles

Thomas Gainsborough The Watering Place

Another painting, Sunrise by Claude Lorrain, was purchased by Sir Joshua Reynolds around 1775 and was bequeathed by him to Sir Abraham Hume and then to his son-in-law Charles Long, who dying without issue, left it to his nephew, Samuel Long Jnr., the son of Charles’s brother Samuel. It was then put up for auction after Samuel’s death and eventually found its way to the Metropolitan Museum in New York City.
Sunrise by Claude Lorraine

Charles Long’s father in law’s art collection was nothing to sneeze at either as some the examples below indicate:
Aristotle with a Bust of Homer by Rembrandt at the Metropolitan Museum, New York

The Maas at Dordrecht, by Aelbert Cuyp The National Gallery of Art, Washington DC

The Adoration of the Shepherds by
Catena (Vincenzo di Biagio) at the Metropolitan Museum New York
Portrait of a Woman and Child
By Anthony van Dyck at the National Gallery of Art, London.


As we have seen, Jane Long, the daughter of Beeston and Sarah (Cropp) Long married her cousin Charles Long whose father was Beeston’s brother Charles Long and whose mother was Mary North. Mary North was the daughter of Dudley and Catherine (Yale) North. Below is a summary of the North family taken from The Gentleman’s Magazine of 1829. Some material has been added and edits made to the original article.

Memoirs of the North Family of Glemham.

I. Sir Dudley North, (1641-1691) being the great grandfather of Charles Long who married his first cousin Jane Long (see chart). Sir Dudley was the first possessor of the Lordship of Glemham Parva, and was the third son of Dudley the fourth Lord North, of Kirtling, in Cambridgeshire, by Anne, the daughter and co-heir of Sir Charles Montagu of Cranbrook in Essex and Mary Whitmore daughter of Sir William Whitmore.

He was born in London on 16th May, 1641, and being initiated at an early age into commercial affairs, pursued for many years the highly honourable occupation of an English merchant. He resided for a long time in Turkey, at Smyrna and Constantinople, and was Treasurer to the Levant Company there.

Having made a substantial fortune, on his return to his native country, he became memorable for the contests for the London shrievalty on the side of Toryism and in 1682 he was ‘elected’ one of the sheriffs of London:

“At Midsummer, the election of new sheriffs was attended with many circumstances in direct violation of the rights of the city; but the court party being determined to effect their object, Dudley North, Esq. brother to the Lord Chief Justice [Francis] North, and Mr. Peter Rich, two persons entirely devoted to the king’s pleasure, were finally appointed, though their opponents, Papillon and Dubois, had a most decided majority on the poll.” In other words, Dudley was forced on the citizenry of London with an express view to secure verdicts for the crown in state trials.

One of the consequences of the North’s ‘election’ was a flurry of pamphlets either supporting or vilifying the outcome.
Above the title page of Thomas Papillion’s three page attack on the rigged election of North and Rich. Right, a one page response from the government welcoming the newly elected Sheriffs.
Dudley was knighted, and appointed a commissioner of the customs, and later of the treasury. Having been elected a member of parliament under King James II, he took the place of manager for the crown in all matters of revenue. However, after the Glorious Revolution in 1688 when James was overthrown and replaced by William and Mary, he was called to account for his alleged unconstitutional proceedings in his office of sheriff.

North’s fame today rests mostly on the contribution to political economy made in his Discourses upon Trade: Principally Directed to the Cases of the Interest, Coynage, Clipping, Increase of Money, published anonymously in 1691. This work attracted little attention until reprinted in 1822, after James Mill had hailed the importance of North’s ideas as summarized in the biography by his brother, Roger North, published in 1744.

The Discourses, though brief and aphoristic, are probably the most thoroughgoing statement of free-trade theory made in the 17th century. Although the older mercantilist view was that trade was the exchange of goods not needed by the producing country, the Discourses insisted:
“that the whole world as to trade, is but as one nation or people, and therein nations are as persons.” Sumptuary laws (laws that attempt to regulate habits of consumption ) and legal restrictions on interest rates are denounced as harmful and ineffective. Subsequent monetary doctrines are anticipated in the insistence that the supply of money can be left to free market forces “without any aid of politicians.”

As already noted, he joined Richard Cradock on the Court of Directors of the Royal African Company.

He deceased on the 21st December, 1691, and was interred in the chancel of the church at Glemham Parva.

He married Anne, the daughter of Sir Robert Cann, of the city of Bristol, and the widow of Sir Robert Gunning, of Cold Ashton, near that city, by whom he had issue two sons; viz. Dudley and Roger. The latter turned out to be quite wild and profligate and died young without issue.

II. Dudley North, (1684-1730) He married Catherine, the eldest daughter of Elihu Yale, Esq. late Governor of Fort St. George in Bengal. He had divers children, whereof some dyed infants, and an only son, Dudley North, of Glemham, Esq. and two daughters, Ann and Mary survived. Catherine, their mother, died in the life of her husband.
Dudley North, his wife Catherine, and their three children Dudley, Ann, and the youngest Mary who married Charles Long

Below from the History of Parliament website:
‘Amply provided for’ by his father, who had purchased the Glemham estate shortly before his death, Dudley North was described in 1705 when aged 21 as an agreeable young man, ‘for goodness and ingenuity beloved by everybody’, but in later life he came to be dismissed as a ‘cipher’ and a pompous snob (‘so great a clown of a fine gentleman’ that he would not visit his poorer relations). Defeated at Thetford in 1708, where he stood with his kinsman Sir Thomas Hanmer [see chart], he was returned unopposed in 1710. In July, 1712, he was reported as absent through ill-health, though without official leave. On 3rd March 1713 he was appointed to the drafting committee for a private bill on Great Yarmouth harbour, and six days later was nominated to draft a bill to curb wool smuggling. There is nothing to indicate that North had followed Hanmer into ‘whimsical’ opposition in this Parliament: he was classed simply as a Tory when re-elected in 1715. He had nevertheless retained his seat with Hanmer’s support. North died on 4th February, 1729/30, in London, was interred in the chancel of the church of Glemham.

Dudley North Catherine (Yale) North

Below, a double portrait of the North’s children Dudley (1706-64) and his sister Anne (1709-89). Both are painted full length, he standing, wearing a red velvet coat and a blue cloak and holding a bow, she seated, wearing a golden dress with a spaniel on her lap, a landscape beyond. Signed and dated RB [Robert Byng] 1714. One daughter not shown, Mary, married Charles Long the brother of Beeston.
Dudley North and his sister Ann

Dudley North married Catherine Yale whose father, Elihu, had an interesting career which was as follows:

Elihu Yale was a native of America (born in Boston, Massachusetts, on 5th April, 1649). In 1652 his father David Yale decided to return his family to England and Elihu never saw America again. He began his working life as a clerk in the East India Company and was sent by the Company to Bengal. He became governor of Fort St. George on 25th July, 1687, and appears to have ruled the colony with most oppressive authority (at least according to his detractors of whom there were many). An anecdote, illustrative of his arbitrary disposition, is recorded as follows: his groom, having rode out a favourite horse two of three days for the purposes of airing and exercise, without first obtaining leave to authorise his so doing, the Governor caused him peremptorily to be hanged up, for daring to use such a supposed discretionary power. For this murder Yale was ordered to return to England; and, having been tried for the crime, by some undetected oeillet (loophole) of the law he escaped the punishment of death, and only suffered a heavy pecuniary fine.

He was also remarkable for his auctions. The first of these was about the year 1700. He had brought such quantities of goods on his return from India, that, finding no one house large enough to stow them in, he had a public sale of the overplus; and that was the first auction of the kind in England.
Fort Saint George, Bengal

Yale died at Queen Square, London on 8th July, 1721, and his body was taken to Denbighshire where it lies buried in the churchyard of Wrexham. On his tomb is the following inscription:

Under this tomb lyes interred Elihu Yale, of Plas Gronow, Esq. born 5th April, 1648, and dyed the 8th of July, 1721, aged 75 years.

Born in America, in Europe bred,
In Affric travell’d, and in Asia wed,
Where long he liv’d and thriv’d, at London dead.
Much good, some ill he did, so hopes all’s even,
And that his soul, through mercy’s gone to Heav’n.
You that survive and read this tale, take care
For this most certain exit to prepare,
Where, blest in peace, the actions of the just,
Smell sweet and blossom in the silent dust.
It was , in part, his money that helped found a college in New Haven, Connecticut, named after him.

III. Dudley North, (1706-1764) son of the above Dudley and Catherine (Yale) North, was born in 1706. He married Lady Barbara, the only daughter of Thomas Herbert, the eighth Earl of Pembroke and fifth Earl of Montgomery, by his second wife Barbara, the daughter of Sir Thomas Slingsby of Scriven in Yorkshire, Second Baronet and Dorothy Cradock his wife.

From left to right: Dudley North as a young boy, his wife Barbara Hebert daughter of the 8th Earl of Pembroke; Dudley North as a young man and his wife Barbara.

Lady Barbara (Herbert) North died without issue on 31st December, 1755, aged 44 and was interred in the chancel of the parish church of Glemham. Her husband deceased on 6th June, 1764, aged 58, and was buried in the same place.
North, Herbert, and Long family memorials at St Andrew, Glemham, Suffolk

Having no children, Dudley bequeathed, by his last will, after his legacies and donations to charitable uses (which were very considerable) were discharged, the remainder of his fortune, real and personal, to his two sisters, Ann and Mary.

IV. Ann North (1709-1789), the eldest sister, married on 8th July, 1737, the Honourable Nicholas Herbert, the seventh son of Thomas, the eighth Earl of Pembroke and fifth Earl of Montgomery, by his first wife Margaret, the sole daughter and heir of Sir Robert Sawyer, of High Clere, in the county of Southampton and Attorney General in the reign of Charles II. Nicholas was thus the half-brother of Barbara who married Ann’s brother Dudley North (above). Nicholas Herbert was born in 1708 and died in 1775 and his remains were interred in the church of Glemham, where, on a mural tablet, is this inscription to his memory:

Sacred to the memory of the Hon. Nicholas Herbert, Esq. youngest son of Thomas, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, who departed this life the 1st day of February, 1775, aged 67 years. He represented Newport and Wilton in many Parliaments, and was a Member for the last at the time of his death. He was Secretary of the Island of Jamaica. He was possessed of many amiable qualities, and married Ann, eldest sister and co-heiress of Dudley North, of Glemham-hall, in this county, Esq. by whom he left one only-surviving child, Barbara, married to Edward, Earl of Aldborough. This monument was erected by the Hon. Ann Herbert, his relict, anno Domini 1779.

His wife deceased on 22nd January, 1789, and was buried in the same place, with this inscription:

Sacred to the memory of Ann, relict of the Hon. Nicholas Herbert, who departed this life the 22d of January, 1789, aged 80 years. She bequeathed this estate to her nephew, Dudley Long, requesting him to take and use the surname and arms of North. This tablet further serves to record his gratitude to so worthy and affectionate a relation.

Robert Sawyer (1633-1692) whose daughter Margaret was the mother of Nicholas Herbert who married Ann North Thomas Herbert, 8th Earl of Pembroke who married Margaret Sawyer, daughter of Robert (left), and then Barbara Slingsby Barbara Slingsby second wife of Thomas Herbert, 8th Earl of Pembroke whose daughter Barbara married Dudley North

Nicholas and Ann (North) Herbert had issue one son, Elihu, who died in his infancy, and two daughters; viz. Ann, who was born in 1738, and who died on 25th December, 1751, and Barbara, who was born in 1739, and who, in 1765, married Edward Stratford, the second Earl of Aldborough, by whom she left no issue. The Countess of Aldborough deceased before her mother on 11th April, 1785, and was interred in the church of Glemham.
Glemham Hall home of the North family, inherited by Charles Long. Left an eighteenth century print and righe hall today.

V. Mary North (1715-1770), the second daughter and co-heiress of Dudley and Catherine (Yale) North was born in 1715, and married Charles Long, of Hurts Hall, in Saxmundham in Suffolk, the brother of Beeston Long. As noted above they had two sons: Charles who married Jane Long daughter of Beeston and Sarah (Cropp) Long and Dudley on whom more below.


APPENDIX TWELVE: The Longs of Hurts Hall

At the beginning of the Eighteenth Century Charles Long, Snr. the father of Beeston Long who married Sarah Cropp and Charles Long, Jnr. who married Mary North purchased Hurts Hall in Saxmundham in Suffolk. The family of Charles Long Snr.’s eldest son Samuel settled in the village of Seale in Surrey and purchased Hampton Lodge.
Hampton Lodge home of Samuel Long

Thus the two branches of the Long family can be distinguished by their residences: The Longs of Hurts Hall and The Longs of Hampton Lodge. Other homes were purchased over the centuries but these two were there from the beginning; although Hurts Hall was demolished at the end of the Nineteenth Century. We begin our look at the Long family with the grandfather of Beeston Long and Charles Long, Jnr. of Hurts Hall, and Samuel Long of Hampton Lodge namely:

I. Samuel Long of Jamaica. According to the histories, this Samuel Long, who became the chief justice of the island, was a very able, ambitious, and resolute man. He was elected as a member for Port Royal in the first meeting of the Jamaica assembly.
A West Indian Sugar Plantation in the 18th Century

Between 1672 and 1675 he was chosen as Speaker of the Jamaica assembly for four successive sittings. On the last of these he was voted in by the members, not the governor, which then became the established practice. In 1674 he was appointed chief justice. He played an important part in supporting the council’s claim for the constitutional right of assembly against the governor’s. In doing so he demanded that the assembly should enjoy the same privileges in Jamaica as the House of Commons did in England. Anticipating many of the claims later made by the North Americans during the American Revolutionary War, he insisted that the assembly alone should have the right to tax the colony. After the first meeting of the assembly, he was charged with treason. The reason for this was because he had succeeded (assisted by his ally and fellow planter William Beeston) in the passing of various acts which gave the legislature, not the governor, control of the revenue even before these powers were assumed by the House of Commons. Unfortunately, his ‘political activism’ caused him to be suspended from the council in 1675 and he was dismissed as the chief justice. Five years later, in 1680, he was arrested with William Beeston and sent back to England where he was put on trial and later acquitted. During this time he acted informally as the colony’s agent in London and obtained permission for a permanent agent to represent Jamaica in Britain. He died in Jamaica on 28th June, 1683, and was buried in the parish of St. Katherine’s. According to the DNB Samuel Long:
‘… had accumulated seven plantations, which were among the largest, best cultivated, and most productive in the colony consisting of 11,183 acres in six parishes, and 288 slaves. He kept a particularly splendid residence in the capital at Spanish Town, far more elaborate than his plantation houses, which had a hall large enough for sixty chairs and seven tables. His career was synonymous with the rise of the sugar planters who dominated island politics. He and William Beeston had created an assembly in Jamaica which surpassed the claims of peer institutions in North America even though the island did not rebel in 1776.’

II. Charles Long, son of the above Samuel, of Longville, Jamaica, a member of the Council settled eventually at Hurts Hall in Saxmundham, and was chosen a member of Parliament for Dunwich in 1715. He married, firstly Amy the eldest daughter of Sir Nicholas Lawes, Governor of Jamaica, by whom he had issue one son (Samuel) and one daughter; and, secondly, Jane, the daughter and heiress of Sir William Beeston, Knt. the Governor of Jamaica, and relict of Sir James Molyford, Bart, by whom he had issue three sons (including Beeston and Charles) and five daughters; including Susannah shown below.
Susannah Long one of the daughters of Charles Long © The Fitzwilliam Museum

The History of Parliament has this to say about Charles:

Succeeding as an infant to the largest property in Jamaica, Charles Long bought an estate in Suffolk [Hurts Hall], not far from Dunwich, for which he was returned in 1715, voting with the Government. In 1720 he and a number of other persons obtained a patent granting them all gold and silver mines in Jamaica for 31 years. Long and his associates put up £150,000, a large part of which he, as treasurer, invested in South Sea stock at the height of the boom, with disastrous results. As a result, his grandson [Edward Long] writes, ‘My Grandfather was not able to bear up under the accumulated pressure of calamities, which had almost annihilated his fortune and involved him in a labyrinth of intricate accounts and lawsuits beneath which the powers of his mind entirely sank, and he soon fell into a decline of health from which he never recovered’. Nevertheless he stood again in 1722 for Dunwich, declaring, it was said locally, ‘that he would spend £5,000 rather than lose it’. Defeated, he died on 8th May, 1723, and was succeeded by the eldest son (Charles) of his second marriage to Jane Beeston.

One of the daughters, Susannah (image above), was born on 22nd July, 1717. She lived at South Audley Street in London, and dying unmarried on 16th April, 1820, at the advanced age of 102 years, was interred in the church of Tunstall, Suffolk.

III. Charles, (1705-1778) the eldest son by the second marriage of Charles Long and Jane Beeston. He was born in 1705, and married Mary, the second daughter and co-heiress of Dudley North, of Glemham by Catherine Yale, his wife. They had two sons, Charles (IV) and Dudley (V). She deceased on 10th May, 1770 and eight years later Charles died on 16th October, 1778. They were both interred in the south aisle of the church of Saxmundham.

IV. Charles, (1747-1813) the eldest son of Charles and Mary (North) Long, was born in 1747, and married on 26th December, 1786, his first cousin, Jane the daughter of Beeston Long, of London, Esq. and Sarah Cropp and by her had issue two sons, Charles and Dudley, who both died in their infancy. (see above section on Jane Long).

V. Dudley, (1748-1829) was baptized on 14th March, 1748, and was the second son of Charles and Mary (North) Long. He was educated at the school of Bury St. Edmund, from whence he was removed to Emanuel College, Cambridge, where he proceeded to the degree of B.A. in 1771, and to that of A.M. in 1774. He represented the borough of Banbury in 1796, 1802, and 1806. In 1812 he was returned for Richmond in Yorkshire. On the decease of his aunt Anne (North) Herbert in 1789, and in pursuance of her last will and testament, he assumed the name and arms of North; and, in 1813, on the death of his elder brother, Charles Long of Hurts Hall, he took the name and arms of Long, in addition to those of North. He married on 5th November, 1802, Sophia, the eldest daughter of Charles Anderson Pelham, the first Lord Yarborough, by Sophia, the only daughter of George Aufrere, of Chelsea, Esq.
Charles Long (1747-1813) and his brother Dudley (North) Long (1748- 1829)
by Frans van der Myn
Mr. Dudley Long-North died without issue, at Brompton, near London, at the age of 80, on 21st February, 1829, and he was buried at Glemham church where his widow erected a full length Italian marble statue of him.

He was a gentleman of distinguished and accomplished manners, and a consistent Whig and he associated, likewise, with literary and political men of a different character, among whom was Dr. Samuel Johnson. The following is from Boswell’s Life of Johnson:

Mrs. Thrale gave high praise to Mr. Dudley Long (now North). Johnson: “Nay, my dear lady, don’t talk so. Mr. Long’s character is very short. It is nothing. He fills a chair. He is a man of genteel appearance, and that is all”. Here Johnson condescended to play upon the words long and short. But little did he know that, owing to Mr. Long’s reserve in his presence, he was talking thus of a gentleman distinguished amongst his acquaintance for acuteness of wit, one to whom, I think, the French expression “Il petille d’esprit” [a sparking spirit?] is particularly suited. He [Long-North] has gratified me [Boswell] by mentioning that he heard Dr. Johnson say, “Sir, if I were to lose Boswell, it would be a limb amputated.”

In another passage Johnson had the following to say about Long-North:

His [Johnson’s] notion of the duty of a member of Parliament, sitting upon an election-committee, was very high; and when he was told of a gentleman upon one of those committees, who read the newspapers part of the time, and slept the rest, while the merits of a vote were examined by the counsel; and as an excuse, when challenged by the chairman for such behaviour, bluntly answered, ‘I had made up my mind upon that case.’— Johnson, with an indignant contempt, said, ‘If he was such a rogue as to make up his mind upon a case without hearing it, he should not have been such a fool as to tell it.’ ‘I think (said Mr. Dudley Long, now North,) the Doctor has pretty plainly made him [Dudley] out to be both rogue and fool.’

The DNB states that: “Unwarranted dejection about the state of his finances exacerbated the ill health which dogged Long North’s later years … A pallbearer at Edmund Burke’s funeral, a mourner at Sir Joshua Reynolds’s, and a patron of the poet George Crabbe, Long North was a popular member of both literary and political circles, but few of his witticisms are preserved: they were for the most part confined to his friends.”

Sophia (Anderson) Long-North, Dudley’s wife, had an interesting family. Her mother was Sophia Aufrere. She was the daughter of George Aufrere who was a very successful London merchant. According to the latest edition of the DNB, after he retired, George:

“ …. retreated to the magnificent Chelsea mansion and gardens that had once been the home of Sir Robert Walpole and which he had purchased in 1759. Surrounded by a widely acclaimed collection of paintings and statues that he and Joshua Reynolds assembled (contemporaries considered it one of the best private collections in Britain at the end of the eighteenth century). Aufrere supported the many exploratory schemes of his nephew’s Sir Joseph Banks”.

George Aufrere’s wife Arabella Bate was cousin to Brownlow Cecil 8th Earl of Exeter (see Brownlow family below).
Above left a bust of Arabella (Bate) Aufrere and right a temple at Brocklesby Park that is dedicated “… by veneration and affection to the memory of Arabella Aufrere, with a grateful sense of the many virtuous sentiments imbibed often on this spot from her highly cultivated mind.”

Below the ancestor of the Norths, Sir Charles Montagu, in his tent taken form his monument in Barking church. His brother Edward was the ancestor of the Dukes of Manchester and from this Edward Montagu a direct descendant (Margaretta Waddington) married Marmaduke Cradock a direct descendant of Richard Cradock’s.
Sir Charles Montagu asleep in his tent .
His daughter married Dudley North, 4th Baron





















APPENDIX THIRTEEN: A Brief History of the North Family

Edward North, 1st Baron, (1496-1664). Born about 1496, the only son of Roger North, a citizen of London, by Christian, daughter of Richard Warcup of Sinnington in Yorkshire. He studied at St. Paul’s School, and then Peterhouse, Cambridge; but he seems never to have proceeded to a degree. He entered one of the Inns of Court, was called to the bar, and became counsel for the city of London. In 1531 he was appointed clerk of the parliament. In 1541 he was appointed treasurer of the court of augmentations, a court created by the king, Henry VIII, for dealing with the estates which had been confiscated by the dissolution of the monasteries. In 1541 he was knighted, and served as High Sheriff of Cambridgeshire for 1543. In 1545 he was one of a commission of inquiry as to the distribution of the revenues of certain cathedrals and collegiate churches, and about the same time he was promoted as sole chancellor of the court of augmentations. In 1546 he was made a member of the privy council, and managed by prudence to retain the favour of his sovereign, though on one occasion towards the end of his reign Henry VIII was induced to distrust him, and even to accuse him of peculation, a charge of which he cleared himself. He was named as one of the executors of King Henry’s will, and a legacy of £300 was bequeathed to him. He died at the Charterhouse London on 31st December, 1564.


Below two images of Edward North and the title page of his great, great grandson’s biography of him.


Roger North, 2nd Baron, (1531-1600). Little information survives about his boyhood and youth. He may have been a student of Peterhouse like his brother Thomas, the translator of Plutarch, but his admission to Gray’s Inn in 1561 was probably honorary. Young North excelled at tilting, and at one tournament Princess Elizabeth rewarded him with a scarf of red silk, a token which figures proudly in a fine contemporary portrait. He became a member of Elizabeth’s household upon her accession and was created knight of the Bath at her coronation. Doubtless his father’s prestige and influence procured North’s first election to Parliament in 1555 at the age of 24, when he was returned as senior knight of the shire for the county of Cambridge.
Roger North (1531-1600), 2nd Baron

Despite his father’s standing at court, North voted against a government bill and his absence from the next Parliament may be attributable to this opposition. His Protestantism later took a Puritan form. In later life he was to remain an active magistrate in Cambridgeshire, and to become high steward of the borough, while winning national fame at court and on the battlefield. He died on 3rd December, 1600. In 1682 his book Light in the Way to Paradise was posthumously published.

Thomas North (1535-1603) (translator). He is supposed to have been a student of Peterhouse, Cambridge, and was entered at Lincoln’s Inn in 1557. In 1574 he accompanied his brother, Roger, 2nd Baron North, on a diplomatic visit to the French court. He served as captain in the year of the Spanish Armada (1588), and was knighted about three years later. His name is on the roll of justices of the peace for Cambridge in 1592 and again in 1597, and he received a small pension (£40 a year) from the queen in 1601. He translated, in 1557, Guevara’s Reloj de Principes (commonly known as Libro áureo), a compendium of moral counsels chiefly compiled from the meditations of Marcus Aurelius, under the title of The Diall of Princes.


North translated from a French copy of Guevara, but seems to have been well acquainted with the Spanish version. The book had already been translated by Lord Berners, but without reproducing the rhetorical artifices of the original. North’s version, with its mannerisms and its constant use of antithesis, set the fashion which was to culminate in John Lyly’s Euphues. The images below are taken from The Diall.


North’s dedication to Queen Mary, dated 20th December, 1557, sought the queen’s encouragement, the author ‘beinge yonge, to attempt the like enterprise’ on further occasions. His next work was The Morall Philosophie of Doni (1570), a translation of an Italian collection of eastern fables, popularly known as The Fables of Bidpai. The first edition of his translation of Plutarch, from the French of Jacques Amyot, appeared in 1579 and was dedicated to Queen Elizabeth. It was followed by another edition in 1595, containing fresh lives and a third in 1603. It is almost impossible to over-estimate the influence of North’s vigorous English on contemporary writers, and some critics have called him the first master of English prose. The Lives translation formed the source from which Shakespeare drew the materials for his Julius Caesar, Coriolanus, and Antony and Cleopatra. It is in the last-named play that he follows the Lives most closely, whole speeches being taken directly from North. North’s Plutarch was reprinted for the Tudor Translations (1895), with an introduction by George Wyndham.

John North (1550-1597) son of the above Roger and father of the following Dudley, died within his father’s lifetime and the Baronetcy was inherited by his son. He married Dorothy, daughter and heiress of Sir Valentine Dale.

Dudley North, 3rd Baron (1582-1666). He was the son of Sir John and Dorothy (Dale) North. Dorothy was the daughter and heiress of Sir Valentine Dale. Dudley succeeded his grandfather, Roger North, 2nd Baron North, at the age of nineteen. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and married in 1599 Frances, daughter of Sir John Brockett of Brockett Hall in Hertfordshire. He travelled in Italy, took part in the campaign of 1602 in the Netherlands, and on his return became a conspicuous figure at court, excelling in athletic exercises as well as in poetry and music, and gaining the friendship of Prince Henry (left). [Henry was the son of James I and died of typhoid fever at the age of 19, paving the way to the throne of his doomed brother Charles I]

In 1606, while returning from Eridge to London, he discovered the springs at The Pantiles, Tunbridge Wells, which cured North himself of a complaint and quickly became famous. He also recommended the Epsom springs to the public. He supported and subscribed to the expedition to Guyana made by his brother Roger North (c. 1582 – c. 1652) in 1619, and when Roger departed without leave Dudley was imprisoned for two days in the Fleet. In 1626 he attached himself to the party of Lord Saye and Sele in the Lords, who were in sympathy with the aims of the Commons; and when the civil war broke out he was on the side of the parliament.
Sir John Brocket , Dudley’s father in law Dudlley, Third Baron North
In 1641 he was a member of the Lords committee on Religion, and was one of those who approved the sentence of death for Archbishop Laud, whereby Laud was beheaded for attempting to:

…. introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical Government, against Law; and to alter and subvert God’s true Religion by Law established in this Realm, and instead thereof to set up Popish Superstition and Idolatry; and to subvert the Rights of Parliaments, and the ancient Course of Parliamentary Proceedings; and, by false and malicious Slanders, to incense His Majesty against Parliaments…
Kirtling Hall – Home of the North Family

After his Parliamentary career, Dudley passed the rest of his life in retirement at Kirtling in Cambridgeshire. He died leaving a daughter and two sons, the elder of which, Sir Dudley, succeeded him as the 4th Baron North. Dudley North wrote A Forest of Varieties (1645), a miscellany of essays and poems, another edition of which was published in 1659 under the title of A Forest Promiscuous of Several Seasons Productions.

His daughter Dorothy (1605-1698) (image below) married Richard Lennard, 13th Lord Dacre and then Challoner Chute.

Dorothy North

Dudley North, 4th Baron, (1602-1677), was the elder son of Dudley North, 3rd Baron North and his wife Frances Brockett. He was admitted to St John’s College, Cambridge in 1619 and Gray’s Inn in August, 1619. He married Ann Montagu, the daughter of Charles the brother of the 1st Earl of Manchester. In 1620 he joined the volunteer regiment for the relief of the German Palatinate and served in Holland. He travelled in Italy, France, and Spain. In 1628 he was elected Member of Parliament for Horsham and sat until 1629 when King Charles decided to rule without parliament for eleven years. In April, 1640, North was elected MP for Cambridgeshire in the Short Parliament. He was re-elected in November, 1640, as MP for Cambridgeshire in the Long Parliament. In 1660, North was elected Member of Parliament for Cambridge in the Convention Parliament. On the death of his father in January, 1667/66, he succeeded to the title of Baron North. He was an accomplished man, of studious bent, and wrote on economics and religious subjects. He published, besides other things, passages relating to the Long Parliament, of which he had himself been a member. North died in 1677 and was buried at Kirtling in Cambridgeshire on 27th June, 1677.


Dudley North and Ann Montagu had five sons and three daughters. We will briefly summarize the lives of some of these children. One daughter, Christian North (1648-1708), married Sir George Wenyeve of Brettenham in Suffolk. They had a daughter Frances who married first Charles Vesey and then John Tudman Doctor of Physic of Hammersmith. This John Tudman was the brother of Benjamin Tudman who married Susannah (Cradock) Banner. We know little of their lives except for a court case which will appear later. For now a chart showing the relationship among these families appears below.





Charles North, 5th Baron North and 1st Baron Grey (1636-1691), son and heir apparent to Dudley, 4th Baron North. He married Katherine, daughter of William Lord Grey of Werke. He had two sons, William his successor, and Charles who died unmarried; also two daughters who died young. (His son Charles and daughter Catherine are shown below).
Charles North and two of his children.

Samuel Pepys comments in his dairy on Charles’ getting married that: ‘he is the happiest man in the world’ and that ‘I am sure he is an ugly fellow; but a good scholar and sober gentleman’. However, in a recent biography (1999) on his brother Dudley North, Charles is described as being: ‘… the most insecure, mediocre, unimaginative, and petty’ of the North brothers. King Charles II considered him ‘the one fool in the North family’.

Francis North, 1st Baron Guilford (1637–1685) was the third son of the 4th Baron North, and was created Baron Guilford in 1683, after becoming Lord Keeper of the Great Seal in succession to Lord Nottingham. He had been an eminent lawyer, Solicitor-General (1671), Attorney-General (1673), and Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (1675), and in 1679 was made a member of the Council of Thirty and on its dissolution of the Cabinet. He was a man of wide culture and a staunch royalist.

Two images of Francis North, 1st Baron Guildford

He was hostile to Lord Jeffreys, and regarded the future Chief Justice, Sir Robert Wright, as utterly unfit for any judicial office. He was generally respected for integrity, but sometimes accused of self-importance and a lack of any sense of humour; for example his excessive agitation at the ridiculous rumour spread by Sunderland and Jeffreys that he had been seen riding on a rhinoceros. In 1672 he married Lady Frances Pope, daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Pope, 3rd Earl of Downe, who inherited the Wroxton estate, and he was succeeded as 2nd baron by his son Francis (1673–1729). (From Wikipedia)

Roger North (1653-1734), the following is adapted from ‘The History of Parliament’

Brother of the above Charles, Francis and Dudley the Turkey Merchant of Glemham Parva. Roger North made his career in the law like his brother Francis. When Roger graduated, he was immediately called to the bar, his practice prospered. In 1682 ‘my brother got me made of the King’s counsel, which let me in to advanced fees’. He was ordered to assist the attorney-general, Sir Robert Sawyer , in state trials, notably those that followed the Rye House Plot. After his brother Francis became Lord Keeper, his own professional income rose to £4,000 p.a. ‘I made myself a piece of a courtier,’ he wrote, ‘and commonly on Sundays went to Whitehall’, and in 1684 the Duke of York appointed him his attorney-general. In the new reign he became solicitor-general to the Queen (Mary of Modena). By his own account: “All these steps were without my making court: my brother obtained them, and I had only to kiss the King and Queen’s hands.” Indeed so powerful became the Norths that nothing could ‘happen or fall’ but a North was present … it was as if … ‘they had a monopoly on preferment.’

He wrote industriously, principally on music, though none of his works, except A Discourse of Fish and Fish Ponds, was published in his lifetime. He prepared his Examen as a vindication of Charles II and of his own brother, the lord keeper, in reply to White Kennett’s History, published in 1706.
Above Roger North and below the title pages of six of his books

He was an MP for Dunwich, and was returned unopposed for the borough at the general election of 1685. He became a very active member of James II’s Parliament and was appointed to 20 committees.

On 16th June he opposed the motion for a bill to naturalize all Protestant refugees (e.g. Huguenots), on the grounds that a general naturalization ‘made no distinction, the scum of all Europe might come and be officers and juries’. The effect was to delay the introduction of the bill, which was much disliked at Court, but not to kill it.

He was among those instructed to draft a clause forbidding any motions in either House to alter the succession to the throne. He was ordered with two others to draft a bill for registering the deaths, burials, marriages and issue of the nobility and gentry. He was appointed to the post of attorney-general to the Queen.

At the age of 32, North’s career had already reached its apogee. His legal practice declined when he was exposed to the full force of Judge Jeffreys’ hostility. He was an earnest student of architecture, acted as executor of Sir Peter Lely, and became an accomplished and enthusiastic musician. At Court, however, the times began to grow sour, “… I could perceive at the King’s levee and at the Queen’s court I was looked upon with an evil discouraging eye, which made me forbear. I thought my person was no agreeable object, and it was better court to keep it away.”

In 1691 he bought the Rougham estate, where he rebuilt the Hall, brought up a large family of orphan nephews and nieces, experimented in agriculture, and acted as arbiter in local disputes, though he never became a J.P.
The ruins of Rougham Hall. It was built by Roger and pulled down by his grandson Fountain North who said he had such bad memories of his father and the Hall that
he wanted it destroyed.

At the age of 43 he married Mary Gayer the daughter of ‘a stiff and furious Jacobite’ (Sir Robert Gayer), who brought him a considerable access of fortune, as well as a large family. In 1721 his name was sent to the Pretender as a Jacobite supporter, though by this time he had become a studious recluse. Occupied with his valuable biographical accounts of himself and his brothers, he retained his vigour and brightness of intellect to the end. He died on 1st March, 1734.

John North (1645-1683) was the fifth child Sir Dudley North, 4th Baron North, and brother of Charles, Dudley, Roger, and Francis. John North was educated at Bury St Edmunds and entered Jesus College, Cambridge, in February 1660/1. He graduated BA in 1663/4, and (by Royal mandate) became a fellow of Jesus in 1664. In 1672 he migrated to Trinity College, and was Regius Professor of Greek from 1672 to 1674. Made Clerk of the Closet in 1673, he was a prebend of Westminster from 1673 to 1683 and chaplain to the King from 1676 to 1683. He was Master of Trinity from 1677 to 1683.

John North

Dr. North appears to have been a man of great probity and learning, but, upon the whole, to have been better qualified for private than public life. Although his conversation was fluent, he had great wit, yet he had an uncommon timidity of temper; and there is much reason to think that the ungovernable state in which he found Trinity college, and the vexatious insolence of some of the fellows, had a tendency to produce that imbecility which rendered his last years useless. His only publication, except one sermon, was an edition of some pieces of Plato, whose philosophy he preferred to that of Aristotle, as more consonant to Christian morality. He is buried in Trinity College Chapel.

William North, 6th Baron, (1673-1734) was born on 22nd December, 1673, and succeeded, on the death of his father, Charles, in 1690, as sixth Lord North, and second Lord Grey, of Rolleston in Staffordshire. He took his place in the House of Peers, in January, 1698. In the reign of Queen Ann he was appointed lord lieutenant of Cambridgeshire, governor of Portsmouth, and made a member of the privy council; but his chief merit was his military conduct; and having served, with great honour, under the Duke of Marlborough, he was appointed lieutenant-general of the British forces; and particularly distinguished himself at Blenheim, where his right hand was shot off.

An active participant in the House of Lords, North was a staunch Tory throughout his career and with the Hanoverian succession he began to exhibit his Jacobite sympathies more openly. Although he stayed out of the 1715 Rising, he was implicated in the Jacobite plots that followed the South Sea Bubble’s collapse and was associated with what was known as the Atterbury Plot, which involved a plan for an armed uprising. North was commissioned by the Stuart Pretender as Lieutenant-general and Commander-in-Chief for London and Westminster, thus being singled out to play a crucial role in the takeover of the capital. North was given the Jacobite title of Earl North and also designated Lord Regent for the Pretender’s restoration.

Anticipating his arrest, North made a failed attempt to escape aboard a smuggler’s yacht but did not get further than the Isle of Wight, after which he was committed to The Tower of London in October, 1722. (It was this Lord North and Grey that John Purcell MD visited in the Tower of London to treat for a fever). He never stood trial and was released on bail on 28th October, 1723. Shortly thereafter he retired, and after years of solicitations North, aided by the Jacobites’ most prominent military exile, James, Duke of Ormond, received a Spanish army commission in 1728. The same year he showed his loyalty to the Jacobite cause by converting to Roman Catholicism and subsequently spent his remaining years in embittered exile in Spain.

Maria Margaretta North Cornelis de Jonge van Ellemeet
Cecilia, sister of Margaretta

Lord North died at Madrid on 31st October, 1734; and left no issue by his wife, Maria Margaretta, daughter of Cornelis de Jonge van Ellemeet, Receiver-General to the States of Holland. Charles, his only brother, died unmarried, at the siege of Lisle; and the barony of Grey, of Rolleston, became extinct. That of North, descended to his cousin Francis North, 2nd Baron Guildford, who was afterwards created an earl by the same title.

After Lord North’s death, his widow Maria Margaretha de Jonge (d. 1762), married in 1735 Patrick Murray, 5th Lord Elibank, who has been described as a ‘brilliant man of great knowledge’. He wrote among other things: Essays on Paper Money, Banking, etc. (1755) Thoughts on Money, Circulation, and Paper Currency (1758), Inquiry into the Origin and Consequence of the Public Debts (1758/9); Remarks on the History of Scotland (1773), etc. Alexander Carlyle, in his autobiography, described Lord Elibank as one of the most learned and ingenious noblemen of his time, and as having a mind that embraced the greatest variety of topics and produced the most original remarks. There was no issue.

Dudley North, (1706-1764) whose sister Mary married Charles Long, married Barbara Herbert daughter of Thomas Herbert, the 8th Earl of Pembroke. Thomas’ son, as noted above, Nicholas Herbert, married Ann North, Dudley’s sister. There was no issue.

The Guildford line of the North family flourished and is still producing descendants to this day. A picture gallery of some of the Guildford branch of the North family is shown below.


Francis, 1st Baron Guildford
Francis North 2nd Baron


Francis North (1704–1790), 1st Earl
Frederic (1732–1792), 2nd Earl
Frederic, (1732–1792), 2nd Earl

Francis 4th Earl
Frederick 5th Earl
Dudley Francis 7th Earl



APPENDIX FOURTEEN: The Beckford – Beeston – Long Connection

Beeston Long’s father, Charles, married his mother Jane Beeston in 1703. She was the daughter of William Beeston, Governor of Jamaica. There is some speculation as to whether or not Peter Beckford married Jane’s sister, Bridget Beeston, and whether or not the Beckfords are descended from this marriage or a later marriage of Peter’s to Ann Ballard. Two trees support the Beckford-Beeston descent pattern. The first tree below is taken from Matthew Parker’s 2011 book The Sugar Barons and shows Peter Beckford marrying Bridget Beeston and having descendants. Likewise, the second tree taken from Records and Letters of the Family of the Longs by Robert Mowbray Howard supports Parker’s position.
Peter Beckford, 1644-1710
Peter Beckford, 1674-1735
Alderman William Beckford, 1709-1770

William Beckford of Fonthill. The dilettante, 1760-1844
Susan Euphemia Beckford who married the 10th Duke of Northumberland


The tree below shows not only Peter Beckford marrying Bridget Beeston and having a family by her, and not Ann Ballard, but also the latter Long-Beckford connection with the marriage of Edward Long to Mary Ballard Beckford. Edward was Beeston Long’s nephew.


However other genealogists and biographers (such as the DNB) have Anne Ballard as the mother of Peter Beckford’s children.

As already noted, Jane Beeston was Charles Long’s second wife. Before Jane there was Amy Lawes. Charles and Amy (Lawes) Long had a son Samuel. This Samuel married Mary Tate only child of Bartholomew Tate. Their son Edward Long married on 12th August, 1758, Mary Ballard Beckford. She was the daughter of Thomas Beckford shown on the above tree and the one below. Edward Long (1734-1813) was chief judge of the vice-admiralty court, Jamaica, author of the history of that island and Beeston Long’s (half) nephew.









Mary Ballard (Beckford) Long died on 16th July, 1797, aged sixty-two. Edward Long died on 13th March, 1813, at Arundel Park in Sussex. Their daughter Elizabeth Long married Lord Henry Thomas Howard-Molyneux-Howard, Deputy Earl Marshall of England and the younger brother of the 12th Duke of Norfolk. In turn, their daughter, Henrietta Anna Howard, married (as his second wife) Henry John George Herbert, the 3rd Earl of Carnarvon.
Henry Thomas Howard-Molyneux-Howard who married Edward Long’s daughter Elizabeth Long Bernard Howard 12th Duke of Norfolk and brother of Henry Thomas (left) Henry John George Herbert, 3rd Earl of Carnarvon who married Henry Howard and Elizabeth Long’s daughter Henrietta Anna Howard.

There were other marriages to the peerage of this branch of the Long family too numerous to mention (see following chart).

Below two extracts from the recollections of Edward Long that refer to his uncle Beeston Long and the Cropp family:

The Scotch rebellion at this period had thrown all London into Tumult. Guards were posted at all the City Gates who stopped every carriage to search for concealed arms,
and all the brave Citizens were training themselves to the exercise of the firelock: among the rest the first object I recollect that struck me on entering the saloon hall of my Uncle Beeston’s house was Mr. [Richard] Cropp, at that time a jolly plump young man who, arrayed in his Military accoutrements, was practising the manual Exercise with an old Sergeant.

In another passage Edward Long refers to a family rift which his father, Samuel Long, tried to heal:

I do not exactly recollect in what year it was, that my Father was favoured with a general rendez-vous of several relations—among the number were my Uncle Tate and his first wife, my Uncles Charles and Beeston [Long] and probably several others whom I have forgot. My Father and Mother embraced this occasion to bring them together again, and bury all former differences in oblivion; and they in some degree affected a truce, but not a peace, for the reconciliation was not permanent and they soon separated again for ever. My Uncle Beeston was either just married, or about entering into marriage with Miss Cropp daughter of Jonathan [Abraham] Cropp, a merchant in London, with a fortune of £30,000. He was the gayest of the whole party, and employed himself in making a variety of fireworks; thus with the addition of Balls, and Entertainments of every kind, the whole house was a scene of jollity for some time.

In a letter written by Jane Catherine Long (who married Henry Dawkins’s son Richard) she refers to Charles Long (Baron Farnborough) as ‘the beauty’.

Below are Charles Edward Long and his first cousin Henry Lawes Long painted by Henry Bernard Chalon. The former is not shown on the Long family chart below because of lack of space.

Charles Edward Long was the only surviving son of Charles Beckford Long and Frances Monro Tucker. Long was educated at Harrow School and at Trinity College, Cambridge. In 1845 he compiled a volume called Royal Descents: A Genealogical List of the Several Persons Entitled to Quarter the Arms of the Royal Houses of England. He presented many valuable documents relating to Jamaica to the British Library and wrote many notable publications. Returning from a visit to Hamburg, Long died unmarried at the Lord Warden Hotel, Dover. He was buried in the churchyard at Seale, Surrey.

Charles Edward Long (1796–1861)

Henry Lawes Long (1795-1868)

Henry Dawkins and his family
Below a family tree from The Gentleman’s Magazine showing the Tate family and some descendants. Samuel Long, Beeston’s half-brother married Mary Tate (as shown).





Mary Tate’s sister Catherine married Charles Hedges the son of Sir William Hedges (1632-1701). William was the first governor of The East India Company in Bengal.








APPENDIX FIFTEEN: The Collapse of Roffey’s Bank

Parts of the following description of the fall of Roffey’s bank are adapted from A Handbook of London Bankers, with additional material from contemporary newspapers.

In the year 1767 Roffey’s bank took into partnership Mr. Alexander Fordyce, a decision which was to prove fatal to the bank. Fordyce was said to have been a man of handsome appearance and possessed of considerable energy with a flow of natural eloquence and a marked suavity of manner. He no sooner became a partner in Roffey and Neale & Co. than he began to speculate in the public funds hazarding large sums.

However, the nature of Fordyce’s character may have been revealed earlier on by his behavior toward Thomas Hughes as reported in the newspapers on 29th February, 1764:

On Tuesday last was tried at Guildhall before Lord Mansfield, by a special jury of Merchants, an action, brought by Mr. Thomas Hughes, of Little Ormond-street, against Mr. Alexander Fordyce, Banker, in Lombard-street, for seizing the Plaintiff’s goods, under pretence of a commission of bankruptcy; when, after a short trial, the Plaintiff had a verdict; and the said Mr. Fordyce was, by order of Court, directed to restore to Mr. Hughes all his estate and effects seized under the said commission.

At first Fordyce was fortunate and in 1767 when he speculated largely in East India Company stock for a rise they went up even higher than he anticipated leaving him in possession of nearly £100,000. He then purchased an estate at Roehampton, gave great entertainments and in June, 1770, some months after Samuel Roffey died, he married Lady Margaret Lindsay second daughter of the Earl of Balcarres.

His extravagance knew no bounds and he continued his speculations which after a time turned out badly. Even though his luck turned against him, he continued borrowing from every one he could when at last the Bank of England and other bankers refused him further assistance.

In 1772 he is said to have visited a Quaker for the purpose of borrowing money but the worthy man was too shrewd to be taken in. He wittily parried the application with “Friend Fordyce I have known many people ruined by two dice but I will not be ruined by four dice”. The Quaker was right for shortly afterwards Fordyce absconded and the firm that Samuel Roffey founded was hopelessly bankrupt discovery being made that Fordyce had put his name to bills in circulation to the amount of four millions sterling.

The following account from the Annual Register of the memorable Monday 8th June, 1772, which came to be called ‘Black Monday’, gives an idea of the prevailing agitation that took hold of the City of London:

It is beyond the power of words to describe the general consternation of the metropolis at this instant. No event for fifty years [ie since the South Sea Bubble] has been remembered to give so fatal a blow to trade and public credit. An universal bankruptcy was expected. The stoppage of almost every banker’s house in London was looked for. The whole City was in an uproar. Many of the first families were in tears. This melancholy scene began with a rumour that one of the greatest bankers in London [Roffey’s] had stopped which afterwards proved true. A report at the same time was propagated that an immediate stop of the greatest must take place. Happily this proved groundless the principal merchants assembled and means were concerted to revive trade and preserve the national credit.

Below from: The History of Coutts Bank on the topic of ‘Black Monday’ (8th June, 1772) as it affected Scotland.

This ‘Black Monday’ was a great calamity in England, but it proved almost fatal to the banking interest in Scotland. The news of the failure of Roffey’s bank when it arrived in Scotland had the immediate effect of breaking nearly all the banks in the northern kingdom. One after another, they stopped payment and the panic at Edinburgh and Glasgow was such as to threaten a revolution. The excited multitude claiming cash in exchange for their notes [resulted in] a human stampede, not to be arrested by any amount of sound sense and reasoning, and the consequence was, that the banks had to declare themselves insolvent […] leaving, in the words of a Scottish writer, “an amount of destruction in its wake such as Scotland had not experienced since the wreck of the Darien expedition ”

The contagion did not stop at the North Sea, it spread across Europe where there ‘was such an extensive crash, that there seemed to be a universal wreck of credit’. In Russia the Empress herself was said to have ‘stepped forward to ward off the impending calamity’ (See Sheridan, R. B. (1960) The British Credit Crisis of 1772 in The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 161-186)

The East India Company suffered too. With the sudden tightening of credit, its main lender, The Bank of England, curtailed loans to the company such that the Company had to be rescued by the British Government with a loan of £1,400,000 as well as special concessions with regard to the export of tea to the American colonies. These concessions would eventually lead to the imposition of a stamp duty on the colonies which resulted in the dumping of tea into Boston Bay and other expressions of frustration.

The West Indies also suffered and Governor Leyborne of Grenada wrote in June, 1773 ‘The distressed situation of this island, owing to the failure of credit, the low price of coffee, and the scarcity of money is beyond conception.’

In the North American colonies farmers and planters had long depended on lines of credit from London and Glasgow merchants, a habit which Lord Sheffield wrote disapprovingly of: “… the Colonists have at all times had too much credit; they have been in every age greatly indebted and it seems to have been a favourite principal with them to prevent or retard recovery of debts”. It was unfortunate then that, along with the general lack of credit that had set in as a result of the collapse of the banks, beginning with Roffey’s, the aggregated price of sixteen commodities dropped from 148 in June, 1772 to 98 in May, 1774 (Sheridan, R. B. (1960), p. 175).

As a result, the debt burden of farmers and planters in the colonies increased rapidly and became a source of growing unrest that undermined the already strained relations with the mother country. In a letter to the Virginia Gazette Robert Carter Nicholas wrote in 1773 that the misfortunes arising from the collapse of the banks in Scotland resulted in ‘the greatest misfortunes in this Country’ (Sheridan, R. B., p. 178). Another wrote that: “… the consequences have extended to this part of the world to a violent degree, and unless our principle export, Tobo., can be kept up in value at home, I don’t see how we shall be enabled to discharge our debts on your side of the water.” (see Sheridan). Some, such as Thomas Jefferson, had a simple if not revolutionary solution to the problem.

Back in England, at the sale of Fordyce’s effects at Roehampton in 1772, a man (Samuel Foote) who attended almost every day bought nothing but a pillow. On being asked what particular use he could have for a single pillow “As a narcotic,” said he “for if the original proprietor could sleep so soundly on it at the time of owing so much as he did it may be of singular service to me on many occasions.”

The following notes on two portraits of Alexander Fordyce and his wife Margaret are taken from: An Exhibition of the Works of Thomas Gainsborough, R.A. by F. G. Stephens.

Portrait No. 160. The second daughter of James, fifth Earl of Balcarres, by Anne, daughter of Sir Robert Dalrymple. She married, first, Alexander Fordyce, a member of Roffey’s banking firm of Threadneedle Street, “… whose catastrophe on ‘Black Monday’ brought Britannia, Queen of the Indies, to the precipice of bankruptcy.” There are records that give terrible accounts of the deluge of bankruptcy which occurred in this instance, and they indicate the ruin of thousands. After the death of Fordyce, Lady Margaret, in 1812, married Sir James Bland Burges, Bart., “… who had been an early admirer, but had married twice in the interim.” Lady Margaret died in 1814. .

Her portrait by Gainsborough is said to be one of his ‘masterpieces’ although an image of the portrait has so far not been located. Further on in the book by Stephens is a note on Gainsborough’s portrait of Alexander Fordyce.
Lent by the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres. A portrait of the husband of Lady Margaret Lindsay, a banker, whose history is partly epitomized in the account of the picture of that lady, No. 160 (above).
Again, the location of this portrait has yet been established.
In early September, 1770, Alexander Fordyce, his wife, and one other were upon the highway as reported in the newspapers:

6th September, 1770 Tuesday night, about dusk, Alexander Fordyce, Esq; and his new-married lady, were attacked near Roehamptom, by seven footpads, who surrounded the chaise, and robbed him and Lady Margaret of their watches and money.
15th September, 1770 There were seven men concerned in the robbing of Alexander Fordyce, Esq; and his new married lady, near Roehampton, on Tuesday fo’night in the evening. Two of the men went to the coachman and footman, and produced pistols, bad them to look up, or they would blow their brains out; the others went to the coach and demanded the money of them; Lady Margaret gave her purse, containing 20 guineas, and her gold repeating watch; Mr. Fordyce gave all the gold he had in his pocket, amounting to a considerable sum; but Mr. Wood, who was likewise in the coach, during the time they were receiving the money from Mr. Fordyce and his Lady, contrived to put his gold on the seat behind him, and when they demanded his money, he gave them a few shillings and half-pence only. It is supposed the villains did not get less than 50l. besides Lady Margaret’s gold watch.

It turned out that one of the perpetrators was a man called John Joseph Defoe whom The Annual Register claimed to be the grandson of Daniel Defoe the celebrated author of Robinson Crusoe.
15th October, 1770 On Wednesday last were committed by the Sitting Magistrates at the Public Office in Bow-street, John Clark and John Joseph Defoe, otherwise Smith, charged with divers footpad robberies near London; and it clearly appears, that most of the robberies which have been committed near London for these four months past, have been committed by the above offenders.
6th December, 1770 Yesterday two prisoners were capitally convicted at the Old Bailey, viz. John Clarke and John-Joseph Defoe, alias Brown, alias Smith, for feloniously assaulting Alexander Fordyce, Esq; on the highway, near Kensington, and robbing him of a gold watch and a sum of money. At the same time they robbed his lady of a gold repeater.
10th December, 1770 On Thursday last John Clark and John-Joseph Defoe, otherwise Brown, otherwise Smith, were capitally convicted at the Old-Bailey, before Mr. Baron Perrott, for robbing Alexander Fordyce, Esq; and his Lady, on the highway, near Chelsea. It seems there was another indictment against them, upon which they were not tried, and two detainers for the county of Surry for the like fact; and it also appears that most of the footpad robberies which have been committed near London within these six months past, have been committed by the above two offenders.
One commentator has noted that:

“There seems to have been no distinct identification of De Foe as one of the parties committing the robbery; but in those days juries did not stand upon trifles, and he had but little grace accorded to him.”

On 2nd January, 1771, Defoe and Clarke were executed at Tyburn.
3rd January, 1771 Yesterday the four convicts, mentioned yesterday, were executed at Tyburn, Mark Marks, for a robbery in Whitechapel, denied his being guilty of the crime. John Joseph Defoe concerned with John Clarke in robbing Alexander Fordyce, Esq. on the highway, it is said was the grandson of Daniel Defoe, Author of the True-born Englishman, Robinson Crusoe, &c.

Alexander Fordyce (1729-1789) had three brothers: David (1711-1751), James (1720-1796), and William (1724–1792); and all four Fordyce brothers have entries on the DNB. David was an academic, James was a Scottish minister and ‘moralist’, and William was a physician. Below, the sister of the four brothers, Mrs. Greenwood.
The sister of Alexander Fordyce, Mrs. Greenwood


APPENDIX SIXTEEN: The Family of Mary Warner who Married Samuel Roffey

As we have seen, Mary (Warner) Roffey was born in 1716, the daughter of Poulett Warner and Mary Brooksbank. Poulett was born on 17th December, 1689, and was married to Mary Brooksbank on 12th May, 1713. Mary was the eldest daughter of Joseph Brooksbank and Mary Stamp. Mary Stamp was the daughter of Richard Stamp of Ockingham (see Chart below).

Joseph Brooksbank was born in Elland in Yorkshire in 1654. At the age of sixteen he left for London to become a haberdasher’s apprentice. He was described as prosperous and a promising young man, whose enterprising spirit was rewarded with the title of Citizen for the City of London in 1681. In 1679 he married Mary Stamp daughter of Richard Stamp, merchant of Reading in Berkshire, and niece of Thomas Stamp who became Lord Mayor of London in 1691.
Ion of
The title page of an entertainment celebrating the election of Thomas Stamp as Lord Mayor of London

Joseph Brooksbank was later appointed a Master of the Haberdashers Company in 1718. He did not forget his local roots and in 1712 he founded Brooksbank School in Elland. Brooksbank’s son, Stamp Brooksbank, born in 1694, became a director of the Bank of England.

Poulett Warner, who married Joseph’s daughter Mary, died on 26th August, 1721, aged thirty-two, and is buried at Wickhambrook. Poulett’s father was Andrews Warner of Badmondisfield. Andrews Warner married Elizabeth, only surviving child of Richard Cutts, of Clare, Suffolk, by Elizabeth, his first wife, daughter, and at length sole heiress of Henry Poulett, of Preston Torres, in Somerset, brother to John, 1st Lord Poulett, of Hinton St. George. Elizabeth (Cutts) Warner was born on 27th December, 1661, and died on 2nd August, 1742, aged eighty-one (see Chart). Andrews Warner died 17th December, 1717, aged sixty, and is buried at Wickhambrook.

Andrews Warner was the eldest son of Francis Warner and Eleanor the daughter of Thomas Andrewes, Lord Mayor of London. Francis Warner had estates at Lower Boulney, in the parish of Harding and also Harpden, near Henley-on-Thames, in Oxfordshire.
Elizabeth Ken Poulett Florence Poulett and Thomas Smyth

Florence Smyth daughter of the above Thomas and Florence (Poulett) Smyth

Sir Thomas Andrewes, the father of Eleanor who married Francis Warner, was a London financier who supported the parliamentary cause during the English Civil Wars, and sat as a commissioner at the High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I.

In the 1620s and 1630s Andrewes followed the lead of his father Robert and traded with the Plymouth Colony as well as the New England colonies. He was a member of the guild of the Leathersellers and ran a successful wholesale linen drapery business at the White Lion, Fish Street Hill. Andrewes was a devout Puritan who in the late 1630s followed Sydrach Simpson to Rotterdam to join his congregation. When Simpson first returned to London his congregation met at Andrewes’ house.

In 1642 at the start of the Civil War Andrewes was a member of the committee which oversaw the City of London militia, a body of men willing to defend London against the Cavaliers. It was also during 1642 that he became an Alderman of the City and

The Court of Aldermen of the City of London Sydrach Simpson, puritan preacher

a Sheriff of London. Thanks to his financial success, he was able to lend large sums to help parliament finance the war, and involved himself in the financial administration of the parliamentary cause.

Between 1642 and 1645 he held a number of administrative offices, of which the two most significant were commissioner for the customs (appointed 1643), and, in 1645, one of the treasurers for war. For his own financial benefit and to improve his social status he purchased lands sequestrated by parliament from various bishops.

Andrewes sat as a commissioner at the trial of Charles I in January, 1649. He attended the trial in Westminster Hall and on the 27th January he, along with the other commissioners present, stood up to indicate his assent to the death sentence. He did not sign the warrant, but was present at the King’s execution on 30th January, 1649, and in March, when the Rump Parliament passed the Act abolishing the Office of King, he was responsible for proclaiming the abolition of monarchy in the City of London.
The trial of Charles 1 and right Charles painted during his trial

In April, 1649, Andrewes was appointed to succeed Abraham Reynardson, the Royalist Lord Mayor of London. Having served until the following October, he was, after a year’s interval, again chosen for the year 1650–1651. His successful performance of his duties during his second period as Lord Mayor was of importance to the Commonwealth as he was responsible for keeping the capital quiet, and a bulwark against any resurgence of Royalism in support of Charles I during the third English Civil War. During the Interregnum his support for Oliver Cromwell earned him a knighthood in 1657.

There is no record of the place and date of his death, but he was buried on 20th August, 1659. A year later the political landscape had changed and the monarchy had been restored. Under section thirty-seven of the Indemnity and Oblivion Act, he, like the other dead regicides, was not exempted from the general pardon so that his property could be sequestrated by the state. According to the latest edition of the DNB:

To the Royalists he was peculiarly obnoxious, as one of the High Court of Justice, where he had assisted in the condemnation of other illustrious characters, besides the unhappy monarch. … Had he lived to have seen the return of his banished Sovereign, he would either have expiated his crime by an ignominious and painful death, or spent the remainder of his life in poverty and imprisonment.

We have noted above that Thomas Andrewes’s daughter Eleanor married Francis Warner, that they had a son Andrews Warner whose son Poulett was the father of Mary Warner who married Samuel Roffey. We should note that Eleanor Andrewes had a brother, Francis Thomas Andrewes, who married Damaris Cradock daughter of Mathew Cradock (Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company).

Mathew Cradock may be related to Richard Cradock and thus to Sarah and Susannah. The DNB says that Mathew Cradock was the cousin of a dissenting minister Samuel Cradock, whose brother Zachary Cradock (Provost of Eton College) is referred to by Thomas Cradock in his will as ‘my cousin’. Since Thomas was also Richard Cradock’s cousin we arrive at a tentative and unsubstantiated putative connection between Richard Cradock and Mathew Cradock.

Damaris, daughter of Mathew Cradock by his first wife, Damaris Wyn, was baptized at St. Swithin’s, Canongate, London on 1st November, 1623. She married first Francis Thomas Andrews, son of the Lord Mayor, and they had a son, also Thomas, and a daughter Damaris.

Francis Thomas Andrewes died and Damaris (Cradock) Andrewes next married Sir Ralph Cudworth who was a philosopher and theologian of note and a Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. He was also Regis Professor of Hebrew, and wrote many works on religious subjects.

They had one daughter Damaris Cudworth who was born in 1658.

Dame Damaris Cudworth, daughter of Matthew Cradock and the relict of Francis Thomas Andrewes, was buried at High Lavers, Essex, in 1708. A marble tablet bears this inscription:
Damaris Cudworth.
Relict of Ralph Cudworth Dr of Divinitie and Master of Christ’s College in Cambridge. Exemplarie for her Pietie and Virtue, for her Studie of the Scriptures, Charitie to the Poore, and Good Will to All, and An Excellent Wife, Mother, Mistress and Friend, Lies buried in the Middle between this and the opposite Wall. She was born the XXIII of October MDCXXIII And, after a Life made easie to herselfe and others, by the unalterable Evenness of her Temper, She died as one that goes to sleepe without Disease or Paine the XXV November MDCXCV, in full Hope and Expectation of a happy Resurrection.

The daughter of Francis and Damaris (Cradock) Andrewes was Damaris Andrewes who became the wife of Sir Edward Abney, LL.D; however the path to marriage was not easy. Edward Abney was educated (circa 1649) at Christ’s College, Cambridge. While under the tutelage of the master of the college, Ralph Cudworth, Edward met and became enamoured with Cudworth’s stepdaughter Damaris Andrewes, and marriage was considered. One problem though for the Abney family was the political stance of Damaris’ grandfather, Thomas Andrewes. As we have noted above, Thomas was one of Parliament’s main financiers during the Civil War against Charles I. On the other hand, Edward’s father, James Abney, had supported Charles in his war with Parliament.

Edward Abney wrote a series of letters to his father seeking his consent to marry Damaris. Edward is bold and often direct on “… this business, which has caused the greatest trouble and perplexity of mind to me”. Earnestness turns to despair as his father seems to dither over the question of giving his consent. Edward uses all means he can to persuade his father, in whose hands his future effectively lay. He emphasises the social and intellectual qualities of his proposed bride, “a very comely and descreet person neither hath she any of the too common defects of lameness or crookedness” and “who has been piously educated”. The relationship with the eminent and influential Ralph Cudworth was important.

His father consented and Edward married Damaris Andrewes on 20th July, 1661, in London. Their wedding announcement read: “Edward Abney of Willesley, Derbyshire, gentleman, bachelor, aged 29 second son of James Abney of the same. Esq., and Damaris Andrewes spinster, about 18, daughter of Thomas Andrewes the younger, late of St Margaret’s, New Fish Street, London, deceased, with consent of her mother Damaris Cudworth, alias Andrewes, now wife of Dr. Ralph Cudworth, Master of Christ’s College, Cambridge, to be married at St. Gregory’s or St. Dionysus Backchurch London.”
Willesley Hall, home of the Abney family

Edward Abney left Cambridge in 1670 when he obtained a highly lucrative position as one of six clerks in Chancery. He was knighted at Whitehall by King Charles II on 2nd August, 1673. In 1685 he stood for Leicestershire but was defeated.

In 1687 his wife, Dame Damaris (Andrewes) Abney, died and was buried at Willesley on 9th June, 1687. After the death of Damaris, Edward married secondly Judith Barre on 18th December, 1688. She was the daughter of Peter Barre, merchant of London.

Abney was appointed a judge in the court of King’s Bench and subsequently elected as a Whig to the House of Commons for Leicester in 1690 at the age of nearly 60 and served until 1698. As the oldest surviving son he inherited Willesley Hall from his father in 1693 and died there aged 96 in 1728, having been blind for the last 20 years of his life.

In drawing up his will Edward Abney excluded his eldest surviving but mentally unfit son [from his marriage with Damaris Andrewes], leaving his estates in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire to his youngest son, Thomas by his second marriage.
Edward Abney Courting Damaris Andrewes

The only daughter of Ralph and Damaris (Cradock) (Andrewes) Cudworth was Damaris, born in Cambridge, on 18th January, 1658. She married Sir Francis Masham of Oates, in High Lavers, Essex, baronet and widower, then aged 30. Lady Damaris (Cudworth) Masham wrote a number of religious and philosophical works, and was a friend of the philosopher John Locke, who lived with the family and whose life she wrote an account of in the Great Historical Dictionary. Lady Masham died on 20th April, 1708, and is buried in the middle aisle of Bath Abbey. Her son Francis Cudworth Masham, accountant general to the Court of Chancery, died on 25th May, 1731, the last of his branch.

APPENDIX SEVENTEEN: Jonathan Boulter’s Land

Although there are no descendants of the children of Nathaniel Roffey, Snr. and Mary Welden beyond a second generation, interest in the family has occurred over the years. For instance in 1869 a notice appeared in the ‘East Anglian Notes and Queries’ (Volume 4) as follows:

Steeple-Grange, and Maylin, co. Essex. Jonathan Boulter, of the parish of S. Olave, Hart Street, London, Distiller, who died 14th Aug., 1743, by his will, dated 21st July, 1742, proved 25th Aug., 1743, devised to his grandson James Roffey, of London, merchant, eldest son of his late son-in-law Nathaniel Roffey, Esquire, deceased (who married testator’s daughter Mary [actually niece]), subject to the life interest of testator’s wife Sarah [Cradock], it being part of her jointure, and to an incumbrance of £4. per annum; “All that my Mannor of Steeple Grange and Maylin, and all that my Messuage, lands, tenements and hereditaments thereto belonging, and all other my Mannors, hereditaments, lands and premises in the said county of Essex,’ for his life, remainder to the sons and daughters of the said James Roffey in turn, in default, to his trustees for sale.” I shall be glad to have these estates identified, and to know their previous and subsequent history. W. Consitt Boulter FSA 6, Park Row, Hill. P.252
Saint Olave, Hart Street, the parish in which Jonathan Boulter resided. It was at this church that George Cumberland, Snr. and Elizabeth Balchen were married.

Consitt Boulter’s query received the following response in the ‘East Anglian, or, Notes and Queries’, Volume 4:

The Manor of Steeple Grange, a little way south-east of the church, is in the record said to be in the parishes, vills, or fields of Steeple St. Laurence, Woodham Mortimer, and Shoebury. It belonged to James Roffey, Esq., in or about 1772, had been previously granted by King Henry VIII, to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, who sold it to John Stonard. The manor of Steeple Hall, and the manor of Maylin, Mayland, or Mayland Hall, both now belong to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, in London.— C. Golding, London.

There are very few records relating to the Tyers family before the generation of Elizabeth (Tyers) Roffey who married Jonathan Boulter. However some indication is given from the will of Joseph Marsh of Braintree in Essex who had a sister Grace who married a Nathaniel Tyers. Unfortunately, there are no records as to Nathaniel and Grace having children although it may well be that they were Elizabeth’s grandparents. Elizabeth’s brother was named Nathaniel which helps support the possibility of a connection.

Grace (Marsh) Tyers/Tyres was the daughter of John Marsh and Grace Baldwin of Braintree, Essex. No record of her baptism has been located. She was named in her father’s will dated 15th April, 1627; she is not yet 19. A marriage to Nathaniel Tyers took place, although no record has yet been located. Grace and her husband Nathaniel Tyers are named in her mother’s will dated 29th January 1657. Her death occurred 15th March, 1696.

(1) 15th April, 1627, John Marsh of Banktry, Essex, clothier, leaves 100 pounds to his daughter Grace when she should become 19.
(2) 29th January, 1657, Grace Marsh, widow of John Marsh of Braintree in Essex, wrote her will, leaving to her son-in-law Nathaniel Tyers and Grace, now his wife, her daughter, 7 pounds yearly for life, and then to the “heirs of the body” of Grace, lawfully begotten. If Grace has no such heirs, to be paid to the children of her son John Marsh, Graces’ brother. She also leaves to Grace a pair of Virginals and certain household stuff during her life, and after her decease, if not leaving issue, to the children of her daughter Lidia.
(3) 22nd May, 1676, Joseph Marsh the older of Braintree, Essex, brother of Grace (Marsh) Tyers, wrote his will, leaving his freehold lands and tenements lying in Braintree, called by the name of Clay Hills, now in the occupation of John Harris, to his sister Grace Tyres [Tyers] during the term of her natural life. Then within one year after the decease of his sister Grace (Marsh) Tyers the said Freehold Lands are to be sold and the money arising thereof to be equally divided among Joseph’s sister Shorey’s two sons and his brother John Marsh’s six children, and his sister Martin’s six children. He also appoints her executrix with his kinsman Joseph Marsh, and his brother-in-law Nathaniel Tyres as overseer. Summary of the beneficiaries of Joseph March’s will, being his nephews and nieces:

1. Mary Marsh, m. John Shorey. Her two sons were: 1. John and 2. Joseph.
3. John Marsh, b. 1618. His children were: 1. John Marsh, 2. Samuel Marsh, 3. Jonathan Marsh, 4. Daniel Marsh, 5. Hannah Marsh, and 6. Lydia Marsh.
4. Lydia Marsh, m. — Martin. Her children were : I. Mary; 2. Lydia; 3. Sarah; 4. Elizabeth; 5. Ann; 6. Grace, b. 1656, who came to her Uncle John Marsh in America and there m. Nathaniel Phelps.

The following is extracted from a publication called Marsh Genealogy by Dwight Whitney Marsh (Carpenter & Morehouse, Amherst, MA, 1895).

The following document from records in the office of the Secretary of State of Connecticut, of date May 15, 1705.

A case was then brought by John Marsh, Samuel Marsh, Jonathan Marsh, Daniel Marsh, Hannah Marsh, Lydia Marsh and Grace (Martin) Phelps, seven of the nephews and nieces of Joseph Marsh the older [Grace (March) Tyer’s brother] late of Braintree in the county of Essex, clothier, deceased, residing in New England. It states that Grace Tyres [Tyers] died about the fifteenth day of March one thousand six hundred ninety and six [1696]. It was among other things ordered and decreed that the said Estate of the said Joseph Marsh (brother of Grace), the Testator, should be forthwith sold to the best purchaser and the money arising by sale thereof should be paid [and] divided among the plaintiffs. On 5th December, 1700, in the same (court) it is mentioned that Jonathan Boulter has bid more than any other person who offered to purchase the said premises, it was thereupon ordered by the said court that the said Jonathan Boulter should be the purchaser of the same for the sum of one hundred and seventy one pounds, and that upon payment thereof Marsh [the trustees of the estate of Joseph Marsh] should convey the said premises unto the said Jonathan Boulter and the said Jonathan Boulter and his heirs should pay unto each of the nephews and nieces of the testator that were in England their several proportions of the said purchase money, and the residue thereof unto such of the said testators other nephews and nieces as were overseas; and that the said Jonathan Boulter and his heirs should hold and enjoy the said premises and be in quiet possession of them by the authority of this.

And whereas we, whose hands and seals are hereunto set and subscribed, are credibly informed that Jonathan Boulter of the parish of St. Mary Magdalene Bermondsey in the county of Surrey Distiller hath actually purchased the said Estate pursuant to the said decree for the sum of one hundred and seventy one pounds of lawful money of England and hath paid to said executor and such of the said legatees and relatives of said Testator as do reside in old England their seven shares and proportion thereof, being six pounds two shillings eleven pence and one farthing apiece

Now know that we the said John Marsh, Samuel Marsh, Jonathan Marsh, Daniel Marsh, Hannah Marsh, Lydia Marsh and Grace Phelps, have nominated and appointed in our stead our trusty friends Joseph Merriam, formerly of Boston in New England, gent., now residing in London and Allyn Buckham of the Parish of St. Johns, Wapping, Distiller, our two lawful and irrevocable attorneys to ask, demand, receive and take of the said Jonathan Boulter, our several respective shares of the said purchase

Thus to summarize and conclude, Joseph Marsh’s will was made on 22nd May, 1676; that under it Grace (Marsh) Tyres held the Clay Hills property until her death which occurred on 15th March, 1696; and that on 27th June, 1700, an order was made in the Court at Westminster for the sale of this property to the highest bidder; that on 5th December, 1700, the same court decreed that Jonathan Boulter be the purchaser for £171, and that the seven heirs in England having received about $30.75 apiece, release was given to him 23rd June, 1701, and that the seven heirs in America were now, 15th May, 1705, seeking their share that would cost them more than their English cousins and if equal would only be £6. 2s. 11d. and one farthing apiece or some $2I5 in all. The lawyers and courts up to 1705, seem to have been nine years about it and to have taken over 20 per cent. of what they divided. (Some things never change)

These are the names of the brothers and sisters of Joseph Marsh, in the order given in his will dated 22nd May, 1676: 1. Grace Marsh m. Nathaniel Tyres [Tyers] and died on 15th March, 1696; 2. Mary Marsh m. John Shorey; 3. John Marsh, b. 1618 [died unmarried]; and 4. Lydia Marsh, m. — Martin.
APPENDIX NINETEEN: The dispersal of Nathaniel Roffey, Snr’s Estate.

Below two auction notices that appeared in The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser on 13th May, 1765.

To Be Sold by AUCTION
By Mr. PHIPPS and SON.
At Gararway’s Coffee-house in Exchange Alley, on Friday the 17th of May, at twelve o’clock at noon precisely, pursuant to the will of Nathaniel Roffey, Esq. deceased, in two lots.

Lot I. A Valuable Freehold Estate, situate in Bagnio Court, Newgate-street, consisting of eight substantial brick-houses, one of which is the Royal Bagnio, lett to sundry persons at the yearly rent of 332 l.

Lot 2. A large substantial brick dwelling house, divided into two, situate in Barnaby-street, Southwark, 72 feet wide in front, together with large warehouses, yard, stables, mill-house and loft, vaults for holding spirits, with iron doors, &c. lett on lease to Mess. Freeman and Co. distillers, of which there are fourteen years unexpired, at the yearly rent of 50 l. clear of land tax. The whole premises are 160 feet deep, made very convenient for the distillery, or wool business, and are much underlett. The premises may be viewed any time to the day of sale, and further particulars, with conditions of sale, had gratis of Mr. Phipps and Son, upholders and auctioneers, at the Ship in Leadenhall-street.

N.B. Soon will be sold the following estates of the above mentioned Nathaniel Roffey, Esq; viz. A farm called Town Court, near Chislehurst, in Kent, lett at 85 l. per annum; a farm at Shipley, near Horsham, in Sussex, lett at 23l per annum; a moiety of a farm near Hitchin, Hertfordshire, lett at 51 l. per annum; a farm at Braintree, in Essex, lett at 9l. 10s per ann. a farm at Lye, near Ryegate, lett at 7l. per annum.

To be Sold by AUCTION,
By Mr. PHIPPS and SON,
On Saturday the 18th day of May, at twelve o’clock at noon precisely, on the premises, pursuant to the will of Nathaniel Roffey, Esq; deceased.

The following Freehold Estates, in six distinct lots: A large handsome brick Dwelling-house, at Peckham, in Surrey, late in the occupation of Mrs. Mary Roffey, deceased, with convenient offices, court-yard, stabling for six horses, coach-house for three carriages, also a large pleasure and kitchen garden, walled round and planted with the choicest fruit trees; likewise a pasture field, called the Image Field, containing four acres, situated behind the above-mentioned dwelling-house, lett on lease to Mr. Joseph Lawrence, at the yearly rent of 8l. Likewise a field adjoining to the above, now used as gardeners ground, containing about six acres, and a public-house known by the sign of the Orange Tree, lett to Mr. Shepherd, at the yearly rent of 12l. and which said Mr. Shepheard now letts at 18l. per annum. Likewise a large handsome brick dwelling-house, with coach-house, stable yard, and garden, situate at Peckham aforesaid, lett on lease to John Brown Esq. at the yearly rent of 44l. Likewise four small tenements, situated next adjoining to Mr. Brown’s, and to Mess. Nisbitt, Cockrill, Warton and Warner, at the yearly rent of 21l. 10s. Likewise two small freehold houses, situated at Deptford-Green, near the old church, lett to Messrs. Waggoner and Stubbs, at the yearly rent of 11l. 16s. Mr Brown’s house, at Peckham, may be viewed on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, from eleven o’clock till three, and the other estates any day to the time of sale; by applying to the place of sale, the late Mrs. Roffey’s at Peckham, where farther particulars, with conditions of sale, may be had , and of Mr. Phipps and Son, upholders and auctioneers, at the Ship, in Leadenhall-street.
Among the properties left by Nathaniel Roffey, Snr. was The Royal Bagnio in Newgate Street. Contemporary writers have described the Bagnio as follows:

“A neat contrived building after the Turkish mode, seated in a large handsome yard, and at the upper end of Pincock-lane, which is indifferent well-built and inhabited. This Bagnio is much resorted unto for sweating, being found very good for aches, &c, and approved of by our Physicians.” — Strype, B. iii., p. 195.

“The Royal Bagnio, situate on the north side of Newgate-Street, is a very spacious and commodious place for sweating, hot-bathing, and cupping; they tell me it is the only true Bagnio after the Turkish model, and hath 18 degrees of heat. It was first opened Anno 1679. Here is one very spacious room with a cupola roof, besides others lesser; the walls are neatly set with Dutch tile. The charge of the house for sweating, rubbing, shaving, cupping, and bathing, is four shillings each person. There are nine servants who attend. The days for ladies, are Wednesdays and Saturdays, and for gentlemen, Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays; and to shew the healthfulness of sweating thus, here is one servant who has been near twenty-eight years and another sixteen, though four days a-week constantly attending in the heat.” — Hatton’s New View of London, 8vo, 1708, p. 797.

Among the Benjamin Colman Papers held by the Massachusetts Historical Society is a letter from William Roffey (London) to Benjamin Colman about his concern for the state of ‘religious indifference’ in the churches. The letter is dated 3rd March, 1736.

The reason of my sending the inlcos’d is that some time ago the Pious and Ingenious author Mrs Rowe of Frome in Somersetshire desir’d I would send one to you and I heartily wish you the same Entertainment & I hope Improvement which I have received I am no Stranger to your Character tho’ to your Person & sincerely requires that Pureity of Principles found with as correspondent Practices and so happily confined in the Gentleman I am no Friend to Biggotry Censouriousness & Uncharitableness But with Sorrow I speak it the Religion of jesus is not only openly struck at by Infidels in our isle but its Sublime and Important Doctrines are secretely undermined by Multitudes who are ____ by his name Whose intentions seems to bringing another Gospel I need not ________ particularly knowing you are intimately acquainted with my worthy Pastor Dr. Watts, I conclude with requesting your earnest Crys at the throne of Grace That Jesus the Almity Phisian would put an effectual stop to the Growing Contagion for should he now Come he would hardly find Faiths on the Earth from Sir your unknown Friend and Servant
William Roffey

[Received May 1736]
Benjamin Colman Benjamin’s sister’s sister Mrs. Judith Bullfinch

The Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society published a letter from Dr. Watts to Dr. Benjamin Colman at Newington, Massachusetts, dated 13th September, 1736.

Mr. Roffey is a young gentleman, a distiller, in pretty good circumstances for so young a man, but our late Act of Parliament against gin & distilled liquors must sink tho’ not ruin the trade. He & his wife are both members of our church. He is truly pious, & has a taste of ingenious writing. He is very intimate with Mr Rowe, & I sent him ye packets for her & Mr Slanden, last week when I received them. He is gone that way this week himself.
Mrs. Elizabeth Rowe of Frome in Somersetshire whose work ‘Friendship in Death’
William Roffey sent to Benjamin Colman
In his letter above to Benjamin Colman, William Roffey refers to ‘my worthy Pastor Dr Watts’ who was another dissenting minister. However in a letter to Phillip Doddridge (another minister) dated 15th June, 1740, Roffey warns of Watts’s growing infirmity.

“Dear Dr. Watts is but indifferent, and I am afraid that his usefulness will be less and less. So burning and shining a light in the sanctuary, though not extinguished, yet grown dim, calls for deep humiliation .”
Above Isaac Watts who wrote Benjamin Coleman regarding William Roffey.
Below Phillip Doddridge

London, June 15, 1740.

DEAR SIR, Through the unmerited bounty of an indulgent Providence, I reached my habitation in peace; and may blessings and thanks attend you for your late instructive, pious, and delightful converse at Northampton.

I have met with several inquisitors as to your conduct towards Mr. Whitfield, and I fail not to inform all such persons, that you acted entirely consistently with yourself—the gentleman, affectionate Christian, and wary friend, shining with the highest lustre. Your interests, worthy Sir, lie very near my heart, and more especially as I apprehend that the cause of real religion is greatly concerned in your reputation, which, may Heaven guard, in spite of those diabolical spirits who set themselves against you. Oh may you triumph over the malignant freethinkers, who falsely arrogate to themselves that glorious title, and over those equally malicious men, of pretended infallibility, I mean the ignorant, proud, pharisaic, bigoted Antinomians, who lately sent their missionary Hill to disturb the peace of the churches in your parts.

Mrs. Roffey’s and my own most sincere and affectionate service wait on Mrs. Doddridge; the first moment I saw her, I could not but wish her happiness most tenderly; for a radiancy of soul shines through the mortal clay, which must needs powerfully strike the mind: may you ascend to Heaven together; but in compassion to the degenerate age, may your flight be long retarded.

However changeable I may be in my judgment as to persons and things, my strong attachment to you and yours can never be lessened. I know of but one failing in you, and that is, that you do not plainly tell me of my faults; reproof would come sweetly from you. Dear Dr. Watts is but indifferent, and I am afraid that his usefulness will be less and less. So burning and shining a light in the sanctuary, though not extinguished, yet grown dim, calls for deep humiliation; Oh then let us unite our requests that more labourers may be sent into the harvest, of catholic spirit, and of pure and undissembled Christianity. It revives my spirits whenever I think of the truly noble designs you are continually executing, in relation to the gentlemen under your care: may the pleasure of the Lord every way prosper in your hands. I bless God we all continue well, as I hope this will find you and your little olive branches.

I am, dear Sir, Your most affectionate and obedient Servant, W. Roffey.

There are some references to the Roffey family in letters Doddridge wrote to his wife, such as the following :

I begin my travels on Wednesday. Would you were to perform them with me. First I go to good Dr. Miles, at Tooting; then to […] the next day to Croydon, where good Mrs. Roffey will meet me on horseback to, convey me to her house. Thence I am to go to Maidenhead the next day, in a manner which Mr. Roffey’s kindness will make very easy … In the meantime, if you write to me by the next post after you receive this, or by Thursday’s, direct to me at Mr. Roffey’s; for there I lie on Saturday night.

P S. Mr. Roffey has made a recantation of the verses for which you chide him; and if you can get your confinement over by next long vacation, he will take you down with his lady to Chatsworth, the Peake, &c.

William’s enthusiasm for Doddridge was not always reflected in Doddridge’s for William. In a letter to his wife Doddridge remarks on the fashion warn by Mary (Welden) Roffey:


My Deares, 27th July, 1749.

Poor Mrs. Roffey looked dreadfully, in consequence of the abominable manner of dressing the head, which some evil demon has introduced to destroy the works of God. The foremost plait of the fly cap is nearer the back of the head than the forehead; the hair on the forehead and sides of the face is all combed up straight, and that behind is tucked up under the cap; and the wings of the fly are pinned back, and stand up, that it may seem as if the wind had blown the cap off, or at least turned it quite back; and poor Miss Roffey was in the same monkey form. May you, my dear, and my sweet girls, be preserved from the detestable fashion, though all the rest of your sex should be corrupted with it.

Another dissenting-minister connection to William Roffey comes through the marriage of William Gouge to Sarah Welden. Sarah’s brother James Welden married Sarah Boulter the sister of Jonathan who married Sarah Cradock. William Roffey’s mother was Mary the daughter of James and Sarah (Boulter) Welden.

William Gouge placed a memorial in Hammersmith church which we have already referred to and which lists his wife Sarah (Welden), Sarah (Roffey) Cowley, the daughter of William Roffey, and William Roffey. William Gouge was the great grandson of William Gouge (1578-1653) and the grandson of Thomas Gouge (1609-1681).

William Gouge 1578-1653 Thomas Gouge 1609-1681

GOUGE, William (1578-1653). A Puritan divine. He was born at Stratford-le-Bow, Middlesex, Dec. 25, 1578; was educated at Eton and Cambridge; became preacher at St. Anne’s, Blackfriars, London, in 1608, and continued there till his death, Dec. 12, 1653. He was one of the leading members of the Presbyterian party in England, sat in the Westminster Assembly, and was prolocutor of the first provincial assembly of London in 1647. At college the strictness of his life gained him the name of the “arch Puritan,” and later he was known as the “Father of the London Ministers.” As a writer, he is best known by his elaborate Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (1655), to which is prefixed a life by Thomas Gouge.

GOUGE, Thomas (1609-81). A nonconformist divine and philanthropist, born in London, Sept. 29, 1609, the son of William Gouge (q.v.). He was educated at Eton and Cambridge, and was vicar of St. Sepulchre’s, London (1638-62). Here he won distinction by well directed efforts to provide work for the able bodied poor. In 1662 he resigned his living because of the Uniformity Act and retired to Hammersmith. In 1672 he began making semiannual journeys to Wales for the purpose of establishing schools where English should be taught and circulating religious books. He wrote himself several works and numerous tracts, some of which were translated into Welsh. His collected works were published in London (1706).

Below the title pages of some of the publications of William and Thomas Gouge.

APPENDIX TWENTY ONE: Benjamin Tudman, Jnr. & The Marshalsea

When Benjamin Tudman Jnr.’s mother died in 1690 he was seven years old. Eighteen years later when he was twenty-five his father married Susannah (Cradock) Banner and when his father died in 1712 he was twenty-nine.

Unfortunately, Benjamin owed money and, as was often the case at the time, he was imprisoned in The Marshalsea until such time as he could discharge his debts. This usually meant a family member or friend stepping forward to offer relief. If not, then his own death would take care of his debts for him. In Benjamin’s case it was the latter means that finally saw his release from prison.

While he was incarcerated a fellow prisoner by the name of John Grano kept a diary which was published in 1998 under the title Handel’s Trumpeter: The Diary of John Grano edited by John Ginger. Grano began the diary in 1728 and finished it upon his release from The Marshalsea in 1729.

From the diary we learn that Grano and Tudman did not get along and in it Grano is full of angry denouncements of Tudman’s various affronts to him. As a result, we have perhaps one of the more detailed accounts of any one of the lives of those mentioned in this paper. However, because the description of Tudman is penned by someone who detested him, the picture we have of him is not at all flattering.

In came a young fellow of this profane college [The Marshalsea] to let me know that Capt. T[udman] wanted to speak with me, but knowing his infamous character some time ago I declined to go to him. p.29

Whenever Tudman would enter a room, Grano’s dislike of him would propel him out as the entry for 16th September, 1728, shows:

Capt. Tudman came up to Mr. Acton while he [Acton] was thus talking to me, upon which I immediately took my leave. p. 92

The diary’s editor comments that: It seems that Tudman had joined a class of inmates who were perpetual residents with no family or friend willing to rescue them. p. 167.

Grano continues his diary:

30th January, 1729. Sent downstairs to examine how the Coals stood, being informed at a distance that People stole them not withstanding they were under lock and key, and by what I heard and could judge by guess, I thought there was very near half taken away, the which gave me a good deal of uneasiness.

2nd February. Awoke between three and four in the morn, when I heard Capt. Tudman and his Chum a wrangling in a very high manner, by which (and there being a Board loose in my Room and the Ceiling plaster broke in his) I could understand every word they said, and in the Heat of Blood as also the influence of Liquor (for they were both seemingly drunk) The Capt.’s chum told him [Tudman] that he [the chum] did not steal Mr. Grano’s coals – to which he [T] made answer how could he [T] do any such thing not having a key to my [Grano’s] padlock? The other (the chum) retorted who the devil has a turnkey and picklock in the room but himself [T] [i.e. only Tudman had the means to access Grano’s coals]. As for me [the chum], says he [the chum] every time was my turn to buy coals I sent old Hand (a Ranger or a watchman of the park ie guard) for half a bushel of Coals and gave him a half pence for bringing the same, but I [the chum] know where you [T] had yours, you Villain! What the Devil quoth the Captain (T), this old rascal [the chum] has a mind to swear my life away.

This sort of conversation lasted till about half an hour after the watchman in the Borough had cried, Past four o’Clock! And all confirming that Vile man Capt. Tudman was the person who had Robb’d me of my coals.

Later that day …. Captain Tudman sent me a Note wherein he desir’d to speak with me, but I did not go to him. p. 184.

13th February. I was not out of bed before Mr. Tudman, approaching to my bed, desired to know what I meant by aspersing his character in reporting he stole my coals, to which I replied I never reported no more than what his chum (pointing to him) had informed me – which put the old fellow (the chum) much to the blue; but Mr. Tudman did not resent the same as he ought. However I was quite easy about the affair: made a shift to get up while Harry Glover came to me to let me know there was a gentleman in the Lodge who wanted to speak with me. While I was preparing to go Mr. Tudman sputtered and spoke more like Porter than the fine Gentleman he pretends to be, for he did nothing but swear, curse and “You lie like a rascal… etc. “ When I came into my Room again everybody but Mr. Purcell was gone. I was sorry they were, being I should have made an end to the affair somehow or other which now is at sixes and sevens. pp. 190-191.

21st March. A little before locking up there was, and has been a custom for some time past, a great deal of noise in the room over me and a sort of tongue quarrel between Capt. Tudman and Mr. Smith, the former very much in the wrong. p. 207.
The Marshalsea

22nd March. Before I went to Breakfast Mr. Smith came to borrow my sword saying he could not avoid challenging him [Tudman] for the proceeding night’s insult – which I readily granted knowing by experience the Noble Capt. would not fight and, as I conjectured coming to me about three hours after, Mr. Smith informed me he had sent to him [Tudman] but he would not appear, and had him [Tudman] cried about the place, but he hid himself. p.207.

Other terms used by Grano to describe Tudman and others like him include ‘scandalous’ and a ‘very great scoundrel’.

10th June. I found a good many of my neighbors a dancing and Mrs. Smith being with them and Capt. Tudman not there I went up and staid till 5 in the morning. p. 266

However toward the end of his stay at The Marshalsea Grano’s dislike of Tudman had softened and the two were on much friendlier terms.

24th August. I soon sent for another Person [i.e. Tudman] who sometime ago did offend me very much but, having forgiven the same, made him drink a glass [of wine]. The last person, namely Capt. Tudman away [left the room] as they were locking up.
p. 313.

The last reference to Benjamin in Grano’s diary is: A bowl of punch in Capt. T’s room.

Benjamin married Barbara Crawford although so far no marriage has been located and they had a daughter Penelope who was baptised on 19th February, 1711/12 at St. Marylebone.

Feb 19 Penelope Tudman of Ben & Barbara

Benjamin Tudman died at the end of November, 1730, while still a prisoner of The Marshalsea and was buried in the churchyard at St. George the Martyr, Southwark, located a few hundred yards south of the prison, on 3rd December, 1730, aged 48. (last line below)
3 Benjamin Tudman from the Marshalsea Prison.

His wife’s sister was called Hetty Crawford.

According to the editor of Grano’s diary, before entering The Marshalsea, Tudman had been a Lieutenant in the Third Dragoon Guards until about 1717 and had served under the Duke of Marlborough at the Battle of Oudenarde. He was imprisoned in The Marshalsea in May, 1725, owing £145. His dependents lived nearby on the south side of Mint Street. Considering his sister Margaret married Samuel Child the son of one of the richest men in England (Sir Francis Child) it seems odd that not even family ties would help.

Below, Benjamin’s will dated 13rh November, 1730:
In the Name of God Amen I Captain Benjamin Tudman now a Prisoner in the Marshalsea Prison in Southwark and being sick in body but of sound and disposing mind memory and judgment do make and constitute this my last will and testament in manner and form following hereby revoking and disannulling all and every will or wills by me at any time heretofore made or done Imprimus I leave and bequeath unto my dearly beloved Wife Barbara Tudman for her sole benefit and use all my estate real and personal my goods Chattells of what nature or find soever I am now possessed of interested in or instituted unto either in Law or Equity Lastly I nominate constitute and appoint my said beloved wife Barbara Tudman the Sole executrix of this my said Will and Testament In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this thirteenth day of November on thousand seven hundred and thirty 1730 Benjamin Tudman Witnessed by Thomas Earle, Thomas Baldwin, Hugo Monro.
The Duke of Marlborough directing the Battle of Oudenarde
APPENDIX TWENTY TWO: Ann Balchen & The Marshalsea

The Balchen family had its own brush with The Marshalsea in the form of Mary Man and Elizabeth Cumberland’s younger sister Ann (Nancy) Balchen. Ann was born on 29th January, 1728, and baptized on 23rd February, 1728, at St. Mary Aldermanbury. She was thus ten years younger than her sisters.
Balchen Ann the Daug’ of Rich’d & Martha Balchen born Jan the 29 & bapt: the 23’d of Feb 1728

In The Cumberland Letters, Clementina Black surmises this about Nancy:

Ann Balchen was the sister of Mrs. Cumberland [and Mrs. Man], whom, from the circumstance that her nephews always spoke of her as “Nancy” I surmise to have been considerably younger. p.42

Clementina is correct in her surmise and she goes on:

She [Nancy] was evidently an ungovernable person, and had, I believe, been imprisoned for debt. She may possibly have been suffering from one of those obscure brain diseases which lead to violent and irresponsible conduct. p. 42

Nancy gave birth to three illegitimate sons who were placed in the care of The Foundling Hospital. Two were twins born in 1750 whom she named after her brothers in law George (Cumberland) and John (Man). They were registered as number 602 and 621 by Thomas Coram the founder of the hospital and they were both baptized on 17th June 1750 (see the third to last entry on the left hand page below for George and the last entry on the right hand page for John). Another illegitimate son of Nancy’s, Isaac, was also baptised at the Foundling Hospital on 25th October, 1747 (IGI C067701). Their subsequent history is not known.
Baptisms of George and John Balchen at The Foundling Hospital


Above The Foundling Hospital established by Captain Thomas Coram (left) who registered Nancy’s illegitimate twins George and John Balchen

It would appear that Nancy received an annuity from rent derived from a house which was distributed to her by a friend of the family’s known in The Cumberland Letters only as Mr. Tapp. This annuity was paid out twice a year, at Michaelmas (29th September) and in the summer and each payment should have been enough to tie Nancy over until the next, but given her unruly character, such was not the case.

In May, 1773, George Cumberland writes:

I am shocked to hear what a miserable situation Nancy has reduced herself to by Her Folly & Imprudence, tho’ it is no worse than what every Body who knew Her expected. I think however something should be done for Her at least to prevent Her being driven thro real Want to bring further Disgrace on Herself & Family. p. 43

On 18th July, 1774, George informed his mother that her sister:

Nancy (I should have said Miss) has paid Mr. Tapp another visit lately, she asserted so many lies before his Customers and vented so much abuse, because he would not pay her beforehand, that he was obliged to turn her out of doors. p. 63

In a letter to his brother Richard written on 6th June, 1777, George adds a terse postscript:

Nancy is going to Prison for £4 again. p. 135

On 25th September, 1777, Elizabeth (Balchen) Cumberland wrote to her son George:

The News of Nancy’s Confinement gives me great Concern and must beg you will let me have the pleasure of hearing she is Released as I think there will be half a year due upon the House at Michaelmas. p. 150
The Marshalsea at the time of Nancy Balchen’s confinement
The Court Room of The Marshalsea where
Nancy Balchen would have been examined

The effect that Nancy had on George Cumberland was surprisingly profound in a very unhappy way as the letters extracted by Clementina Black on this topic indicate. He appears to have wished to have nothing to do with his mad aunt and in particular to have kept his place of employment a secret from her. However this attempt to evade Nancy appears to have been threatened by someone who visits George in October, 1777. From a letter that George wrote to his brother on 2nd October, 1777, we learn of George’s reaction to his visitor and how peculiarly apprehensive he is at the idea of being discovered by his manic aunt.

The person who comes to visit George is also called George and so to avoid confusion we shall call him George X (GX). George Cumberland we will call GC and Mr. Tapp (T). The identity of George X is a mystery.

About an hour ago he [Mr. Tapp] sent George [GX], who had been with him [T] to receive Nancy’s annuity, to my office to ask charity of me [GC] for her [Nancy], telling him [GX], as he [GX] tells me [GC], “that he [T] knew of none in the family who would grant her [Nancy] any assistance, unless it were George Cumberland who he [T] believed if applied to would help her.”

I [GC] am sorry to say that this one action [of Mr. Tapp sending GX to speak to GC about Nancy], so malicious, so mean and unworthy of any man, even to a person that had offended him, has in one moment given me the most disadvantageous opinion of a person [Tapp] whom I had before thought incapable of such a thing. He [Tapp] well must remember, for it was our conversation the last time I was at his house, the uneasyness I expressed at the thought of her [Nancy] discovering me [GC] and then he [Tapp] in a joking manner, said he [Tapp] would send her [Nancy] to me [GC]. He (T) has now seriously as good as fulfilled his promise for George [GX] in all likelihood will some time or other inform her [Nancy], or his wife [GX’s wife], and in that case, my life will become really unhappy, as I shall go [about] my business full of apprehension. Is not this a glorious and friendly act? When he [GX] first addressed himself to me I denied having any such relation and wanted to persuade him [GX] he had mistaken the person but he soon convinced me he was not to be put off, by telling me who he came from [i.e. Tapp’s office]. In the greatest confusion imaginable I had nothing to do but to tell him I had not seen the unhappy wretch [Nancy] a great many years, and had determined not to own her, and therefore begged he would not trouble me about her, as I was determined to do nothing. He entirely agreed that what I said was very reasonable, said that he out of compassion for her [Nancy’s] distress (of which ‘tis possible he might be a cause), had taken her out of Prison [The Marshalsea], and given his joint note with hers, to pay her debt at £1 1s per quarter for 7 Qrs that he had taken her home where she lay on his chairs, being so dirty as not to be fit to go into a bed, that instead of thanking him, “she had, according to her wont, been abusive to him and his family,” and had kicked up several rows, however as he had known something of her he was willing if possible to take care of her provided she had some clothes to wear. I considered some time, and at last came to a resolution to give him one guinea, for the following reasons, tho’ I could ill spare it at the same time making him [GX] promise never to say to any one that he had got anything from me, but to lay it out in coarse clothing for her use as if of his own accord and by no means to let her know where I was or mention my name. I considered that if I sent him away without any thing he [GX] might possibly be induced to send her to me, out of revenge for having lost his labour, that if it was properly applied (which he desired me to call and see done) it would be a means of really assisting her, if such a thing can be done and if he put the money in his own pocket (which I since hope he will) that will effectually prevent his sending her where she may be informed of the cheat.

But none of these expectations can render me quite easy. It will lay a dead weight on those spirits which lately had been quite lightened, and serve often to depress a person but too much “alive to fame”. If she comes I shall not dare to stay, or fly, if I retreat she will stay and abuse me and family, to people who will perhaps half believe her, or listen for diversion, if I converse with her the Evil will be equal either way. I shall never be able to hold up my head again such a crime it is to have an infamous relation I cannot bear the thought of it. I have [ ] great inclination to write to him [Tapp], to entreat [him of what] offence [I had] given to be so persecuted, and wherein he has been cavalier [ ] but as I should choose to write on my guard, I shall defer it till to-morrow when if I am in the same mind, I think I can make him feel wrong, and satisfy him that, though I know when to be silent, I am neither a Stock or a Stone, and can defend myself when ill-treated. I know how cautious I ought to be in the matter, and that I ought to keep a copy for it is not unlikely that if I let fall any word that could be misconstrued JB [John Balchen, the son of George’s great uncle Henry] may take that opportunity to turn it to my disadvantage either by telling Mr. C. [probably Richard Cropp] that I have ungratefully offended Mr. Tapp or something of that nature to open a door to injure me for I firmly believe J.B. [John Balchen] to be at the bottom of it all. p.153

George wrote to his brother Richard on 5th October, 1777:

As to Nancy: Mr. Tapp has ordered her shoes and stockings and some money for tea, but she is very ungovernable, and tells Mr. Smith, she does not understand having cold Mutton and broth, and desires to have Chicken, and Veal, which she has been always used to. … In the Marshalsea I find she beat all the women that came in her way, and accompanied her blows by opprobrious expressions, but sometimes she had the worst of it in short if she had not been released I think they would have given her her liberty to keep the prison quiet. p. 156

According to Clementina George Cumberland learned, a few weeks later, on ‘unimpeachable authority’, that the author of his discomfort was not John Balchen but James Man, the son of his aunt Mary (Balchen) Man. What advantage James Man would have gained by this we do not know and considering James and George kept up an amiable correspondence over the years and that George was one of the beneficiaries of James’s will it seems somewhat unlikely.

Whoever was responsible for his discomfort, some ten days later, his nerves somewhat more settled, George responded to a letter from his brother Richard who must have tried to have ‘put things in perspective’.

I receive your answer to mine as a kind endevour to make a disagreeable circumstance appear trifling and I myself do not feel it so severely as I did at first, because like other Uneasynesses it is not so fresh in my memory. You speak of N.B. [Nancy Balchen], as if you knew nothing of her frenzy, her artifice, her plausibility, volubility, and other abilities for which she is famed could I bear an office where she came? or live in a house where she had called on me? in short you talk like a person living at Driffield, and having no apprehension of her taking so long a Journey to annoy you. If you read my Letter you will find I do explain why she came to beg of me, she having nothing to clothe her. The money she had of Mr T[app] having been expended in taking her out of prison … For my own part I Could not think of acting in the affair, for fear of a discovery, and I knew not who to employ or ask such a favor of. If I had it in my power to relieve her which it was not, having myself one evening, gone to the Prison, to be informed of her situation, and finding it would require £10.

Clementina comments that: It must be admitted that Miss Balchen was a troublesome relative, either to serve or to offend; but it does strike a twentieth-century reader that George was more discomposed than most nephews nowadays would have been by her proceedings. It is true that he knew her, and that we do not.

Clementina Black notes Nancy’s last appearance in The Cumberland Letters:

In January 1780 occurred the death in the work house of Nancy Balchen, and Richard [Dennison] Cumberland reported that his mother had been much affected by the sad end of her sister and had wept; although the event must, in one sense, have been felt as a relief by all surviving members of the family. p. 251

As no burial record for Nancy has been located, it may be that she was given a paupers funeral.
APPENDIX TWENTY THREE: The Tapp & Balchen Families

Before leaving The Marshalsea we should make a note of Mr. Tapp who is very much in evidence throughout The Cumberland Letters. In those letters the Cumberland brothers refer to him only as Mr. Tapp and no clue is given as to who he is or how he might, if at all, be connected to the Balchen or Cumberland families.

However, Mr. Tapp’s identity has been recently established. Henry Balchen, the uncle of Elizabeth (Balchen) Cumberland and Mary (Balchen) Man, first married a Mary Holford at St. Peter’s, Roydon in Essex, in 1729 (see chart).

Mary (Holford) Balchen’s father was Robert Holford and her mother was a Mary Tapp (see chart). The marriage between Robert Holford and Mary Tapp took place on 30th January, 1703 (last line), at All Hallows, London Wall.
Robert Holford & Mary Tapp ———- 30

Mary (Holford) Balchen, the daughter of Robert and Mary (Tapp) Holford, was baptised on 29th April, 1704, at St. Botolph without Aldgate. She died in January 1742/43 at Mansell Street, Goodman’s Field, and was buried at St. Mary, Whitechapel (last line). The number 38 refers to her age.

17 Mary Balchen, a Woman from Mansell Street 38

Mary (Holford) Balchen’s uncle (her mother’s brother) was William Tapp of Roydon in Essex and his son was William Tapp and he is the Mr. Tapp who appears frequently in The Cumberland Letters.

On a list of apprentices (last line) in the year 1737 Henry Balchen appears as a Draper located in the City (of London) and whose apprentice is Will son of Will Tapp of Roydon in Essex. In other words, Henry is the master of his wife’s first cousin.


On a later apprentice list dated 29th July, 1761, Will Tapp is the master and the apprentice is John Balchen (1745-1785). This Balchen was probably the son of Henry by his second wife Mary Scott.


Thus for two generations the Balchens and the Tapps were master and apprentice, their roles reversing from one generation to the next.

The senior William Tapp, Gentleman of Roydon, made his will on 6th November, 1732, and appoints as his executors his brother in law Richard O’Neale and his esteemed friend Henry Balchen. They are given the governance and guardianship of his only child William. Probate was granted in February, 1733.








William Tapp’s brother in law Richard O’Neale, Pewterer and Citizen of London, had a daughter Sarah who married William Balchen, the nephew of Henry Balchen shown above. (see also the Balchen family tree)

William Tapp, Jnr. (the Mr. Tapp of The Cumberland Letters) married Hannah Claveley on 28th November, 1743, at St. Mary Magdalene, Old Fish Street.


William died in December, 1786, and was buried on 21st December at St. Matthew, Bethnal Green.

William Tapp, Jnr., Linen Draper of Friday Street in London made his will on 6th December, 1780. He appears not to have had children naming only his wife Hannah (neé Claveley) as the sole beneficiary of his estate. He appoints his good friends John Balchen [son of Henry] of Milk Street and Charles de Last(?) of Hertfordshire as his executors. However, John Balchen died before William, on 9th January, 1785, and in his place William appoints his wife as joint executor with Charles. Both she and Charles de Last died before either could administer William’s will and it was not until 1813 that administration was given to a Sarah Bailey.

As noted, William Balchen the nephew of the above Henry married Sarah O’Neale, the daughter of Richard whose sister married William Tapp Snr.


According to William Balchen’s will, Sarah his wife had property in Roydon in Essex over which a court case ensued entitled Read versus Cropp.

James Read (an attorney) married William’s daughter Sarah (Sally) Balchen whom George Cumberland accompanied to Vauxhall Gardens (see above).

We have also noted above under Richard Long that the Cumberland brothers tutored the children of Beeston Long and his partner Henry Dawkins. Just prior to this arrangement letters were exchanged between George and his brother regarding having John Balchen son of William and Sarah (O’Neale) Balchen stay with Richard and how he would be compensated.

George in London to Richard at Driffield. 1st January, 1778.

[Mr. Tapp] said to me the other day that he should by no means think of John’s being with you without paying in some way for the trouble he gave. I told him you had I was sure, no such wish, and that you would readyly afford him any service in your power, without any interested motive but he rejoined that He could not by any means agree to his being with you, unless you would be paid for his board &c, and in that case, nothing he thought would be more likely to restore his health especially as John earnestly desires it. p. 163

Richard at Driffield to George in London. 5th January, 1778.

What Mr. Tapp mentioned of paying for John’s Board rather vexes me, as I look upon it as a Cut of humble Pie, the natural Consequence of some late Transactions. I shall oppose accepting any thing as far as possible as I should be exceedingly glad of his Company as a Visitor but not as a Boarder for a few weeks. Mother begs you’ll make her Compts to Mr and Mrs Tapp and tomorrow being his Birth Day, is determined to drink his health in a glass of his own Wine wishing him many happy returns of the Day. This as opportunity serves. p. 165
Richard Dennison Cumberland observes that when John arrived he was as stout [i.e. strong] as ever and that he frequently walked 8 or 10 Miles a Day.

However, John and his siblings did not survive long, each one dying of consumption while still young adults. In August, 1778, Richard Cumberland visited his Balchen cousins and reported to his brother George that: ‘Susan[nah] is dying indeed – but John is better – I fear for Mary’. p. 203.

Susannah (image right) died a few months after Richard’s visit in November, 1778, aged 25, and was buried on the 17th; John died in May, 1783, aged 22, and was buried on the 23rd; and Mary died in October, 1786, aged 30, and was buried on 2nd November. All burials took place at St. Mary, Whitechapel.


Susannah Balchin Newington Middx 26 decline
23 John Balchen St. Mary Newington Butts 22 Decline.


2 Mary Balchen St. Mary Newington Surrey 30 Consump











APPENDIX TWENTY FOUR: DAGNAMS PARK – The home of the Neave Family.


In 1772 the estate of Dagnams Park and the neighbouring one, Cockerels, were sold to Sir Richard Neave, Bt. (b.1731 – d.1814 – created Baronet in 1795). He had made his fortune trading in the West Indies and the Americas and had, at various times, been chairman of the Ramsgate Harbour Trust, the West Indian Merchants and the London Dock Company, as well as a director of the Hudson’s Bay Company and was made deputy Governor of the Bank of England in 1781 and promoted to Governor in 1783; a postion he held until 1785. He lived in the nearby Bower House in Havering-atte-Bower but sought to elevate himself from merchant to country gentleman.
The Bower House by J.S. from BBC web site

Neave had the original Dagnams demolished, probably between 1772 and 1776 and replaced by a red-brick Georgian house nine bays wide by four deep with a curved central three-bay projection to the south front.

Neave then set about consolidating his position by instituting a land purchase policy in 1785 which his successors continued for the next 100 years, ultimately creating one of the largest estates in south Essex. Estimated at approximately 500 acres in 1772, by 1846 it extended to over approximately 1,700 acres of land in Havering and Romford, and by 1876 to 1,800 acres reaching its zenith in the early 20th century when it extended to over 2,700 acres.

As with many country houses, the end of the First World War also signalled the start of the decline and often the demolition of the English country house which was to last until the 1970s. Before WWI Dagnams employed over 40 staff, however, in 1919 the 5th Baronet, Sir Thomas Neave, sold 2,200 acres, including 1,500 acres in Romford and Havering, leaving 500 acres surrounding Dagnams.

Sir Thomas died in 1940 and the house was requisitioned and soldiers were billeted in it with the grounds used as a transport park. If this wasn’t enough to contend with, the house was severely damaged by a German V2 rocket in January 1945 which landed nearby. The explosion opened up large cracks in the walls.

The final nail in the coffin for the estate and the house was the Abercrombie report after the Second World War which recommended creating new housing estates on green field sites around the edge of London to house those who had lost their homes in the War. The aim was to build in the park but to retain the house as a community centre. London County Council compulsorily purchased Dagnams and the remaining 500 acres for £60,000 (approximately £1.6m today) in 1947.

The house might have survived this radical change but for the actions of the caretaker installed by the council. Employed at a wage of 30s per week and the use of 5 rooms for accommodation, he sought to supplement his income by promptly stealing and selling the lead from the roof. His actions earned him an 18-month prison sentence but, worse, water penetrated the building and especially the cracks left by the V2 rocket explosion. The combination of the bomb damage, the wear and tear of the soldiers, the extensive water damage, and the lack of a clear need to preserve the house sealed its fate. Dagnams was demolished in late 1950 with the demolition team taking their payment in the form of the rubble to be sold as building material. The grounds became a public park and remain so to this day.
Dagnams Park

APPENDIX TWENTY FIVE: The Dayrell, Sherrard, and Brownlow Families

As we have noted, Francis Dayrell married Elizabeth, daughter of Peter and Elizabeth (Sherrard) Whitcombe of Braxted Lodge in Essex and in turn their daughter Mary married Richard Cropp. Both Francis and Elizabeth (Whitcombe) Dayrell appear in the picture below known as ‘The Belton Conversation Piece’.


The picture (circa 1725) shows John Brownlow, 1st Viscount Tyrconnel, standing next to the artist, Philipe Mercier, seated on the left. John’s brother William looks out from the right. The man holding a rope is Savile Cust. He was the half-brother of Richard Cust who married Ann Brownlow, the sister of John Brownlow, 1st Viscount Tyrconnel. In the middle sitting on a swing is Elizabeth (Whitcombe) Dayrell. Her husband, Francis Dayrell, stands beside Eleanor (Brownlow) Brownlow, Viscountess Tyrconnel, who is sitting in her invalid chariot with a pug dog on her lap, attended by her African servant. Eleanor (Brownlow) Brownlow and Elizabeth (Whitcombe) Dayrell were first cousins. Eleanor was also the third cousin of her husband John Brownlow. Francis Dayrell was the executor of Eleanor Brownlow’s sister Alice’s will. Alice was the wife of Francis North, 2nd Baron Guildford (see chart).

Elizabeth (Whitcombe) Dayrell, the mother of Mary who married Richard Cropp, has an interesting family. Her father, Peter Whitcombe, married Elizabeth Sherrard who was the daughter of Richard and Margaret (Dewe) Sherrard. Richard Sherrard’s parents were John Sherrard and Elizabeth Brownlow (d. 1658) (see chart).
Their marriage took place in February, 1614, at St. Andrews, Holborn, and which is not recorded in the genealogies.
John Sherrard gent and Elizabeth Brownlow were married ye fifth [?] of February

Sherrard is sometimes spelled Sherard.

Richard Sherrard, son of John and Elizabeth (Brownlow) Sherrard, married Margaret, daughter of Lumley Dewe, of Bishop-Upton in Herefordshire, and they had three sons: John, Richard, and Brownlow (all successively baronets, of which the son of the 3rd (i.e. the 4th) was the last baronet) and two daughters, Elizabeth Sherrard who married Peter Whitcombe and whose daughter Elizabeth married Francis Dayrell, and Alice (1659-1721), who married her second cousin Sir John Brownlow (1659-1697) (see chart).


Sir John Brownlow and Alice Sherrard his wife who was Mary (Dayrell) Cropp’s great aunt
John and Alice (Sherrard) Brownlow had four daughters:

1. Elizabeth (1681-1723), who was married to John Cecil Sixth Earl of Exeter. He was a member of the House of Commons for Rutlandshire, in 1695 and 1698, when he was Lord Burleigh. He took his seat in the Upper House, on the death of his father, in 1701; after which he was appointed, on 11th December, 1712, lord lieutenant of the county he had before represented in parliament. The earl died on 24th December, 1721, and was buried with his ancestors, at Stamford. He first married Arabella, daughter of John Bennet, Lord Ossalston, who died without issue, in August, 1698. He then married Elizabeth, eldest daughter and co-heir of Sir John Brownlow, of Belton in Lincolnshire. The children of this marriage were five sons and one daughter: John and Brownlow, the two eldest sons, became, successively, the seventh and eighth earls of Exeter.
John Cecil Lord Burleigh who became the Sixth Earl of Exeter Two drawings of Elizabeth Brownlow – as a baby and as a young child. She became the Sixth Countess of Exeter

2. Alice (1684–1727) who married Francis North, second Baron Guilford (1673–1729). Francis’s cousin Dudley North was the father of Mary North who married Charles Long, Jnr.

Francis North, 2nd Baron Guildford Alice Brownlow, Lady Guildford
3. Jane (-1736) who married Peregrine Bertie 2nd Duke of Ancaster (1686-1742).


Eleanor (1691-1730) married her third cousin Sir John Brownlow 1st Viscount Tyrconnel, son of William Brownlow and Dorothy Mason (see chart). Eleanor is shown in the ‘Belton Conversation’ (above) seated in an invalid’s chair. Her husband is shown on the left of the picture standing next to the artist. There was no issue.

Eleanor (Sherrad) Lady Brownlow, Viscountess Tyrconnel John Brownlow, 1st Viscount Tyrconnel

John Brownlow’s mother Dorothy (Mason) Brownlow (1664 – circa 1700) and father Sir William Brownlow are shown below.
Dorothy (Mason) Brownlow
(1664 – circa 1700)
Sir William Brownlow John Brownlow, 1st Viscount Tyrconnel

Above we have listed the marriages of the four daughters of Alice Sherrard who married John Brownlow. Alice’s sister, the second daughter of Richard and Margaret (Dewe) Sherrard, Elizabeth, married Peter Whitcombe of Braxted in Essex. Peter and Elizabeth (Sherrard) Whitcombe were the parents of Elizabeth Whitcombe who married Francis Dayrell and whose daughter Mary Dayrell married Richard Cropp.

The first two sons of Richard and Margaret (Dewe) Sherrard: John 1st Bart. (Abt. 1662-1725) and Richard 2nd Bart. (Abt. 1665-1730) did not produce heirs. Richard’s death announcement is below.








Sir Richard Sherrard of Lobthorpe in Lincolnshire, Bart. He died a Batchelor at Paddington; so that the Dignity and Estate devolve on his Brother, now Sir Brownlow Sherrard, Bart. one of the Gentlemen-Ushers of the Privy Chamber.
13th June, 1730

The third son, Brownlow Sherrard, 3rd Bart., (1667-1735), brother of John and Richard, married Dame Mary Anderson, widow of Sir Richard Anderson, and daughter of John Methuen who was chancellor of Ireland, and sister to Sir Paul Methuen (c. 1672 –1757). Brownlow’s Methuen-in-laws are shown below.
Sir John Methuen
Sir Paul Methuen
Unfortunately for his wife, Brownlow Sherrard was an unpleasant individual who on occasion beat and imprisoned her. The following passage is from ‘At the Limits of Liberty: Married Women and Confinement in Eighteenth-Century England’ by Elizabeth Foyster in Continuity and Change. Vol. 17 (1), 2002, pp. 39-62.

Brownlow Sherard had similar intentions to those of Peter MacKenzie (i.e. he wanted to have control over his wife’s finances) when he visited Claudius Gillart, the keeper of a private madhouse near Shoreditch, in July 1705. He told the madhouse keeper that he had a wife `that was very much out of order and was very extravagant and could not govern herself or her affairs’, and that he believed that `three months restraint might be of service to her’. He requested a `convenient handsome’ room for his wife `because she was a person of fashion’, and requested that he might also have a room in the house, so that he might deal with any visitors that she might have. Even as he was confining his wife to a madhouse, Sherard was concerned that others would remember and respect his social status.

At the root of many of these cases of marriage breakdown were disputes over the wife’s separate property. Mary Sherard, who had been a widow before she married Brownlow, told the church courts how, prior to his attempt to confine her in a madhouse, her husband had repeatedly beaten her to make her sign over her jointure to him.

Mary’s mistreatment at the hands of her husband was originally described in some detail by Randolph Trumbach in Sex and the Gender Revolution: Heterosexuality and the Third Gender. pp. 356-357.

After the marriage he began to beat Mary in an attempt to force her to sign over her jointure. He locked her in her dressing room, pinched and kicked her, and held a sword over her head and a pistol to her breast. She eventually signed the deed as well as a statement that he was a good husband and she a devil. He once threatened to murder her if she would not deny that they were married because he said the he abhorred the thought of a wife. He beat her because he said he did not like her looks. He dragged her down two pairs of stairs and threw her out of the house because she had said that the neck-cloth he wore that day was made of muslin. When she asked him not to let a prostitute into their house, he beat her for two hours. He mistreated her during her pregnancies and after childbirth. He pulled her out of bed after their first child was born, called it a bastard, and threatened to kill it. During her second pregnancy he struck her in her belly with a wooden window bar. While the child was being delivered he pretended to go away to sea. He left her no money and took out an advertisement not to give her credit. Finally after five years of marriage Sherrard and his brother Richard tried to force her into a madhouse, at which point she sued for divorce. (The original source for this is at The London Metropolitan Archives: GLRO: DL/C/151, fols. 240-245)
Elizabeth (Sherrard) Whitcombe whose daughter Mary married Francis Dayrell and who was the grandmother of Mary Dayrell who married Richard Cropp. Elizabeth was also the sister of Brownlow Sherrard (right) Sir Brownlow Sherrard, 3rd Bart. (1667–1735) who was the father of the last male Sherrard and who beat his wife (image from BBC web site)

The surviving child of this unhappy marriage was Sir Brownlow Sherrard 4th and last Bart. (abt. 1702-1748). On 10th October, 1727, the nasty 3rd Bart was appointed Gentleman-Usher to the King.

Whitehall, October 10.
John Anderson, Brownlow Sherrard, and
Joseph Ashley, Esqrs. are sworn Gentlemen
Ushers to His Majesty’s Privy-Chamber.
Brownlow Sherrard, Esq; Brother to Sir Richard Sherrard, Bart. has resign’d his place of Gentleman-Usher of his Majesty’s Privy-Chamber to Capt. Robert Hemington, one of the Grooms of the Privy Chamber.
29th February, 1729.
Sir Brownlow Sherrard hath charitably subscribed 100l. per Annum towards maintaining the New Infirmary at Hyde-Park: Many other Persons of Quality and Distinction have largely contributed to the said pious Undertaking.
5th January, 1734.

Five months before dying on 30th January, 1735, the newspapers began running a series of short speculative pieces reporting on Brownlow’s slow demise.
Yesterday Sir Brownlow Sherard, Bart. lay dangerously ill at Guildford in Surrey.
15th September, 1735.

Last Night Sir Brownlow Sherrad, Bart. lay dangerously ill at his House in Cork-street, Burlington Gardens.
30th October, 1735.

The Report of Sir Brownlow Sherrard, Bart. being dead, is without Foundation.
22nd December, 1735.

There are some Hopes that Sir Brownlow Sherrard Bart. will recover his Indisposition.
22nd December, 1735.

‘Tis said that Sir Brownlow Sherrard, Bart. who for some Time past has been dangerously ill, is likely to recover.
29th December, 1735.

Jan. 30. At his House near Hanover-square Sir Brownlow Sherrard, Bart.
5th February, 1736.
Brownlow Sherrard, 3rd Bart., on his decease on 30th January, 1735, was succeeded by his son Brownlow, 4th Bart. Brownlow married Mary Sidney, the eldest daughter of Thomas Sidney, of Ranworth in Norfolk, and granddaughter of Robert, 4th Earl of Leicester, (by Elizabeth, the daughter of John, Duke of Bridgewater). Mary’s father, Thomas Sidney, was the only son of the 4th Earl to have married but he produced only daughters and he died in his elder brothers’ lifetimes. Mary (Sidney) Sherrard was the niece successively of the 5th, 6th, and 7th (and last) Earls of Leicester. She was also the great great aunt of the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley.

Below left a bookplate showing Sir Philip Sydney beneath which is written ‘In the Collection of Sir Brownlow Sherrard Bart.’ Right is Sir Brownlow Sherrard painted by George Knapton in 1746. Knapton painted a series of portraits of the members of the Society of Dilettantes of which this of Brownlow is one. He also drew Mary Sidney “… whole-length, in white satin, seated on a sofa of rich yellow damask in frame of richly carved open work.” Where this painting is located today has not been determined.


The papers at the time were much taken with the events leading up to the marriage between Brownlow Sherrard and Lady Mary Sidney:

7th April, 1737
The same Day Sir Brownlow Sherrard, Bart. set out, with a very handsome Retinue, for Leicestershire, in order to espouse Miss Sidney, Neice to the Right Hon. the Earl of Leicester.

19th February, 1738
A Treaty of Marriage is on Foot, and will speedily be consummated, between Sir Brownlow Sherrad, of Lobthorp in the County of Lincoln, Bart. possess’d of an Estate of 5000 l. per Annum, and Nephew to Sir Paul Methuen, and the Lady Philoclea Sidney, Niece of the Earl of Leicester, a most accomplish’d Lady, an Heiress of 30,000l.

16th July, 1738
Sunday the Right Hon. the Earl of Leicester, with his Niece Miss Sidney, and Sir Brownlow Sherard, Bart. set out with three Coaches and Six, and a grand Retinue, for the Seat of the Lord North and Guildford at Epsom, there to solemnize the Marriage of Sir Brownlow Sherard with Miss Sidney.
17th July, 1738
Yesterday Morning Sir Brownlow Sherard, Bart was married at Dundans, the Seat of the Right Hon. the Lord North and Guildford, in Surry, to the Lady Philoclea Sidney, Niece to the Right Hon. the Earl of Leicester, a young Lady of fine Accomplishments, and a Fortune of 40,000l.

A few days before Brownlow Sherrard’s wedding, his steward, Richard Bates, had an unfortunate encounter with a bean shell.
15th July, 1738
Tuesday Evening Mr. Richard Bates, Steward to Sir Brownlow Sherrard, Bart. going down Holborn Hill, and treading on a Bean Shell, fell, and broke one of his Legs.

The following tree and accompanying query were placed in The Gentleman’s Magazine. The tree neatly illustrates the way in which the earldom of Leicester ran out of male heirs.

Above from The Gentleman’s Magazine
Note that Bis Shelley, Esq. was the grandfather of the poet Percy

Brownlow and Mary (Sidney) Sherrard had no issue and so the male line of this branch of the Sherrard family died out which is why Mary Cropp’s mother, Elizabeth (Whitcombe) Dayrell, was one of the co-heiresses (with her sister) of this last Sir Brownlow Sherrard.

The death of Brownlow at the end of November, 1748, was reported by the newspapers on 1st December and likewise that of his widow Mary (Sidney) Sherrard on 31st March, 1758.
Last Week died Sir Brownlow Sherrard, Bart. whose Death is much lamented by his Lady, one of the Coheiresses of the Late Earl of Leicester, and by all who had the Pleasure of his Acquaintance.
1st December, 1748.

Last Tuesday Night died, at her Lodgings at Hampton-Court, the Lady Sidney Sherard, of Penshurst in the County of Kent, Niece and Coheiress of the late Jocelyn Earl of Leicester, and Relict of the late Sir Brownlow Sherrard, Bart.
1st April, 1758.

This Morning the Corpse of the Hon. Lady Sidney Sherrard was carried from her late Dwelling-House in Dover-Street, to be interred near the Remains of her late Husband, Sir Brownlow Sherrard, Bart. at Northwitham in Lincolnshire. Her Ladyship was one of the Nieces of the Right Hon. Jocelyne late Earl of Leicester, deceased, but not the Aunt of Sir George Yonge, Bart. as inserted in this and other Papers by Mistake.
4th April, 1758.

With the male line of the Sherrard family dying out (along with the Sidney family) it was left to the daughters to continue the Sherrard line: Alice Sherrard, as we have seen, married her second cousin John Brownlow and they produced four daughters as noted above.

Alice’s sister Elizabeth Sherrard married Peter Whitcombe and produced two daughters: Elizabeth who married Francis Dayrell and Mary who married Thomas Paget. It is this last marriage that we will note briefly here.

Thomas Paget was the son of Henry Paget and grandson of William Paget 5th Lord Paget of Beaudesert. Thomas and Mary (Whitcombe) Paget had a daughter Caroline who married Sir Nicholas Bayly. Nicholas and Caroline (Paget) Bayly had a son Henry Paget Bayly who became the 1st Earl of Uxbridge and his son was William 1st Marquis of Anglesey (seechart).
Brigadier-General Thomas Paget who married Mary Whitcombe and father of Caroline Caroline Paget, daughter of Thomas, and who married Nicholas Bayly Nichols Bayly who married Caroline Paget (d. 1782)
Left Beaudesert, home of the Paget family and right William Bayly Paget (1506-1563) progenitor of the Paget family

Henry Bayly, son of Nicholas and Caroline (Paget) Bayly. He later became Henry Paget, 1st Earl of Uxbridge Henry William (Bayly) Paget 1st Marquis of Anglesey, eldest son of Henry Paget Bayly, 1st Earl of Uxbridge Sir Arthur Paget, 2nd son of Henry Paget 1st Earl of Uxbridge. He married Richard Cradock’s great great granddaughter Lady Augusta Fane

Below Richard Brownlow(1553-1638)Protonotary of the Court of Common Pleas and the progenitor of all those Brownlows found on the chart below as well as marriages into at least five families of earls or dukes, e.g. Guildford, Uxbridge, Exeter, Ancaster and Brownlow.


Sir John Brownlow (1594-1679)
Alice Pulteney, Lady Brownlow (1604-1676)

Belton House
Sir John Shirley whose daughter Jane was the mother of Elizabeth Freke
Elizabeth Freke who married Richard Brownlow, the younger

Richard Brownlow, the elder (1553-1638)
John Cust (1718-1770) Speaker of the House of Common
who married Etheldred Payne


This Cust family group painting shows the widowed Anne Brownlow, Lady Cust, and her children in 1741. She and Sir Richard Cust had nine children, none of whom had children themselves except one – Sir John Cust (see chart above). Those represented here are, from left to right, Francis Cockayne Cust, MP, KC (1722-91); Captain William Cust, RN (1720-48), pointing at a map of a naval engagement; Jane Cust, subsequently Mrs. Fane, then Mrs. Evelyn (1725-90); Peregrine Cust, MP, DCL (1723-85); Savile Cockayne Cust (1698-1772) with dog. He was not the son of Anne (Brownlow) Cust but the much younger half-brother of Lady Anne’s husband Richard Cust and thus ‘half-uncle’ to the her children. Savile also appears in the Belton Conversation piece. Rev. Richard Cust, DD (1728-83); Sir John Cust, 3rd Bart, Speaker of the House of Commons (1718-70); his mother Anne Brownlow, Lady Cust (1694-1779); Lucy Cockayne Cust (1732-1804); Elizabeth Cust (1724-69); Dorothy Cust (1729-70). Sir John holds a miniature of Etheldred Payne (1720-75) whom he would marry in 1743. Hanging on the wall is a portrait of an unidentified (deceased?) boy. Sir John’s grandson (John Cust (1779-1853)) married Sophia Hume whose sister Amelia married Charles Long Baron Farnborough.
Etheldred Payne the second wife of Sir John Cust and her son Brownlow Cust
Jocosa Katerina Drury, Lady Cust (1748/9-1772) and her niece Lady Caroline Hobart later Lady Suffield (d. 1850). Jocosa was the first wife of Sir John Cust
Frances Bankes, wife of Brownlow Cust and her son John Cust
Brownlow Cust (1744-1808) father of
John Cust 1st Earl Brownlow
John Cust 1st Earl Brownlow who married Sophia Hume, Charles Long’s sister in law

Frances Bankes Lady Cust with her grandson,
Amelia (Hume) Long’s nephew



Above we have looked at the family of Elizabeth Whitcombe who married Francis Dayrell and who was the mother of Mary Dayrell who married Susannah (Cradock) Banner’s grandson Richard Cropp. Below we look at the Dayrell family.

We begin our short history of the Dayrell family, based on A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britain …, Volume 2, with:

Francis Dayrell. He married Barbara Powell but he pre-deceased her and she went on to marry Eusebius Andrew and after his death Edward Hinde/Hynde of Maddingley. She died in 1667 in the 89th year of her age. Her memorial appears below. Francis and Barbara (Powell) Dayrell had a son -:


Also in the Chancel of the sd church of Castle Camps lyes interr’d the
body of BARBARA Lady HINDE Daughter of ANTHONY POWELL als HERBERT Esr first ye wife of FRANCIS DAYRELL Esqr to whom she bare ye Sd Sr Thomas Dayrell & also Susanna afterwards wife of THOMAS WYNNE Esr.
Her2d husband was EUSEBIUS ANDREW of Edmonton Com Middx Esq
(father of Coll EUSEBIUS ANDREW who was Beheaded Augs. ye 22d 1650)
by whom she had issue Katherine afterwards Married to Sir JOHN
LENTHALL of Burford in ye County of Oxford Knt who died Ano 1691
in ye 72d year of her Age & was buried near her Husband in the
Parish Church of Besilslee in the County of Berks. Her 3rd Husband was Sir EDWARD HINDE of Maddingly in this County Kt whom she
survived many years & died Ao Do 1667 in ye 89th year of her Age.

Patri Optimo et Charismo Officiosce pietatis
et memoire ergo
Hoc Monumentum

Sir Thomas Dayrell (son of Francis and Barbara (Powell) Dayrell) resided at Shudy Camps, in Cambridgeshire. Of Sir Thomas it is recorded on his monumental inscription that:

“… he was eminent for his loyalty and services to their Majesties Charles I. and II. in the Civil Wars; was universally esteemed for his great learning, and beloved of all who knew him, and particularly by the county of Cambridge, where, in his old age, he served in the quality of deputy lieut. and justice of the peace to the time of his death. In his younger years, he was of Lincoln’s Inn where from the comeliness of his person, he was chosen, by the consent of the four inns of courwt, to command that grand masque (in which many gentlemen of eminent note and quality in the succeeding times had their several parts) that was represented before their Majesties the King and Queen, in the banqueting house, at Whitehall, on Candlemas night, in the year 1663, and a second time, by special direction from their Majesties to Sir Ralph Freeman, then lord-mayor of London, at Merchant Taylors’ Hall, when his Majesty, as a mark of his royal favour, was pleased to confer on him [Thomas Dayrell] the honour of knighthood.”

Sir Thomas Dayrell married Sarah, daughter and co-heir of Sir Hugh Windham/Wyndham of Pilsdon Court, Stilton in Dorset (image below), and had four sons: Thomas who died of smallpox in 1664; Francis (Sir); Marmaduke (Sir); Wyndham (died unmarried aged 22 of smallpox on 23rd September, 1674); and one daughter Sarah (other sources have her as Frances (see chart)).
The Manor of Pilsdon in Stilton, Dorsetshire, home of the Wyndham family
Sir Hugh Wyndham whose daughter
Sarah married Thomas Dayrell
Sarah Dayrell daughter of Thomas and Sarah (Wyndham) Dayrell married Francis Wyndham/Windum of Cromer Hall, Norfolk (only son of George) on 27th March, 1679 at St. James, Duke’s Place. Sarah Wyndham who married Francis Dayrell and Francis Wyndham who married Sarah Dayrell, the sister of Francis, were first cousins (see chart).
Francis Windum Esq & Sarah Dayrell married March 27 1679: Thomas Walker

From this marriage are descended the Wyndhams of Cromer Hall in Norfolk. Thomas Dayrell died on 26th March, 1669, and was succeeded by his son:

Sir Francis Dayrell, of Shudy Camps, married on 24th February, 1671/72, Elizabeth Lewis who was a minor and since her parents were both dead her brother gave his consent to the marriage. Sir Francis died of smallpox and without issue and was succeeded by his brother Marmaduke in 1676. His widow Elizabeth married William Morgan. This second marriage of Elizabeth’s was not happy.

Margaret the mother of Elizabeth (Lewis) (Dayrell) Morgan and the widow of her father Edward Lewis of the Vann in County Glamorgan afterwards married a man by the name of Banaster and after his decease she then married Charles Stuart 3rd Duke of Richmond and 6th Duke of Lennox (1639-1672) (she died 6th January, 1667).

Francis Dayrell was succeeded by his brother Marmaduke.

The descent of the Dayrells from Francis who married Sarah Wyndham to Francis who married Elizabeth Lewis from Le Neve’s Knights is given below. (Note that Le Neve puts Marmaduke before Francis)

Sir Marmaduke Dayrell, of Shudy Camps, married first Mary, only daughter of Sir Justinian Isham, Bart., of Lamport, Nottinghamshire. Their marriage is recorded as happening on 12th November, 1678 at St. Bartholomew the Great.
November Marmaduke Dayrell of Lillington in ye County of Bucks Esq. Bachelor and Mary Isham of St. Giles in the Fields spinster were married on the 12th of November 1678 with Licence by Mr Jackson Curate.

Mary (Isham) Dayrell died on 5th June, 1679, of smallpox. There was no issue.
Mary Isham who was the first wife of Marmaduke Dayrell Sir Justinian Isham father of Mary and Vere isham Vere Isham
“Mary and Vere, young ladies learned bej’ond their sex and years, the first in the Latin tongue, the second in Mathematicks and Algebra.”

Marmaduke married secondly, Mary, daughter and heir of William Glascock, Esq. of Farnham in Essex on 23rd February, 1681, at St. Peter Upon Cornhill.
February 23 Marmaduke Darell of Grays Inn in the County of midlesex Esq: and Mary Glascock of Farnham in the County of Essex Licence from the ?

Below from Visitation of Essex showing Mary Glascock daughter of William.


William Glasscock married Elizabeth Shiers, daughter of George Shiers. Their daughter Mary Glasscock married Marmaduke Dayrell.
Sir Robert Shiers, his wife Elizabeth and son George (right) whose daughter Elizabeth
married William Glasscock. Monument at Great Popham Church in Surrey. The male line of both the Shiers and Glasscock family became extinct.

Marmaduke and Mary (Glasscock) Dayrell had three sons (including Francis the father of Mary (Dayrell) Cropp) and two daughters. Below a monumental inscription to Francis’s father Marmaduke Dayrell who married Mary Glasscock.
In Memory of Sir MARMADUKE DAYRELL Son of Sir Thomas Dayrell of the ancient family of the DAYRELLS of Lillington Bucks; who for his Various and Eminent Services had the Honour of Knighthood conferred on him by his Majesty King JAMES the Second His first Wife was MARY Daughter of Sir JUSTINIAN ISHAM of Lamport in the County of Northampton.
He afterwards married MARY Daughter of William Glasscock Esq. of Farnham in the County of Essex by whom he had issue three Sons and two Daughters his Eldest Son dying in his life time he was Succeeded in his Estate by his second son FRANCIS DAYRELL Esq. by whose direction this Monument is Erected by his grandson. MARMADUKE DAYRELL Esq.

Below the gravestone of Sir Marmaduke Dayrell.
Under this Stone
Lyeth Interred the Body of
in this County
He dyed the 17th of Oct: 1729
Aetat: 82

Marmaduke left at his decease, in 1729, a son and successor:

Francis Dayrell, Esq. of Shudy Camps married Elizabeth, daughter of Peter Whitcombe of Braxted Lodge, Essex, and Elizabeth Sherrard one of the co-heirs of Sir Brownlow Sherrard, Bart., of Lobthorp, in Lincolnshire. They had two sons Marmaduke and Brownlow and two daughters Mary who married Richard Cropp and Sarah who married Christopher Jeaffreson.

From: Biographical Register of Christ’s College, 1505-1905:

Dayrell, Francis: son of Marmaduke, born at Shudy Camps, Cambs. School not given. Admitted fellow-commoner under Mr. Withers 14th October, 1704. Age not given. Resided till Lady Day 1707. Admitted at Gray’s Inn 1st February, 1701. Grandson of Sir Thomas of Shudy Camps (admitted 1622) and son of Sir Marmaduke by his second wife, Mary Glascock of Farnham, Essex. Sir Marmaduke’s first wife was Mary, elder daughter of Sir Justinian Isham (adm. 1627). Francis married Elizabeth daughter of Peter Witchcombe [Whitcombe] of Braxted Lodge, Essex, coheir of Brownlow Sherard of Lobthorp, Lincs. by whom he had two sons: Brownlow (adm. 1736) and Marmaduke (1740).

Below the monument erected by Marmaduke Dayrell to his father Francis Dayrell.

To the memory of FRANCIS DAYRELL Esqr late of Shudy Camps in the County of Cambridge, Son of SIR MARMADUKE DAYRELL of the Antient Family of LYLINGSTON DAYRELL, in the County of Bucks. He Served the office of High Sheriff in the County of Lincoln in the year 1740 was in the Commission of the Peace and one of the Deputy Lieutenants of the County of Cambridge. He married ELIZABETH Daughter and Coheiress of PETER WHITCOMB Esqr. of Braxted Lodge in the County of Essex.
By whom he left issue two Sons, BROWNLOW and MARMADUKE both unmarried and three Daughters, ELIZABETH who married to JOHN FULLER Esqr. of Rosehill in the County of Sussex.
MARY now the Wife of RICHARD CROP Esqr. and SARAH the Wife of
CHRISTOPHER JEAFFRESON Esqr. both of the County of Cambridge.
He Died much Lamented September 26th 1760.
Pursuant to his Will and in Grateful remembrance of his Father.
This Monument was Erected by his Son MARMADUKE.
Elizabeth (Sherrard) Whitcombe whose daughter married Francis Dayrell

Below left a view of Braxted Lodge in Essex, home of the Whitcombe family and below right a detail from The Belton Conversation Piece of Elizabeth (Whitcombe) Dayrell holding onto a swing.
Braxted Lodge, home of the Whitcombe family
Below the monument to Mary (Dayrell) Cropp’s mother Elizabeth (Whitcombe) Dayrell, wife of Francis Dayrell.

To the Memory of
Mrs Elizabeth Dayrell Widow of the late Francis Dayrell of the Parish of Shudy Camps in the County of Canbridgeshire. She was one of the CoHeirs of Sir Brownlow Sherrard of Lobthorpe Hall in the County of Lincoln Bart. Had Five Children Two sons Brownlow and Marmaduke and Three Daughtes Elizabeth First Married to John Fuller of Rose Hill in the County of Sussex Esq and after to Nash Mason of the County of Kent Esq. She died in 1762 and was interred in the Abbey Church at Bath. Mary Married to Richard Crop of Westow Lodge Esq and Sarah to Christopher Jeafferson Esq of Dullingham both in the County of Cambridge.

The above named Mrs Dayrell was Greatly Esteemed and Died much Lamented by all who had the Happiness of her Acquaintance on the 28th Day of June in the Year of Our Lord 1768 Aged 67.

Below the gravestone to Mary (Dayrell) Cropp’s mother Elizabeth (Whitcombe) Dayrell, wife of Francis Dayrell.
Here lieth the Body of Mrs Elizabeth Dayrell Widow of Francis Dayrell Esq. late of this Parish. She Died June
the 28th 1768 Aged 67

Mary Cropp’s father Francis Dayrell of Shudy Camps Esquire wrote his will on 10th April, 1757. He wishes to be privately entombed in the chancel of the chapel at Shudy Camps on the north side of the Altar. He directs that after his decease he would like to have one hundred pounds spent in erecting a monument on the north said of the altar at Hinxston in the County of Cambridge in the memory of his father Sir Marmaduke Dayrell (see image above) and another one hundred pounds on another monument on the south said of the alter to his mother Dame Mary Dayrell, his sisters Sarah and Caroline Dayrell, and his brother Marmaduke Dayrell. He also wants spent another one hundred pounds on a monument dedicated to himself on the north side of the alter at Shudy Camps (image above).
Shudy Camps home of the Dayrell Family

To his wife Elizabeth (Whitcombe) Dayrell he bequeaths his house at Lillingston-Dayrell in Buckinghamshire, as well as his house at Long Sutton in the County of Lincoln, as well as the use of his house in Saville Row in London and then after her death or her ‘after-marriage’ (whichever comes first) the same properties to his son Marmaduke.
To his unfortunate son Brownlow (who was insane) he gives “nothing more than the law obliges”. To his daughter Elizabeth Mason one hundred pounds for mourning.

To my daughter Mary Cropp I give and bequeath the sum of three thousand pounds upon condition that her husband Richard Cropp Esq. does within six months after my decease give sufficient security that he will settle and secure to my said Daughter a Jointure or annuity of three Hundred pounds a year for her life clear of all deductions whatsoever and without prejudice to her Right of power But in Case her said Husband shall neglect or refuse to make such settlement or Give such Security as aforesaid then and in such case I do hereby Give and bequeath to my said daughter Mary Cropp an annuity or Rent charge of Two hundred pounds a year during the term of her natural life and not the aforesaid sum of three thousand pounds ….

He also gives his daughter Sarah Dayrell (who married Christopher Jeaffreson) the sum of three thousand pounds. And to his son Marmaduke Dayrell he gives his house of Shudy Camps and its contents.

To his daughter Mary Cropp he adds another legacy to which he attaches the following ‘special condition’ that she sometimes lives and resides at Shudy Camps and not at her husband’s estate at Westoe Lodge in Cambridgeshire.

He also names his cousins Edmund Dayrell of Lamport House in the parish of Stowe in Buckinghamshire and now residing in the Western Indies and Doctor Richard Dayrell of Lillingston Dayrell in Buckinghamshire.

Marmaduke Dayrell, Esq. of Shudy Camps who succeeded his father Francis, married Henrietta, daughter of Warner Tempest, Esq. of the island of Antigua. He was the brother of Mary Cropp. They had several children. Marmaduke died on 14th April, 1790 at Shudy Camps.

At his seat at Shudy Camps, co. Cambridge, aged 67, Marmaduke Dayrell, esq. son of Francis D. esq. of the same place, by Elizabeth, daughter of Peter Whitcombe, esq. of Braxted Lodge, co. Essex, and one of the co-heiresses of Sir Brownlow Sherrard, bart. of Lobthorpe Hall, co. Lincoln. He was descended from the antient and noble family of the Dayrells, who came to this kingdom with William the Conqueror, and whose names are entered in the roll of Battle Abbey. He was a good husband, an affectionate parent, and a fried to the poor; and his death is sincerely lamented. He has left, by his present lady, two sons and three daughters, the eldest of whom, Marmaduke Dayrell, esq. is a fellow-commoner of Christ’s College, Cambridge.

2d son of Francis Dayrell Esq. of Shudy Camps in this County He married HENRIETTA daughter of WILLIAM WARNER TEMPEST Esq. of the island of Antigua in America & by her had issue 2 sons & 3 daughters. He died sincerely lamented April 14 1790
HENRRIETTA his Widow died Jan 14 1795 & was interred in the parish church of her residence at Moulsey in the County of Surry.
In filial remembrance of his parents this marble was placed by their eldest

Marmaduke Dayrell, Esq. of Shudy Camps, (son of Marmaduke and Henrietta (Warner) Dayrell above) married in 1797, Mildred-Rebecca, daughter of Sir Robert Lawley, 5th Bart., and sister to Lord Wenlock, by whom he had issue: Francis, his heir. Thomas, in holy orders and rector of Marston, Yorkshire, born in 1802, married Maria, daughter of the late Mr. Hawksworth, and has one son and one daughter. Christopher Jeaffreson, born in 1808; Robert-William, born in 1812; Jane-Elizabeth, married to the Rev. Fitzgerald Wintour, of Barton, co. Nottingham, and has two sons and two daughters. Mr. Dayrell died in August 1821, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Francis Dayrell, Esq. of Shudy Camps.

Two views of Cranwell Hall in Staffordshire the home of the Lawley family.

The history of the Dayrell family above fails to mention Mary a daughter of the first Sir Thomas Dayrell who married Sir Henry St. George (1581-1644) in 1614. Sir Henry was garter King of Arms and died in Oxford in 1644 while in service with Charles I.
Mary Dayrell daughter of Sir Thomas Dayrell

Elizabeth Dayell, the sister of Mary (Dayrell) Cropp, and daughter of Francis and Mary (Whitcombe) Dayrell, married twice. Her first husband was John [‘Jacky’] Fuller (1706–1755), ironmaster and gun-founder. He was the eldest of the ten children of John Fuller and his wife, Elizabeth, daughter Fulke Rose of Jamaica. In 1723 ‘Jacky’ went up to Trinity College, Cambridge, and in 1724 was admitted to the Middle Temple. On the death of his father in 1745 he took over Rose Hill in Jamaica, the family estate, as well as the family ironworks which produced rifles and other arms in a period of great demand for ordnance. In August, 1746, at Croydon, Surrey, he married Elizabeth, daughter of Francis Dayrell, of Shudy Camps, Cambridge. There were no children from the marriage. In December, 1754, Fuller was elected as MP for the duke of Newcastle’s constituency at Boroughbridge in Yorkshire. He died on 5th February, 1755, at Rose Hill in Sussex, and was buried on 12th February at Waldron. The family business was taken over and run by his brother Rose Fuller (1708-1777). Jacky’s widow Elizabeth (Dayrell) Fuller then married Nash Mason of Kent.

According to the records of the Old Bailey on 4th November, 1785, the Mason’s home on Queen’s Square in London was broken into by William Simon Bowyer who removed one linen table cloth, one linen table napkin, two pairs of silk stockings, and three linen handkerchiefs. He was found guilty and was tarnsported (to Australia) for seven years.

Below from The Gentleman’s Magazine an article describing Northfleet church in Kent.

In the nave, on a blue stone;
“Everard Goodman, gent. one of the
sworn clerks in the high court of Chancery, Ob. 1743, an. aet.67.
And Anna, wife of Everard Goodman,
formerly wife of James Mason, late of Maidstone in Kent, esq. ob. 1745, 71”
Near the last is another blue stone;
“Nash Mason, esq. of Queen’s-square, Middlesex, son of Ann Goodman by John Mason, her first husband, late of Maidstone, esq. ob. October 1788, 82.

‘Mad Jack’ Fuller ‘Jacky’ Fuller’s nephew and son of his brother Rose Fuller, eventually inherited Rose Hill and had the artist Turner paint a view of the estate:
An engraving based on Turner’s ‘View of Rose Hill’
Rose Hall, Jamaica, the plantation home of the Rose family







APPENDIX TWENTY EIGHT: The Jeaffreson Family

As noted above, Mary (Dayrell) Cropp’s sister Sarah married Christopher Jeaffreson of Dullingham House in Cambridgeshire.

There are two pieces of evidence that can be used to support an argument that there is a connection between this Jeaffreson family of Dullingham House and Thomas Jefferson of Monticello in Virginia.

First is the use of coats of arms: on the left are the arms of the Jeaffreson family of Dullingham House and on the right are those used by Thomas Jefferson. It is said that Jefferson used these arms because he had old family papers that bore them and so he felt entitled to use them. The monument below for Christopher Jeaffreson who died in 1725 likewise uses the arms on the left.
Jeaffreson Family Jefferson Family

Also, during the 17th century, the Jeaffresons developed a wide range of commercial interests in the Leeward Islands in the West Indies; thus placing the family close to Virginia. Samuel Jeaffreson, born in 1607 at Pettistree, Suffolk, emigrated to St. Kitts/St. Christopher’s Island where he was to become the founder and Governor General of the islands. He had three sons all of whom are supposed to have emigrated to Virginia.

From the same family was John Jeaffreson, a merchant of London, who was involved in schemes to colonise the West Indies. He first came to America in about 1618 on the ship, “Bona Nova”, and was an official of the Virginia Company. He was granted 250 acres of land at Archer’s Hope near the first settlement of Jamestowne, Virginia, and was a member of the First Assembly there in 1619, representing Flowerdew Hundred.

John Jeaffreson escaped the infamous Indian Massacre of 1622 at Jamestown, by being away on business for the Company back in England. In 1624 he was asked by Sir Thomas Warner, a friend and neighbor living at Parham some five miles away, to accompany him on the ship, “Hopewell” in his adventure to found the Leeward Islands in the West Indies

Having built up a large fortune based on his mercantile adventures in the West Indies John returned to England in the 1650s a wealthy man, and purchased the Dullingham estate in Cambridgeshire. John later participated in the 1653 Anglo-Dutch war by commanding the merchant ship, “William and Mary” with 140 men. He died in 1660 so he would have to have been about seventy years old to have achieved all that he did.

Samuel Jeaffreson, John’s nephew remained in the West Indies and raised a family including a son named Samuel. This son moved to Antigua and he MAY have been the father of Thomas who moved to Henrico Count, Virginia. Given this assumption then it is from this Samuel who moved to Antigua that Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States, is descended.
John Jeaffreson with The Hopewell





Below some Jeaffreson monuments: the first is for Christopher son of John (see Chart). There was only one surviving child of this marriage, Christopher, who married (to Henrietta Robinson) but no more male descendants from there on. The second is for Christopher Jeaffreson who married Sarah Dayrell.
Near this plcce lyes Interred in hopes of a blessed Resurrection ye body of CHRISTOPHER JEAFFRESON of this County Esq. The son of Colonel John Jeaffreson of St. Andrews Holbourn in ye County of Middlesex and of MARY his Wife Daughter of Aden Parkins Esq of ye County of Nottingham. He departed this Life ye 1st of August 1725 in ye 75th year of his Age.
His Emminent good Qualities were so many and his Impartiality in Adminstering Justice in his Country so Conspicuous that he died
Greatly lamented by all
who had ye happiness
to know him.
In a Vault near this Place are deposited the Remains
The Tenor of whose Life displayed
All that could conciliate Regard or command Respect.
As a Husband and a Parent. He was kind and affectionate.
As a Friend, zealous and sincere.
As a Magistrate judicious and impartial.
He sustained a long and painful illness with exemplary Fortitude
And died full of Christian Hope on the 26th Day of September 1789
Aged 55 Years.
He married SARAH the Daughter of FRANCIS DAYRELL, Esqr
of Shudy Camps in this County
by whom he had four Children but left only two to lament his Loss
In the same Vault have since been deposited the Remains
who died June 10th 1702. Aged 62 Years.

The third monument is for Mary (Dayrell) Cropp’s niece Sarah Elizabeth, the daughter of Christopher and Sarah (Dayrell) Jeaffreson.
This Monuemnt
the last sad tribute of fraternal affection is erected to the Memory of SARAH ELIZABETH Daughter of
and SARAH his Wife
who died the 11th of May 1804,
Aged 40 Years.
Elegant by nature, accomplished by education, and good by principle.
she attracted the regard of all who knew her,
and having lived most affectionately beloved
she died most sincerely lamented.

Before leaving the Dayrells and their Brownlow /Sherrard / Jeaffreson, etc. connections we will look briefly at the Freke family.







Above No. 3 Raphe Freke who married Ciceley Culpeper was the third son of Thomas Freke and Elizabeth Tayler. Raphe’s elder brother shown at the very bottom of the page was John Freke who married Jane Shirley, the daughter of Sir John Shirley (1565-1632) of Isifield. John and Jane (Shirley) Freke were the parents of Elizabeth who married Richard Brownlow. Raphe Freke, John’s brother, had a number of daughters one of whom, Judith, married Robert Austen of Herendon in Kent. Robert Austen’s niece married Comberford Brooke (see Austen above) thus uniting in a very round about fashion Esther Banner’s Purcell family with Richard Cropp’s Dayrell family. Judith (Freke) Austen’s sister Elizabeth wrote a ‘Remembrance’ which was published in 2001 as ‘The Remembrance of Elizabeth Freke 1671- 1714’. Elizabeth (Freke) Brownlow and Judith (Freke) Austen were first cousins.
Elizabeth Freke Lady Brownlow (1634-1684)



From his obituary in The Gentleman’s Magazine:

Rev. R. D. Cumberland, LLB Jan. 31. At Driffield, near Cirencester, after long and severe sufferings from the stone, aged 72, the Rev. Richard Denison Cumberland. He was of Magdalen College, Cambridge; was presented to the Vicarage of Driffield, with the annexed Chapelry of Harnhill, by Thomas Smith, esq. in 1776, and took his degree of LL.B. in 1780. During his long ministry he scarcely ever quitted the care of his churches, contributing always willingly to the comforts of the labouring poor, and fulfilling the necessary duties of a good Magistrate and Rural Dean. Liberal to others on all occasions, and temperate in the use of the goods of fortune himself, he died without having created an enemy by his own fault.

His descent was from Dennison Cumberland, Archdeacon of Northampton, whose son was the celebrated Richard Cumberland, Bishop of Peterborough, the author of Saochoniatho’s Phoenician History, the Law of Nature, and a Treatise on Hebrew Weights and Measures, &c. He was also grandson to John Cumberland, whose noble invention of bending ship timber by means of steam in cases of sand, has been the means of saving millions to this country, and in which he expended a large fortune, without receiving any adequate reward. His descent on the maternal side was equally honourable, being in a direct line from the renowned Admiral Balchen, who was lost in the ship Victory, and to whose memory Government erected a monument in Westminster Abbey. He has left a widow, and one only daughter, married to the Rev. J. P. Jones, A. M. of Brecon.

Unfortunately the claim that RDC was a direct descendant of Admiral Balchen’s is wrong. There is probably a distant family connection but it has yet to be proved. The following appeared in Jackson’s Oxford Journal on 12th February, 1825.



(b London, 1754; d Bristol, 1848). English writer, collector and amateur artist. He became a clerk on the death of his father in 1771, until freed from financial necessity by a legacy in 1785. In 1788 he left for Rome, where he studied the work of Raphael, Marcantonio Raimondi and Giulio Bonasone, and collected prints and curios. Cumberland returned to England in 1790 and lived near Southampton, adding to his collections and corresponding with Thomas Johnes (1748–1816) of Hafod in Cardiganshire (now Dyfed), who praised his Poem on the Landscapes of Great Britain, written in 1780 but not published until 1793. By this time he was living near Windsor and proximity to London allowed him greater intimacy with William Blake, whom he had met through Thomas Stothard before 1788. In 1793 he published Some Anecdotes of the Life of Julio Bonasoni, prefaced by A Plan for the Improvement of the Arts in England, which urged the establishment of a national gallery. An Attempt to Describe Hafod (1796), Johnes’s estate, contains a folding map engraved by Blake, who also provided eight of the 24 plates illustrating Thoughts on Outline (1796), a subject to which he returned in Outlines of the Ancients (1829), which contains three further Blake engravings. In 1808 Cumberland settled in Bristol, where he became an influential figure in artistic circles. His landscape sketches and watercolours produced at this time have a simple directness of vision, reminiscent of those of his friend John Linnell (e.g. Bristol, Mus. & A.G.). He catalogued his collection of prints, which he presented to the Royal Academy and the British Museum, in the Utility of Collecting the Best Works of the Ancient Engravers of the Italian School (1827).

Below the last drawing William Blake ever did – George Cumberland’s visiting card.


In a letter of 12th April, 1827, Blake wrote: “The little card I will do as soon as Possible but when you Consider that I have been reduced to a Skeleton from which I am slowly recovering you will I hope have Patience with me.” In a comment later added to the letter, Cumberland noted “My little Message card was the last thing he executed.” Blake died in August of that year

It was mentioned above that Mary (Elton) Prescott, George William’s mother, was the daughter of Jacob Elton, a merchant of Bristol, and the sister of Isaac Elton, one of the original partners of Bristol Bank. The bank was started in 1750 as this extract from the archives of The Royal Bank of Scotland indicates and it was eventually taken over by Prescott’s Bank:

This private bank was opened in Bristol in 1750 as Tyndall, Isaac Elton, Lloyd, Miller, Knox & Hale by a partnership of Onesiphorus Tyndall, a West India merchant and drysalter; Originally called Bristol Bank, it became known as Bristol Old Bank from 1752.

The following notice from The European Magazine….

In 1776 the bank moved premises from 42 Broad Street to Clare Street and then, in 1798, to what became 35 Corn Street. From 1750 to 1826 there were many partnership changes. It acquired Cave, Ames & Cave in 1826. The bank ceased to issue banknotes in 1844. In 1891 it was taken over by Prescott’s Bank

Mary (Elton) Prescott was the daughter of Jacob Elton, who in turn was the second son of Sir Abraham Elton, 1st Bart. Mary’s brother Isaac was Sheriff of Bristol in 1765, and married first Sarah, daughter of Samuel Peach of Bristol, by whom he had a son, who died unmarried. Sarah likewise died on 16th December, 1763. Isaac then married on 20th October, 1768, Ann, daughter of James Tierney of Theobalds in Hertfordshire by whom he had another son Isaac Elton of Stapleton House, co. Gloucester. This Isaac married Katherine, daughter of Major Bayard, by whom he left four sons and three daughters. James Tierney was the uncle of the politician George Tierney (1761-1830).

Thomas Gainsborough painted Mrs. Isaac Elton of Bristol (see below) and her portrait later came up for auction at Christies where it was described as follows:


Clevedon Court, home of the Elton Family

Sir Abraham Elton, 1st Bart
(1654-1727) Mary (Jefferies) wife
of 1st Bart Abraham Elton, 2nd Bart (1679–1742)

Abigail (Bayly) wife of Abrahm Elton 2nd Bart Sir Abraham Elton 3rd Bart (1703-1761). Died unmarried.

Capt. Jacob Elton, RN
(1712–1745) Caroline (Yates) Elton wife of Capt. Jacob Elton Sir Abrahm Isaac Elton
(1718-1790) 4th Bart

Sir Abrahm Isaac Elton
(1718-1790) 4th Bart Elizabeth Read (1725–1755) Lady Elton wife of 4th Bart Elizabeth Elton (1716-1790) daughter of
Sir Abrahm Elton 2nd Bart

Anne Tierney, Mrs. Isaac Elton. Painted by Thomas Gainsborough Reverend Sir Abraham Elton (1755–1842) 5th Bart
Mary Elton
Mrs Oldfield Bowles
















APPENDIX THIRTEEN: The Brothers Legh Rowlls

As we have seen above, a case of trespass was brought by Boulter Roffey against Charles and William Legh Rowlls. How that case related to Boulter being charged with committing an ‘unnatural crime’ with his servant Davis is obscure but the possibility is strong that there was perhaps an attempt on the part of the brothers to blackmail Boulter. A slither of support for this can be gleaned from the brother’s lives as revealed in a number of sources.

There is a court case, unrelated to Boulter’s, involving the Legh Rowlls family in an intra-familial dispute over a marriage settlement (see Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Chancery. Volume V: Legh versus Haverfield. Published in 1827). In the report it states that: ‘The sons (Charles and William) had been dissipated young men living abroad’.

Charles died in 1795 in the City of Bruges and had possibly gone there to avoid his debts.


The above newspaper announcement and the comment from the court report would suggest that Charles had not lived an exemplary or frugal life and his finances were probably in disarray.

PURSUANT to a Decree of the High Court of Chancery; made in a cause, Legh against HOLLOWAY, the creditors of CHARLES EDWARD LEGH ROWLLS, formerly of Kingston in the County of Surrey, but late of the City of Bruges, in Austrian Flanders, Esq. deceased; are forthwith to come and prove their debts, either by themselves, or their Solicitors, before William Graves, Esq, one of the Masters of the said Court, at his Office in Southampton Buildings, Chancery-lane, London , or in default thereof they will be excluded the benefit of the said Decree.

The Death of William Legh Rowlls

1n 1784, a year after a year after Boulter’s successful prosecution of the Legh Rowlls brothers, William died as a result of being shot in a duel. The newspapers reported on 19th June, 1784, the case as follows:


On 24th June, 1784, the following article appeared.


Below from the papers 23rd June, 1784.


After almost twelve years in exile in France Dick England risked returning to London and was promptly arrested and charged with Legh Rowlls’ murder. He was tried, found guilty and sentenced to one year in prison.

Who was Dick England? The following is extracted from various sources found on the internet.

Munday’s was an inn of very considerable business, where many coaches arrived, and from whence as many departed to all parts of the country. Here Dick England, the noted gambler and black-leg, was accustomed to resort, and was constantly on the watch for raw Irishmen coming to town by the coaches, whom he invariably contrived to pluck. His rapid success soon enabled him to repair to an elegant house in St. Alban’s-street, where he engaged various masters to teach him the polite arts, and he gained a slight knowledge of the French language.

At Munday’s coffee-house on certain days at four o’clock, Dick England generally presided. On these occasions his manner was polite, and his conversation shrewd, evincing the industry he used to supply the defects of education, of which he affected at times to make a shew, by introducing classical terms in his conversation. Being at times the hero of his own story, he unguardedly exposed some of his own characteristic traits, which his acquired self-possession, in general, enabled him to conceal. His conduct among men of rank and family, with whom he happened to associate in the way of his profession, was so polite and guarded, that he gained general respect; but he was resolute in enforcing payment of sums he had won. One evening he met a young tradesman at a house in Leicester-fields, to have an hour’s diversion at rattling the bones [playing dice], when he contrived to lose a few score pounds, for which he gave a draft upon Haulrey’s; but requested to have his revenge, in a few more throws, when he soon regained what he had lost, and as much in addition.
Upon which, being late, he proposed for both to retire, being past three in the morning; but the tradesman, conceiving himself tricked, refused payment of what he had lost. England then tripped up his heels, rolled him in the carpet, took a knife from the sideboard, which he flourished over him, and using menacing language, at last cut off the young citizen’s long hair, close to the scalp.

Dreading worse proceedings, the youth, on being allowed to gain an erect posture, gave a check for the amount, wished the captain a good morning civilly, and although he frequently saw England afterward, never spoke of the circumstance.

England had at one time a fat cook, whom he, after a little acquaintance with her, elevated from the kitchen to the head of his table. George Mahon, one of his competitors, was a frequent visitor at his table; and she proved so unfaithful, as to tamper her affections, and in a few weeks she eloped with Mahon; which England soon discovered, but concealed his knowledge of the affair, until he had an opportunity of taking some revenge on the enamoured swain. He persuaded Mahon to meet him at an inn at Barnett, on a pretended trotting match, when he threw him on the floor, and with a sharp knife he had provided bereft him of his queue, and kicked him into the street. England afterwards remarked, “Had it been my wife, I could have forgiven him; but to seduce my wh—e, it was not to be endured.” At loading a dye he was unrivalled.

England fought a duel, at Cranford-bridge, June 18, 1784, with Mr. Legh Rowlls, a brewer at Kingston, from whom he had won a large sum, for which a bond had been given; and not being paid, after a considerable time, he arrested his late friend, which ended in the duel, fatally to Mr. Legh Rowlls. England fled to Paris, and was outlawed; but it is reported, that in the early period of the Revolution, he furnished some useful intelligence to our army, in the campaign in Flanders, for which he was remunerated by the British Cabinet. While in France, he was several times imprisoned, and once ordered to the guillotine, but pardoned, through the exertion and influence of one of the Convention, who also procured a passport, by which he once more reached his native country. After an absence of twelve years, he was tried for the murder; and found guilty of man-slaughter, fined one shilling, and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. During his trial he conducted himself respectfully.

From the trial we learn that Charles Legh Rowlls was very inebriated and when he was asked several times whether he wished to proceed, Dick England having said he would withdraw if Legh Rowlls did, but Charles refused. It was suggested at the trial if Charles had been in a more rational state of mind he might likewise have agreed to withdraw. Also, Charles’s mother was one of the main instigator’s of the trial against England who otherwise might have gotten away with what he did.

After his release, Dick England passed the remainder of his life in obscurity, at his house in Leicester-square, where he lived to the age of eighty, and was found, on being called to dinner, lying dead on his sofa.
Given the gambling debts of William and probably also those of his brother Charles, a possible motive behind Boulter Roffey’s arrest begins to emerge although we will never be able to pass beyond speculating.
















Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.