CHAPTER XIII.

SIR THOMAS FRANCIS HENRY GOODRICKE, THE 8TH AND LAST BARONET.

 It might have been well, perhaps, to close my story at the end of the last chapter, but, unfortunately, there is still something of importance to relate, and after the fashion of melodrama, we have now to pass over an interval of six years (1833-1839) and we draw up the curtain on a new scene.  It is no longer the old Hall at Ribston overflowing with its varied memories of three centuries - for that domain had passed entirely into the hands of strangers, the Goodricke’s knew it no more - but a room in a mean house in London, Noël Star Street, Edgware Road.

This house which was occupied by a family of the name of Waterhouse afforded lodging to an old gentleman in reduced circumstances - none other than Sir Thomas Francis Henry Goodricke, the eighth Baronet who succeeded to and assumed the title on the death of Sir Harry James in 1833.

Sir Thomas was the only surviving son of Colonel Thomas Goodricke, and grandson of Sir Henry, fourth Baronet, and was born at Rochester, 24th September 1762.  He had married 2nd April 1794, Harriet, eldest daughter of the late Henry Goodricke, Esq., of York and granddaughter of Sir John, fifth Baronet, but she pre-deceased him leaving no issue.

Very little is now known of the life of Sir Thomas, but the fact that Sir Francis Lyttleton Holyoake-Goodricke gave him an annuity of £20 pounds which wretched pittance Sir Thomas accepted and drew quarterly at the counter of Messrs. Glyn Mills & Co's Bank is in itself sufficient corroboration of the fact that his means were painfully small.  He died at the house above-mentioned on 9th March 1839 in his seventy-seventh year and was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery.

The writer paid a visit to the house in Star Street some thirty years ago and he then found a very old man living there who well remembered the figure of Sir Thomas as he walked about the neighbourhood for exercise.

Thomas Francis Henry Goodricke was the last Baronet, and at his decease the elder branch of the Ribston Goodricke’s became extinct in the male line and the representation of the old family fell to Mr. William Goodricke of Nesham Hall, in the County of Durham, grandson of Mr. John Goodricke of Bounder House, Lamesley, and of Jarrow Grange, both in Co. Durham, who was fourth in descent from Richard Goodricke of Ribston and his wife Muriel, daughter of William, 2nd Lord Eure.
Mr. William Goodricke of Nesham Hall, above mentioned, was grandfather of the writer of these pages.
(Charles Alfred Goodricke 1847-1915)
 INSERT Charles Alfred Goodricke 1847-1915 & C.A.Goodricke & Co., London.

 I have found it difficult to discover much at all about Charles Alfred Goodricke himself, other than what you have read on the way, yet I have spent most of my life from the age of nine chasing his history of the Goodricke family. I have the greatest admiration for his work and dedication to the pursuit of detail and accuracy, he must have, like me spent most of his life chasing and writing about other Goodrick`s. I have recently discovered that he was quite a successful businessman, historian and respected author the following is a little insight into his business life, also part of the Goodricke family history. And his obituary AS REPORTED IN THE DURHAM ADVERTISER                                                                                   

 June 4^th 1915. (Michael B Goodrick 2003)

C.A.Goodricke & Co., London.

The origins of this reputable firm go back to 1890, when Mr. Charles Alfred Goodricke started in business in the City, in premises at 110 Cannon Street. It at that time held the London agency of the Chandpore, Mazdehee, Lungla, Shamshernugger, Syihet and Etah Tea Companies all of them operating in Syihet. Mr. Goodricke was a director of the Lungla Co., which was, however, lost to the Agency, with Shamshernugger and Etah, on their amalgamation into one company, the agency of which was taken over by Messrs. Octavius Steel & Co. in 1898. He became, in 1896, the first managing director of the New Sylhet Tea Estates, Ltd., which does not appear, however, to have come into the firm’s agency. In addition to these tea companies the firm was concerned in a variety of other interests, including a coal mine in Staffordshire, a lead mine in Cornwall and gold prospecting in Canada; but these were not remunera­tive and had disappeared from the scene before the outbreak of war in 1914.

Mr. Goodricke retired in 1906, being succeeded as proprietor of the firm by his assistant, George Perrin. Mr. Perrin had married a Miss Parkhouse in 1905, and on his death in 1909 the goodwill of the business was acquired by her brother, Charles Parkhouse. Mr. Goodricke then returned to the business to initiate the new proprietor and was so engaged until his death in 1910. A period of gradual expansion now set in, and in 1913 the agency of the old Aibheel Tea Co. was secured, and at about the same time the firm was entrusted with the marketing of such teas as were consigned to London for sale by the four rupee companies known as the “Cresswell group “the Chulsa, Zurrantee, Bagracote and Baintgoorie Tea Cos., which had been managed by the well-known Calcutta firm of tea brokers, W. S. Cresswell & Co., since their inception. The quantities of tea so handled were small, but the connexions thus made were to prove valuable. The business was secured through the friendship of Mr. Parkhouse with the late Mr. Walter Carter, a partner in W. S. Cresswell & Co. before he retired from India to join the well-known firm of London brokers, Lloyd, Mathe. Son & Carritt, and with the late Mr. A. W. C. Chaplin, who was superintendent of the four companies and had been largely responsible for the management of the estates and for bringing them to a high standard of efficiency.

Difficulty was experienced in running the firm during the first world war as Mr. Parkhouse, the owner, was absent on active service, and it is interesting to note that in 1917 there was a proposal which, however, came to nothing for its absorption by Walter Duncan & Co. The difficulty of the pro­prietor’s absence was finally overcome through the co-operation of Sir Alexander Pedler, a director of the Chandpore Tea Co., who temporarily assumed control.

Shortly after Mr. Parkhouse’s return from military service the agency of the Fagu Tea Co. was obtained on its amalgama­tion with the Aibheel Co. Then in 1919 a new company, the Dangua Jhar Tea Co., was formed to take over from the Empire of India & Ceylon Tea Co. the estate then known as Rungamallee, and through the good offices of Mr. Chaplin the agency of that company was secured. A few years later, in 1923, the four rupee companies already mentioned were converted into sterling ones, Chulsa and Zurrantee being amalgamated to form the Chulsa Co. and Bagracote and Baintgoorie coming together as the Bagracote Co. and at the instance of Mr. Chaplin, who was their first Chairman, the London agency of the companies was entrusted to the firm.

At this time Mr. Edward Athelstan Mitchell, who was a partner in the firm of W. S. Cresswell & Co., Calcutta, and who had been associated with the management of the four rupee companies in their agency during the previous twenty years, became a partner with Mr. Parkhouse.

At the end of 1923 the partnership consisted, therefore, of Charles Parkhouse and E. A. Mitchell, and the agency com­prised seven tea companies, viz. Aibheel, Bagracote, Chulsa and Dangua Jhar having estates in the Dooars, and Chandpore, Mazdehee and Syihet in Sylhet, having a total planted area at that time of 12,500 acres of tea; also one rubber company the Chulsa (Selangor) Co. which had originated as a rupee com­pany of the same name owned by a syndicate of Dooars planters that had been formed about 1911 to acquire a rubber estate in the Negri Sembilan district of the Federated Malay States, and which had, in 1923, been converted into a sterling company. At the time of its reconstruction there were about 1,300 acres planted with rubber. Mention has been made in an earlier chapter of how the Calcutta agency of the Chulsa and Bagracote Companies was entrusted to Duncan Brothers & Co. That of Dangua Jhar was to go to them some three years later and eventually in 1948 Aibheel and the three Syihet companies, too, were to be put in their care, thus bringing all of the Good­ricke companies, apart from the rubber company, which must of necessity be administered in Malaya, into the one office and supervision. Their Dooars interests have, however, continued to be under the immediate control of a resident superintendent, subject to the Boards of Directors in London.

Though still relatively small this Agency was now of sufficient note to be thought worthy of representation on the committee of the Indian Tea Association (London), and in 1923 Mr. Charles Parkhouse took his seat on the committee as the firm’s first representative on it. On his death two years later Mr. Mitchell succeeded him, and it is convenient to mention here that he continued to serve on the committee until his retirement in 1955, when the Association did him the honour of electing him its President for the year 1955/56.

On Mr. Parkhouse’s death in 1925 Mr. Mitchell took into partnership George Oswald Theobald, who had been associated with Messrs. Martin & Co. of Calcutta, and Charles William Adam Trevor, who had been connected with Messrs. McLeod & Co. This partnership continued until 1938 when Mr. Trevor retired. The two remaining partners carried on until 1944 when Mr. Theobald, in his turn, retired, and Leslie William Parkhouse, son of Charles Parkhouse and assistant with the firm since 1934, but now on active service, was taken into partnership. After the cessation of hostilities Mr. Parkhouse returned from the Army to take up his position in the office and the partnership remained without further alteration until it entered into association with Walter Duncan & Co., as already recorded, on 1st January 1948.

Obituary:

      DEATH OF MR CHARLES A. GOODRICKE. AS REPORTED IN THE DURHAM ADVERTISER                                                                                    

     June 4^th 1915.

DEATH OF MR CHARLES A. GOODRICKE.

There has passed away, at his residence, 27, Crediton Hill, West Hampstead, Charles Alfred Goodricke, the descendant of an old Yorkshire family, the Goodrickes of Ribston, near Knaresborough. Ribston Hall was in the possession of the Goodricke family from 1533, when Richard Goodricke married Muriel, daughter of Lord Eure, until 1833, when Sir Harry James Goodricke, Bart. bequeathed it to his friend, Francis Lyttleton Holyoake.
The representation of the Goodricke family then fell to William Goodricke, of Nesham Hall, Houghton-le-Spring, Durham. Mr Chas. A. Goodricke, his grandson, was born at Nesham Hall in 1847, and at the age of 23 went out to Calcutta, where he lived for eleven years, as a successful East India merchant. Compelled by ill-health to return to England, Mr Goodricke continued the East India business in London until 1904, when he retired and made his home for some years in Ilkley, where he was well known and highly respected It was a matter of great regret, not only to Mr Goodricke, but also to his many Yorkshire friends, that circumstances later made neces­sary his return to London. Mr Goodricke retained to the last his love for Ilkley. Every year while health permitted he went for a long visit to enjoy the strong and invigorating air, and he left instructions that his remains were to be laid in the Ilkley Cemetery by the side of his wife, Eliza Frances, eldest daughter of Barzillai Garnham, of Gloucester, whom he married in 1874, and who died in Ilkley in 1804. In politics he was a strong Unionist, and in religion a staunch Churchman, “devoted to the Catholic teaching and worship of the Church, and upholding the use of a dignified ritual. He strongly resented any suggestion of alteration in the Prayer Hook, was opposed to increased facilities for divorce, believing divorce impossible to a Christian, and was a vigorous advocate of definite reli­gious education. Although unflinching in his advocacy of all that he deemed right, Mr Goodricke was the most courteous of opponents as he was one of the most kindly and generous of men. His quiet benevolence was far-reaching, and his many deeds of helpful kindness are known only to the recipients and to the Recording Angel, for he never spoke of them. An interesting companion, a loyal and staunch friend, a most lovable personality, he wore the white flower of a blameless life, and was in all things the type of the true Christian gentleman. A prolonged and suffering illness, borne with unvarying cheerful patience, closed on Ascension Day; and the following Tuesday many friends gathered in the Ilkley Cemetery for the last farewell. Mr Goodricke had no children, but some years ago he adopted his nephew, who took his name.

CHAPTER  XIV
CONCLUSION

We now have followed the history of Ribston from about the year 1533 when it was acquired by the Goodricke family down to the year 1833, when it passed from their hands- a period of just three hundred years, and I have endeavoured to make my story attractive by presenting a series of pictures representing the several members of the family about whom I have specially written surrounded by the actual circumstances and events of their times. There are several other episodes which I might have related, such as the sacking and utter destruction of Goldsborough Hall in 1587, in which sad event Richard Goodricke of Ribston was deeply concerned (vide Yorkshire County Magazine Vol. III. 1893, p. 217 and Vol. IV, p. 33) the pathetic story of Eleanor daughter of Major William Goodricke, of Ely, who made two unhappy marriages and whose second husband, Richard Glanville, craftily kidnapped her son Richard, successfully secreting him and then cheated him out of his patrimony, which was considerable. (vide The Anglo Norman House of Glanville by W.O.S. Glanville-Richards, 1882 p.p. 85, etc.) [see end notes]

I might also have given some account of the celebrated siege of Namur in 1692 in which Lieutenant John Goodricke a protégé of Sir Henry, 2nd Bart. was actively engaged, and how a Bronze Mortar was brought back from thence  and presented to the Crown by Sir Henry, then Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance, which piece is still preserved in the Tower of London. [See end notes] The breakdown of the marriage of Sir Richard Hawksworth who had married a sister of Sir John Goodricke [See end notes] These and other stories would, however, have made my work too bulky to be contained in one volume, so, therefore, I have contented myself with the reference to them, which are contained, in my History of the Family.

It would appear that such an ending to the senior male line as actually occurred in 1833-39 was not wholly unlooked for, but was rather feared, for on reading between the lines of the Will of Sir John, the 5th Baronet, made in 1788, it is impossible not to perceive the most pathetic anxiety which the testator felt as to the future of Ribston, and which we can readily realize the aged Baronet's concern when we remember the position of the family at that time. His hopes were centred on his only grandson, Henry (who succeeded him) a young man of one and twenty, and probably even then exhibiting signs of that eccentricity of character which was so strongly developed as he grew older, and after him, on his nephew Thomas Francis Henry and what might not happen! These two young men were the only male members of the senior and immediate line left to perpetuate the name and traditions of the family, and their lives, not too full of promise, had yet to be lived.

Sir John took every precaution in his power to ensure the safety of the property and to keep it together, and what would have been the depth of his disappointment had he been able to look forward to the year 1833 and see every penny of the income derived from his ancestral estate being squandered on horses and dogs, all of his most cherished wishes and hopes entirely frustrated, every acre of his land given to a sporting friend, a stranger to the family, and his nephew, certainly wearing his title, but stripped of all its associations and rightful surroundings, an impoverished baronet, lodging with a mean family in a miserable street in London and accepting the despicable pittance of £20 a year from the liberal minded and generous possessor of Ribston!

'Is not this a lamentable thing, that
"Of the skin of an innocent lamb should
"Be made parchment, that parchment,
"Being scribbled o'er should undo a man."
                                                            Shakespeare.

Surely such vicissitudes expose the weakness of all human provision and forethought no matter how anxiously and carefully carried out, and tells us of the guiding law which exists beyond our control and ambitions! The senior line of the Ribston family began to fail, undoubtedly, in the time of Sir John the fifth Baronet, and it must have been with feelings of dismay that this unwelcome fact was pressed upon his notice. I need not dwell longer, however, upon this aspect of the position. Much might be written on the subject of Mr Francis Holyoake's succession to the Goodricke estates in 1833. Rumours of many kinds were rife at the time, it was said in many directions that the Will of 1833 was a forgery also that Sir Harry James had actually lost Ribston to his friend Holyoake on a single bet, and that his Will was made in discharge of this wicked obligation!  Great speculation prevailed in society circles as to reason for such action on Sir Harry's part and the newspapers of the day commented on the affair. One thing is certain, however: - Sir Harry's Will, by whomsoever drawn and by whatsoever means executed, (and aspersions in this direction have not been uncommon) was a complete surprise to his relations and kinsfolk and it caused no little stir and indignation among them. It was well known to the writer's father that Holyoake's anxiety about the whole affair was very great and that he lived for years in fear of something cropping up or someone disputing the will. What foundations there were for the many unfavourable rumours which were current, and what the reason was for Holyoake’s nervous anxiety were matters best known to him. The methods he adopted for selling Ribston, not allowing the auctioneer and agent even to mention the name of the property so anxious was he

"that the transfer should take place with as little publicity as possible,"

were, to say the least, very strange.

Time passed, however, and the sale of Ribston to Mr Joseph Dent was duly completed after some delays, nothing adverse to Holyoake, beyond criticism, happened. What financial benefit he derived is not known, as out of the purchase price paid by Mr Dent, namely £180,000, Sir Harry’ s debts had been discharged. The acquisition, apparently, did not ultimately result in great advantage to the Holyoke’s or establish them in that permanent position of distinction in the County of York, which had been enjoyed by the Goodricke’s at Ribston for eleven generations for Sir Thomas Francis, Henry succeeded to the title 1833 but none of the estates. The second but last surviving son of Lt Col Thomas Goodricke and Elizabeth, daughter of James Button of Rochester. He died aged 76 on the 9th March 1839 unmarried, and in virtual if not actual poverty in London, and was buried at Kensal Green, when the Baronetcy was allowed to become extinct, his will dated 8th March 1839 was proved on the

23rd March that same year.

 The curtain may now be allowed to fall.

END NOTES.

Sir Richard Glanville, of Sutton, in Suffolk,  had four sons, Richard, William, John, and Robert. Richard, the eldest son, succeeded his father in the Sutton and Chalsfeld estates, and dying before his wife Ellen, she in 1361 presented a Rector to the Parish Church of Sutton. Richard and Ellen de Glanville left one son, Robert de Glanville, who became possessor of his father's lands, and on his decease; he was succeeded by his son Robert de Glanville, who, by his wife Susanna Gresham, left three sons - (1) Thomas de Glanville, warden of Grey Friars Church, at Norwich; (2) Richard de Glanville, who was buried at Grey Friars Church, Norwich, 1499; and (3) Robert Glanville, the eldest son and heir, appears by his will, which was proved in 1559, to have held a lease of the Manor of Hurts, in Saxmundham, Suffolk (Hurts is situated close by the lands that formerly belonged to the Glanvilles), from the Duke of Suffolk, from the 14 April, 1534, for a term of eighty years. In this will, Robert Glanville mentions John Roffkin, son-in-law, and Frances his wife ; John Wood, son-in-law, and Phillipa his wife ; Edward Glanville, his son; Edmund Keble, son-in-law, and Catherine his wife; and Robert Glanville, to whom he leaves £20 in ready money. Dying in 1559, Edward Glanville succeeded him, and Richard, his son, was Mayor of Hadleigh in the year 1626, in which town he was buried. 

The following is an extract from his will, dated Dec. 24, 1636:-
"First I give unto y^e poor of Hadleigh 2 such tenements as are now in the occupation of y^e widows Stapleton & Old Hatch W^th y^e ground thereunto belonging as they be now inclosed, and those tenements to be let at the best advantage to the use and behoof of y^e poor for ever, and my pleasure is that y^e yearly rents of those tenements be gathered as they grow due every half year by some of y^e feoffees or the then churchwardens, & y^e yearly rent to be laid out in woollen cloath (Wh. because I would have it good), I will it shall be provided and found by some of my own sonnes or kindred and blood. And as touching the disposal of it, my will and pleasure is that y^e Rev^d D^r Good, D^r in Divinity, and now parson of Hadleigh, or whosoever shall then or hereafter be parson of Hadleigh, together with the feoffees & churchwardens and some of my sonnes & kindred shall have a special hand in the disposing of it for ^e y cloathing of aged men and women and to no other end & purpose: which men and women I would have to be such as keep their church duly & live orderly and I would have them wear it on Christmas day for ever."

Richard Glanville, by his wife, Elizabeth, had three children - Benjamin Glanville, baptized at Hadleigh, 19 December, 1622; Sarah Glanville, baptized at Hadleigh, 1625; and the Rev. Richard Glanville, son and heir, who was Rector of Elmset, and Lord of the Manors of Elmset, Somersham, and Offton, Suffolk; who by his will gave and devised to his successors the Rectors of Elmset for ever, one small piece of land, he had purchased of John Dubbell, of Elmset, that the Rector of Elmset for the time being shall upon Christmas day, in every year, distribute to six aged poor of the said parish six pennyworth of bread each.  

The following is a translation of the inscription placed to his memory in Elmset Church:

Here lies deposited the very Reverend
Richard Glanvill Bachelor of Theology
formerly Reucor of this Church and
for a long time its most pious Pastor,
who learnedly by his words corrected
the wandering sheep until his
Lungs were destroyed by a violent disease.

He died December 15^th in the year 1667 aged 65.

The Rev. Richard Glanville's will was proved about 1668 (Hene, 32), whereby he devised to his eldest son Richard Glanville, and his heirs, all his Manors of Elmsett, Offton, and Somersham, together with the quit rents and advowsons of Elmsett and Somersham, and all other his manors, advowsons, etc., excepting such lands thereby bequeathed for payment of his debts, legacies, etc. He left £200 to his son John Glanville; £400 apiece to his daughters Margaret and Elizabeth Glanville; and £40 per annum to his beloved wife Margaret, and also all his plate and linen, etc. Mr. Richard Glanville succeeded to these estates after his father's death in 1667, and left by Ann his wife - (1) Richard Glanville; (2) William Glanville, who settled in Antigua about 1677, and had two children, William, born 1683, who was a student at Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, in 1702, and Alice, b. 1688. Richard Glanville, the eldest son, and Lord of the Manors of Elmsett, Offton, and Somersham, about the year 1685, sought in marriage the hand of Mrs. Eleanor Ashfield, [Eleanor daughter of Major William Goodricke, of Ely] a widow of one of the ancient Ashfields of Tickenham, in the county of Somerset. She possessed in her own right an income of £600 per annum, and ready money to the amount of £10,000. At length, after the usual courtship between the worthy couple, a marriage was arranged, upon which Richard Glanville settled his Lordships of Elmset, Somersham, and Offton, upon her for life. After his death, and upon her decease, the property was to descend to his son and heir, as the following copy from the original settlement will show. 

"Whereas, Richard Glanvile of Tinknam Court (?) (first word nearly obliterated), in the county of Somersett, gentⁿ, hath settled or agreed to settle, convey,. . . . on Edward Gorges and Will^m Rogers, and their heirs all that ye Manors, Lordships of Elmset, Ofton, Somersham, together with all quit rents and awards of quit rents, w^th ye perpetual advowson of the churches of Elmsett and Somersham, in ye county of Suffolk, and all other his manors, advowsons, messuages, lands, and tenements, and hereditaments whatsoever, in the said county of Suffolk, in trust for his wife Eleanor Glanvill, during her natural life, and after her decease in trust for ye heirs male, begotten or to be begotten by him the said Richard Glanvill, on ye body of his said wife, ye sad Eleanor Glanvill; and whereas the said Eleanor Glanvill, in consideration of the Payment of the summe of one thousand one hundred pounds, agreed to be paid by him ye said Rich Glanvill to Sir William Merrick of Bristol, of a separate maintenance which the said Richd. Glanvill hath agreed shall be quickly had of Edmund, the son of ye said Elianor Glanville, as by a writing published by her the said Eleanor Glanvill, bearing date the four and twentieth day of January, 1692-3, it is more fully declared and expressed, and whereas, in consideration thereof, if she, the said Eleanor Glanvill shall survive him ye said Richd. Glanvill, that ye eldest sonne, or . . . . of him ye said Richd. Glanvill, on her body begotten shall have and enjoy the premises (words nearly obliterated) . .. . . thereof for his better support and maintenance. Be it therefore known unto all men, by these presents, I, the said Eleanor Glanville am willing, . . . . . . and declare that after the death, of the said Richd. Glanvill, I ye said Eleanor Granvill will permit the eldest son and heire of the said Richd. Glanvill on my body begotten, to take . . . . . . and enjoy the said rents . . . . and profits of ye premises. In witness thereof I have thereunto set my hand and seal, this foure and twentieth day of Ja'uary, in the fourth year of the reign of our Sovereigns Lord and Lady William and Mary, anno dom. 1692-3." [fn 109]       (Signed)     "RICHD. GLANVILL."

After this, according to the Bill set forth by Richard Glanville, junior, the son of the above-mentioned Richard and Eleanor, his father, in order to make this marriage settlement absolute, executed a Bond of £5,000 to Messrs. Georges and Rogers, who were the trustees to Mrs. Eleanor Glanvill. It appears shortly after this marriage, Richard and Eleanor parted owing to "great discontent arising between them," and Richard sent his son (Richard), then very young, to Flanders. In 1703, when he was about fifteen years of age, he returned from that country, and went to his mother. His father was then living with another woman named Street, and wife of William Street. Soon after this Mrs. Eleanor Glanville apprenticed her son to an apothecary in London; but his father having been informed thereof, and of his whereabouts, he, in combination with the said woman Street, had his son privately conveyed to Newington Green, and then wrote a letter to his wife, and compelled his son to transcribe it, for which he gave him three guineas to "keep his pocket warm." To go through, and give the whole, of these legal documents would involve another volume. The following letter therefore written by Richard Glanville, junior (the Plaintiff in the action at law he brought against his father), to his uncle, William Glanville, then living in Antigua, will be sufficient to explain the cause of the said disagreement that existed between father and son:-

DEAR UNCLE,           1702.
The happy opportunity which now presents itself is with the greatest joy imaginable embraced since it empowers me to discharge in some part the indispensible duty to you which ought long since to have been performed, but the want of opportunity, the knowledge of what part of the world, the peculiar place where you reside, the unhappy proceedings and unnatural transactions of a nefarious and barbarous father will I hope plead my excuse dear Sir I am sorry to render you such a dismal, such an abhorred account of the unaccountable and most intricate designs of him who is so near allyed to us both, what horror, what amazement, how strangely surprised will a man who is endued with honesty religion piety and virtue behold how maliciously bent he was to ruin his own offspring, how cautious, how circumspect and undermining to rivet me and complete my destruction certainly,  such barbarity as this must needs draw the odium of all good people upon him, but now give me leave d^r Uncle to  demonstrate to the uncouth proceedings in some measure of an unnatural father for was I to enumerate all the circumstances t'would require some reams of paper and swell to a prodigious bulk to proceed regular and touch upon the most material points since the honor and happiness I had to see you presently after my mother sent me to school in Flanders where I continued five years which being expired I was recalled and dearly caress't by my mother and she finding me grown a good sturdy lad fit for business put me out prentice to a very ingenious man one M^r Pontifex an apothecary of the Royal Society where I was a quarter of a year until my unkind insinuating father with magnificent promises inveigled and cajoled me into a compliance to leave the best of mothers to go with him the worst of fathers; no sooner had he gained his point but he immediately hurried me to my dear Grandmother who received me with a great deal of affection but at the same time seemed very much to doubt his to me - she also acquainted me with a great deal of remorse that my father had taken another woman by whom he had an illegitimate boy, and he had often with all his influence of retorick endeavoured to persuade her to have seen this courteous woman and hopeful youth but the aversion my dear Grandmother had to the fact would never allow this. When I had stayed some little time there he had got all things ready for me to go into the Country which was to a place called Southwell, but hardly had I arrived but he immediately caused me to be placed with a man by the name of Richard Ricard, I found his name at the juncture of time was Gideon, in other places he had taken the name of Sommersam, at others Ofton, these made me first stop in order to penetrate his unexemplary stratagems. After he got me into his power he seemed not a little satisfied and both he and she for the space of three months or thereabouts caress'd me with highest compliments and the most endearing words that invention could rack or tongue express, but alas! my green years little thought he was then acting the part of butcher who first tickles his ox then slaughters him, the three months partly being expired he turns the reverse of what he was before for no manner of reason that I can the least think of unless to confirm the general saying that extremities never last long, he then to aggravate the matter sends me four or five affidavits which were sworn against my mother which I received accordingly and then returned them again, within a very little time after I had returned them he demanded them again, so treacherous was his memory or rather so maliciously was he bent, and when I had told him I had delivered them to him he fell into a violent passion cursing and swearing to the height of madness, then t'was that hypocrisy shewed itself barefaced, nothing would serve his turn but that I had sent them to my mother, which sort of usage made me reflect what I had done and said was to no purpose, so what was done in haste to repent at leisure, as for making my case known to my friends t'was impossible for pen ink and paper were not allowed, the post was bribed nothing but spies to speak to, and no money in my pocket - thus I continued there until he removed to Micham four miles from London the thoughts of which inspired me with new hope and vigour presuming the happy opportunity of finding a reformation, but instead of that nothing but insinuations of what my mother and master would do if they could catch me how malicious and inveterate they were against me, wherefore upon this seeming plausibility he immediately lest I might discover by delay it was nothing but his crafty design sends me down to Stamford in Lincolnshire to one M^r Clough a parson who not having notice pretended he had no convenience but would have with one M^r Booth a writing master who lived at Peterborough many miles distant from that place which it was with much ado I found, the money not being quarterly but as it might &c. . . . . . . . . . . . a specimen of his barbarity they both sends me to M^r Clough . . . . . . My Grandmother had enquired where her grandson was for that my father had told her he had placed me at Whitby in Lincolnshire where I was, this gave M^r Clough a strange light for he was altogether a stranger to the unhappy proceedings of my father, for you must know M^r Clough married this woman that now is with my father, this strangely surprised them to think this woman should turn whore after having had several Children whom they have tricked or destroyed and ruined as well as myself with barbarous and damnable usage, so M^r Clough understanding the matter of fact having an opportunity he sends me down to him to Watesfield in Suffolk near St. Edmonds Bury, no sooner did he see me but he falls a cursing and swearing most abominably at the Gentleman, so the next morning he gets a horse and orders me so when we were mounted he tells me I shall go with him to Wisbeach in the County of  Ely where he boards me with a sorry Barber even a place that was scandalous where I remained a year or thereabouts, in which time my dear Grandmother paid her tribute to nature of which I was not acquainted till three quarters of a year afterwards for he would never let me know where she was neither would he let her know where I was let he should be detected in his villany no sooner was she dead but he began to consult all his tools and accomplices the lawyers by what means or method he should take to dock the entail they I presume after a long debate counselled him to sue a Fine and Recovery, so when he had got all his tools about him he sends for me up to London in order to execute his design so as soon as I was arrived he embraced me with a great deal of affection, which something surprised me, but took a great deal of care that I should be never out of his company unless t'was when he committed to one Street an Attorney who was to instruct me in the matter and persuade and soothe me into my destruction, and truly my father was so very generous as to give a suit of clothes which was the only suit he ever gave me and then promised me what mighty matters he would do the next moment if I would not I should starve, in flat terms he would either sel me murder me or anything so that he might get shut of me, so to make short of the story what by his bullying and what by inveighing he cajoled my easy lawyer although with a great deal of reluctance into a compliance, no sooner was it done but I might go hang myself, so out of his great generosity he gave me one hundred pounds to go seek my fortune with a slender promise of something after. Now I leave it to you clear Uncle to judge if it is not in my situation the hardest fate imaginable when I quitted my rights my . . . . who since is dead and has not left me anything and hereafter I might not be alive to serve him who so treacherously inveigled me, so as to be a flaw in his law which is he never made me a consideration payment by which it could not be done by reason he had told my nurse and some of the tenants I had been dead sixteen years and they have taken as free tenures and not coppy, which by law and his proceedings is all forfefted for ti's the highest folly in the world to sue a Fine and Recovery without first passing a Sur consc. in the Court. I must needs confess that I should be very willing to call him to account was I able but not being in a capacity to stand a law suit neither can with safety swear that I am not worth five pounds by virtue of which I might sue him in forma pauperis, but some way I will certainly find out to call him to an account for his deceptive doings wherefore I desire you will give me an account how to proceed before he sells it and then shifts off, this is dear Sir all at present hoping all your family enjoys a good share of health, with the tender of my duty to you and your good lady from your unhappy nephew, RICHARD GLANVILE.

Antigua, May 7^th 1703.
MY DEARE NEV^W,
Your lett, ^r of the 20^th Dec^r came to my hand the 3^d instant, and since you are inclyning in some measure to depend upon me for my advice, doe thinke my self obliged to give itt you faithfully, my great distance from you not allowing me to doe any thing els for the present, - I have been under a great concern for the difference that happened between yo^r father and mother and what added to itt, That their children should be the greatest sharers in that misfortune and fall a sacrifice to their resentments. My living in these remote parts of the world and having left England upwards of 26 years, excepting 3 months (I was there 13 years ago) and then, not seeing your father, I never came to the knowledge of what occasioned the wideness of y^e breech, but what ever itt was, I find by y^r lett^r that the Children are the greatest sufferers, their revenge (if I may so properly call it) fall only upon them. You tell me that yo^r brother Ashfield has been at law with Sir Henry Goodrick ever since the death of yo^r mother (I take him to be yo^r half brother, and not the son of my brother), and that he and Sir Henry are come to an accommodation, the former consenting in six months y^t 855£ should be paid to S^r Henry for y^r maintenance, who this S^r Henry Goodrick is I know not, butt I take him to be a person y^t my sister, yo^r  mother, put a trust in to do something for you and yo^r own brother. He and you would have been kind to have let me a little into the nature of the difference and how you have been educated, both yo^r ages, how taken care off, and where yo^r broth^r lives, and whom he marryed, and what fortune, and whither he suffered the Estate of his fathers Estate to be cutt off, and if he did that he will send me a copy of all the writings relating thereto, and that I may know what his father did for him for that consideration, what Estate he has, his profession, and what be follows, and the amount of the money you mention you intend to putt out on an annuity. It may doe well enough, butt itt requires a faithfull friend to se that the writings are effectually drawn and the annuity well secured (were I att home I should endeavour to putt itt into a good nationall fund, many of them allowing 10 per Cent., and the interest paid every six months).

I accept of yo^r duty to myself & your aunt kindly,- My son William has been in England these twelve years, has been at Pembroke Hall these three years in Cambridge, is near twenty years of age, his sister is with me named Alice about 14 years old being all my Childring, I intend her home in a small time, and if am able shall see Europe once more butt I expect my nephew writes to me often and yo^r left^r shall be welcome,- When you write direct yo^r lett^rs for me att Antigua, and putt them under cover to M^r Nath^l Carpenter merch^t in London. In short I expect an exact acco^t of yo^r family for my information and government - my deare Nevw, I affectionately wish you and yo^r brother prosperity and am
Your true friend & loving Uncle,
W. GLANVILE.
I re^d both the lett^rs and you had best direct yo^r lett under cover to my son att Pembroke Hall in Cambridge, but dont mention anything that I ordr^d you so to doe.

LETTER OF M^rs ELEANOR GLANVILE TO HER BROTHER RICHARD'S WIDOW.

Roma 1733.
MOST DEAREST SISTER,
Yours I received on y^r 22^d of this instant, But when it came my heart faintet within me. Afterward I read your letter and do with all my whole heart condole with you, and y^e loss of my dear brother your husband and likewise my sister Ashfield's death, I am heartily sorry. But in y^e second article I am glad to hear that you and my dearest Nelly is living y^e rest of your children. Y^e write me word that y^e children are in mean circumstances and have no other dependance only yourself and me, I wish you had explained yourself in a more clearer manner. Pray what is become of my father and his estate, you mention nothing about him, for if he is dead, my brother, your husband comes in for y^e estate and as he is dead, his son Richard is y^e next heir, as for my sister Ashfield's little respect to your children ? I am amazed (Ashfield was Eleanor's half sister). However pray search diligently into my father's will (Richard Glanvile, Lord of the Manors of Elmset Offton on Somersham), if he be dead; and likewise my sister Ashfield's will, for she had upwards of sixty pounds of my money in her hands which was left when my brother Ashfield died (Edmund Ashfield, Esq^r, her half brother), he left no will so his estate was divided and so much came to my part, and she wrote to me here at Rome desiring to know unto whom she should pay the money to, I sent her an order, but y^e letter miscarried, and was found a year after, so I never could hear from sister nor money ever since, therefore my dear pray be plain with me, for you do not mention anything as to yourself whether you are a widdow or if you intend to marry again or what you intend to do, neither do you inform me about your own relations, nor circumstances. My dear if you are still a widdow and do not think of marrying, y^e greatest of my comfort would to have you and all the children here with me, you may live far better than in England, and as for your Religion, there is nobody will force you to change for y^e Citty of Rome is like to y^e Citty of London or Bristol. Here is all nations and all religions in it, so if you are willing to comply with my desire, and come over to me, the beauty of y^e place will ravish your heart, and upon condition that you will come, I will ye sixty pounds to bear the charges for those that hath my sister Ashfield's effects be it whom they will, they must and shall pay that money. Moreover if she has not cut me off as well as your children, ye will come in for the whole as being y^e nearest of kindred, so pray inspect diligently into this affair, but if you will not come, pray send me two of y^e children, or if not two, pray send me my own dearest Nelly which my brother and you both gave me, and whoever comes, this money shall be given to bear their charges hear to Rome, so if you like better to stay in England with all your children and they with you I shall then seek some other to settle all my effects upon, for if I was to settle it upon you and your children, you would never be a penny the better for it at this distance. Unless you condescend to come over, or send y^e children or my Nelly, for she I must have if you will spare no more, but if you are doubtfull of coming or sending her, I have an Englishman, well born and well known and a freeman of y^e Citty of London he hath likewise a very good entry in England himself . . . . . . . Y^eaccount of his being converted to y^e Most holy Catholic faith, his friends bear a regret against him, he has lived, with me these four years and is y^e only comfort I have, and I will send him even half way to meet and conduct you safe here to Rome which is y^e happiest place in y^e world, so loose no time nor opportunity in sending to me, and send me your positive answer, whether you will come or not, or if you will send on y^e children, because when you intend to set out, write and inform me if you . . . . on your journey, then I shall make my will and leave all that I have in y^e world unto those who is a coming. Moreover I shall recommend them unto two of y^e chiefest princeses in Rome who are my particular acquaintance, because if death should hapen to me before they arrive they may be nobly provided for when they come, not that there is any likelihood of death in me, thanks be to God, but as our family dyse young and death may come. Dear Sister send me a full account of my sister Ashfield's death and where she dyed, and get two witnesses that she is dead, and see her will, and what she hath left me, for if she hath not cut me off likewise I am y^e next kin, to those y^e hath it in possession I will oblige them to make restoration to me of all in. . . . . Unless she hath married and left any child, therefore look diligently into this. And . . . . also in like manner into my father's will, if he be dead, or if he living pray let me know. My mother always told me I had a fortune settled on me by my father in the articles of marriage, but what y^e just sum is I forget) so pray inquire after y^e articles between my father and mother, and see what my fortune is. Likewise my cozon Billy Glanvile, give information of him or any other relation to me if you can. But in case Nelly should be dead pray send Mary. I conclude w^th y^e greatest of my affection, and am
Your most loveing & affectionate kinswoman till death,
E. GLANVILLE.
Direct y^e letter as before, if ye have forgot, direct for M^rs Eleanor Glanville an English lady living in Roma, to be left for her att a Colledge . . . . Roma.

This letter is addressed to "Mrs. Margaret Glanvile, living at Wedmore, near Wells, and to be left for her at y^e Sign of y^e George, in y^e Citty of Wells, by y^e way of London," 1733.

Richard Glanville, Lord of the Manors of Elmset, Somersham, and Offton, married, as before stated, in 1685 Mrs. Eleanor Ashfield, and by her had issue, Richard, born 1688, and Eleanor (the writer of the last letter). Richard ought to have succeeded to all his father's and mother's estates; but his father compelled him to cut off the entail by the most crafty artifices. The papers I have in my possession do not inform me how the lawsuit was settled between the litigants.

 Richard Glanville (junior) lived at Wedmore in Somersetshire, where his descendants still hold considerable property. He entered the medical profession and took his M.D. degree, dying in October, 1728, aged 40. He left issue by Margaret, his wife- Richard, born 1717; John, born 1722 and died 1723; Eleanor; [fn 111] and Mary. The following are extracts from the Will of Richard Glanville:-

"Will of Richard Glanvile of Stoughton Cross, in the parish of Wedmore, Somersetshire

W. S. Glanvile

(1)  He leaves his soul to God, etc. (2) Just debts and funeral expenses to be paid. (3) Gives to Margaret, his "loving -wife," and "trusty friend John Ford of Consbury (?)," all his lands in the county of Somerset, in trust that they shall dispose of the same lands to the best purchaser, and the money arising from the said sale, or as shall be necessary, shall be paid to Thomas Earl, of Whitmarsh, (?) in the said county, to discharge his mortgage upon the estate at Stoughton Cross, and after the said mortgage, principal and interest, shall be paid, he gives the surplus to his executrix towards the payment of his debts. (4) He gives his messuage, garden, and land attached to it, to his son Richard Glanville and his heirs, upon condition that he pays "to my two daughters,

Eleanor and Mary, the sum of £50 apiece of lawful money," when his son attains the age of 21 years; and he charges the same property with £3 (?) rent, which is to be paid to his loving wife Margaret. (5) He further gives his daughters, Eleanor and Mary, £100, to be placed at interest. (6) He gives to his sisters,

(2)  Mary Ashfield and Eleanor Glanville, £5 apiece to buy mourning with, as tokens of his love. (7) Gives to his loving wife all his household goods, etc., at the dwelling house at Stoughton Cross, during her widowhood, and no longer; and if she re-marries, or dies, he gives them to his three children, Richard, Eleanor, and Mary. (8) His "loving wife" is to give his children "lodging, washing, apparel, and education suitable to their stations for seven years " from his death. (9) Gives all the rest of his goods, etc., to his wife Margaret, and makes her sole executrix, and his "loving friend," John Ford, overseer, and gives him £10 for his trouble."

This will was made 24 September, 1726, and proved 30 January, 1730.

Richard Glanville, the son and heir, also followed in his father's profession. He married Miss Jane Wall, at the Cathedral, Wells, February 28, 1736; she died 1791, aged 74; and he dying in 1799, aged 82, was succeeded in the Wedmore property by his son, John Glanville, b. June 19, 1748, and married firstly Miss Grace Barrow of Wedmore, February 28, 1768, and by her had issue:-

1. William Glanville, b. September 22, 1771 ; ob. March, 1802.
2. Mary Glanville, b. October 28, 1768; married, December 26, 1789, John Brown, Esq., of Wedmore
3. Richard Glanville, b. April 27; married Miss Anne Champeney, 1800, and had by her Richard Glanville, b. December, 1803.
4. Jane Glanville, b. August 10, 1777 ; ob. 1796.
5. Johanna Glanville, b. January 12, 1780.
6. Ann Glanville, b. August 22, 1780; married Benjamin Redman, Esq., of Wedmore, April 23,1799.
7. Betty Glanville, b. March 23, 1785.
8. John Glanville, b. December 4, 1782; succeeded his father.

Mr Glanville married secondly Miss Jane Clapp of Wedmore, March 22, 1793, and had issue by her:-

1. George Glanville, b. May 28, 1799.
2. Jane Glanville, b. July 10, 1797.
3. Forest Glanville, b. June 24, 1794; ob. August, 1799.
4. Forest Glanville, b. September 7, 1795; married in 1817 Miss Hannah Champeney of Wedmore.
5. William Glanville, b. August 2, 1804.

Mr Glanville dying June 19, 1812, was succeeded by his son, John Glanville (by Grace his first wife).

The siege of Namur refers to a number of sieges throughout history of the Belgian city of Namur. The city and citadel of Namur held a strategic position in the heart of Europe. The command centre of an important earldom in the Middle Ages, it was then besieged by all the Great Powers of Europe between the 15th and 19th century.

In 1692 Louis XIV moved to take Namur, taking personal command of the army. An additional force under Marshal Luxembourg covered the siege. The king's chief engineer, Vauban was responsible for the siege operations.

The Citadel of Namur fell June 30, 1692 following a month long siege. The garrison, commanded by Coehoorn, capitulated and marched out with the honours of war. Vauban added more structures to the Citadel, but to no avail.

Siege of Namur, 1695

The French took Namur from the Allies in the siege of 1692, pushing the Dutch farther north. The next few years saw the Allies desperately trying to push the French out of the Spanish Netherlands. In late 1694 they took Huy, a short distance to the north-east of Namur, opening the way for them to retake that important town.

Namur's fortifications were formidable and had been reinforced by Vauban following the siege of 1692. There was a strong bastioned trace around the town, which was dominated by the heights on the other bank of the river, on which stood the citadel.

The Elector of Brandenberg invested Namur on 1st July. He was joined shortly afterwards by William III Orange, brining the attacking forces up to 80,000 men. Coehoorn (who had defended Namur in 1692) was to command the siegeworks. The garrison was commanded by Boufflers (who later conducted the defence of Lille), with 13,000 men. The defenders' large numbers and the nature of the town's defences allowed them to conduct a number of sorties against the attackers to slow down the progress of their trenches. However, the siegeworks progressed steadily and after 14 days the garrison surrendered the town and retreated into the citadel. Unlike the 1692 siege, the garrison were unable to add into the treaty the condition that the citadel would not be attacked from the town side.

Using the full advantage of his advantageous position of being able to attack from the town, Coehoorn established batteries there and began to batter the lower defences of the citadel that lay on the other side of the river Sambre, adjacent to the bank. As these batteries began to breach the walls, Boufflers had trenches dug in their rear to protect the defenders. When the first assault was ordered it met with strong resistance and was forced to retreat with heavy loss. A second assault undertaken with more men succeeded in pushing the defenders out of the lower works.

Another attack was driven towards Fort William, an advanced work defending the northern approach to the citadel. The covered way was taken by assault and the main walls breached. The fort was then assaulted successfully, but with many casualties on both sides.

These two successful attacks had brought the Allies close to the inner citadel. Batteries were dug in to batter the right flank of the hornwork that extended southwards from the citadel. A breach was made here, which was successfully assaulted by some British troops, an action which was the inspiration for the song "The British Grenadiers".

Forced back to the medieval castle that formed the highest point of the citadel, the garrison capitulated on September 4th. Boufflers' defence had lasted two months and he was promoted to Marshal as a reward. Out of his 13,000-strong garrison he had lost 8,000 men. The Allies lost 12,000 men in the siege. Large amounts of troops were involved on both sides at Namur in 1695, which made it one of the bloodiest sieges of the war.

Siege of Namur, 1692

In 1692 Louis XIV moved to take Namur, taking personal command of the army. An additional force under Maréchal de Luxembourg covered the siege. The king's chief engineer, Vauban was responsible for the siege operations.

 The trenches were opened before the city on 29th May. The French guns were firing on the town's defences within a few days and the siege made good progress, despite the garrison making a small sortie, which was repulsed without difficulty.

A breach was made and the garrison (which was commanded by Coehoorn) surrendered the town on 5th June. They surrendered according to a treaty which allowed them to retire into the citadel and stated that the garrison would not fire on the town and the French could not attack the citadel from the townward side. The French agreed to these terms without realising that the citadel's weakest side was its townward side.

The citadel of Namur lies in the angle between the Meuse and Sambre rivers and had recently been reinforced by Coehoorn. Shortly after the surrender of the town, the weather worsened, causing logistical problems to slow the siege operations. Unwilling to break the treaty by attacking from the town side, the French settled down to besieging the citadel. It was here that the battle between Vauban and Coehoorn took on epic proportions. As Vauban dug his attack trenches, Coehoorn dug works on the reverse slope so as to be hidden until the French were on top of them. To show his comitment to the defence, Coehoorn had his own grave dug. In the event, he was wounded at during the siege but did not die.

The walls of Fort William were breached and were carried by assault on 12th June. The besiegers then placed batteries to attack the citadel's hornwork but were unable to open fire because the roads had become impassable due to heavy rain, so ammunition could not be brought up. By the end of June, the army was running low on supplies of all kinds, and many of the French cavalry horses were starving.

At this point Vauban suggested to the King that it would be better to attack from the town side and break the treaty, than to raise the siege altogether. Batteries could easily be constructed on the edge of the river, and ammunition could be brought in by boat. The King sanctioned the construction of the batteries but forbid them to open fire. The garrison of the citadel could not fire at the French when they saw them building batteries on the town side, as this would be breaking their side of the treaty, so the French dug in their batteries unmolested.

In the meantime a small outwork in front of the citadel called the Priest's Cap was breached (not from the town side) and was carried by assault on 29th June. The breach in the hornwork itself was not yet practicable, so it was decided to throw some fascines into the ditch at night in order help the breach form more quickly. During this operation it was discovered that the work was lightly manned, and the French were able to capture it by stealth.

The following morning, on seeing that the hornwork had been captured, the garrison capitulated and marched out with the honours of war. The siege lasted 37 days, and Coehoorn could be satisified with this long resistance against the skilled Vauban. He was to have his revenge in the siege of 1695, when Namur fell to his attack.

Revised and reprinted June 1991 Antony A Goodricke Young ,1316 Krise Circle, Lynchburg, Virginia U.S.A. 24503. Revised illustrated and Reproduced By the Goodrick Family History Society with the kind permission of Antony A Goodricke Young and Michael B. Goodrick 2008.                                                
Copyright 2008 © Antony A Goodricke Young Michael B Goodrick All rights reserved. The Goodrick Family History Centre England UK.