For the second time during a comparatively short period, the Goodricke’s at Ribston had reason for the gravest anxiety on account of the political actions of their near relatives. In 1553 it was the implication of Bishop Goodricke in the plot to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne and now, l569, only sixteen years later their close relatives the Norton’s were foremost in the rebellion against Queen Elizabeth headed by Thomas Percy, 7th Earl of Northumberland, and Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland.
Richard Goodricke of Ribston had married, about the year 1558, Clare, one of the daughters of Richard Norton, of Norton Conyers, Co. York, by this wife Susan Neville, fifth daughter of Richard Neville, Lord Latimer, a union of which his descendants have ever been justly proud. Richard Norton was a personage of note in the country. Descended from the ancient family of Conyers, he was a member of the Council for the North temp Henry VIII and Edward VI, Governor of Norham Castle and at the time of which I write, (1569) he was High Sheriff of Yorkshire. In the late autumn of 1569, in the eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth's rein insurrection, known as the "Rising of the North" took place at the head of which were Percy Earl of Northumberland and Neville, Earl of Westmorland. The aim of this movement was to re-establish the religion of their ancestors, to remove Evil Counsellors, and to restore the Duke of Norfolk and other peers to their liberty and to the Queen's favour. The two Earls published a manifesto in which they declared that they intended to attempt nothing against the Queen to whom they avowed unshaken allegiance but that their only object was as just stated. There can be no doubt whatever however that one of their objects was to carry off Mary Queen of Scots from her prison at Tutbury. Queen Elizabeth received repeated intimations of the Earls' disaffection and summoned them to Court to answer for their conduct, but they dared not trust themselves in her hands and they consequently disobeyed the mandate. The summons sent to the two Earls, however, precipitated the rising before they were fully prepared. Among the disaffected Richard Norton was one of the most eager for immediate action together with several of his sons, his brother Thomas and other relations.
Before proceeding further in my account of the rebellion which terminated so disastrously I will turn aside to give just one absolutely authenticated example of the religious intolerance, bigotry, and sacrilege which prevailed at the time all over the country and which, I submit, it is but reasonable to think would be regarded as abundant justification for their hostile action by all those who were so staunch in their support of the Catholic faith. The case I will quote is that of Durham.
There is no evidence to be found that Richard Goodricke was
personally implicated in this ill fated insurrection, but the close union of the
families must have caused the issue of the rising to be a matter of the gravest
concern to him.
After the accession of Elizabeth the Dean and several prebendaries were deprived
and others more in accordance with the Queen's views were appointed in their
room. The Dean in 1569, William Whittingham, was a most devoted Calvinist and
both he and James Pilkington the first "reformed" Bishop of Durham had been
among the refugees on the Continent in Queen Mary's time and had returned, with
all the others, deeply imbued with the zeal of foreign Protestantism. Dean
Whittingham, indeed, had never received Episcopal ordination he had nothing but
a call from a congregation at Geneva, where he is said to have married the
sister of Calvin. Both the Bishop and the Dean were opposed to the surplice,
which they considered being relics of Popery and under their care the Cathedral
assumed what would now be considered a very strange appearance. The Holy Table
was removed to the middle of the Choir and was subject to all kinds of
irreverent usage. The singing of the Canticles was regarded as Popish and
everything connected with Divine Service was made to be of the plainest and
barest character.
It is not to be thought that such a man, as Whittingham would have any sympathy with the past. The extreme reformers appear to have regarded themselves in the position of the people of God entering on the possession of the Promised Land and all monuments of supposed idolatry were forthwith to be destroyed. The Statue of St. Cuthbert, which had survived the desecration and destruction of his tomb, was now, by Whittingham, broken in pieces and utterly destroyed. After the rapine of the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI little spoil was left in the time of Elizabeth, but sill thriftily disposed ecclesiastics might make some profit, however paltry. The Dean took up the stones, which covered the graves of Priors. Everyone which had a cross or chalice on it was destroyed and the rest used for the flagging of a wash-house, while the stone coffins, emptied of their contents, were appointed by Whittingham to be used as troughs for horses and pigs.
There were two holy water stoups; they were appropriated by Mrs. Whittingham to be used in her house for steeping salt meat or fish. Whittingham lowered the roof of the Fraters house and so made a profit by the lead, which was saved by the process. Whittingham also proposed to take down the bills and appropriate the metal to his own use but this sacrilege was prevented. One most venerable relic still remained - viz the Banner of St. Cuthbert. Flodden had seen it in the field in 1513 and it had outlived the dreary days of Henry VIII and Edward VI but as it could not be turned to account by Mrs. Whittingham that lady burned it in her fire.
Much more might be written of Whittingham's sacrilegious acts, but the foregoing will suffice and it cannot be wondered that the people who loved their church rebelled against what they could neither understand nor tolerate. I may mention here that Whittingham died in June 1579 and was buried in the Cathedral, but his tombstone with a memorial brass were destroyed by the Scots in 1640 in the same woeful manner as he had violated the monuments of his predecessors and others.
After this digression from my subject, made with the object
of showing the aggravation caused throughout the country by the so-called
foreign reformers, I will take up the narrative of the rebellion.
Old Richard Norton was at Topcliffe, one of the residences of the Earl of
Northumberland, when the Earl, acting under fear of immediate arrest, left that
place in company with Norton and joined the Earl of Westmoreland at Brancepeth.
Northumberland thought the time inopportune for insurrection but the fiery
eagerness of Norton and his sons to begin the struggle urged on the two Earls
who were nominally their leaders. They marshalled their army and took the field
"with the avowed object of restoring the religion of their ancestors."
They marched to Durham and their first step was the occupation of that city.
The Earls entered the Cathedral with their followers armed to the teeth. Behind
them old Richard Norton followed with massive gold crucifix hanging from his
neck and carrying an old banner of the "Pilgrimage of Grace" which displayed the
crucifixion with Christ's five wounds. The Bishop was in the South;
Whittingham did not appear on the scene till the trouble was over and only one
dignitary, George Clyffe, is heard of. The insurgents after their entrance to
the Cathedral threw down the Communion Table and tore the English Bible and
Prayer Book. They then proceeded to erect two altars, one in the old place of
the high altar, and one in the south transept. One of the great stone altar
slabs was brought from behind the house of the Prebendary of the first stall and
the other was discovered in the Sentry Garth under a heap of rubbish. The
people of the town gave their help in removing the ponderous stones and masons
were induced to set them up. On 30 November 1569 Mass was sung with the old
ceremonies. They retained possession of the Cathedral, the parish churches for
ten or twelve days. They then proposed to proceed to York but receiving
intelligence that the Earl of Essex had raised a powerful army against them they
turned first to Raby Castle one of the Earl of Westmoreland’s seats and thence
to Barnard Castle which was shut against them by Sir George Bowes and which they
besieged for eleven days before the fortress surrendered.
They then advanced to Clifford Moor, near Wetherby, where they found their troops consisted of 4000 foot and 600 horses only. Disappointed in the support they expected both in men and money, Westmorland began so visibly to despond that many of his men shrunk away, though Northumberland still kept resolute and was master of the field till the 13th December when Essex marched out of York at the head of 7000 men followed by a still larger army under the Earl Of Warwick. The rebels retreated northward first to Raby then to Auckland and Hexham and lastly to Naworth Castle from whence the two Earls escaped into Scotland. The Earl of Northumberland was captured and shut up by the Regent Murray at Lochleven and in 1572 he was given up to Elizabeth and after being led through Durham, Raby and Topcliffe, he was beheaded in the Pavement at York August 1572. His countess escaped to Flanders.
Lord Westmorland found protection and concealment for a long time at Fernyhurst Castle, Lord Kerr's house in Rosburghshire, but meanwhile the Earl's cousin Robert Constable, was hired by Sir Ralph Sadleir to endeavour to track the unfortunate nobleman, and, under the guise of friendship, to betray him. Constable's correspondence appears among the Sadleir State Papers - an infamous memorial of treachery and baseness.
Despite, however, the efforts of Government, the Earl succeeded in effecting his escape to Flanders; but his vast inheritance was confiscated, and he suffered the extremity of poverty. Brencepeth, the stronghold of the Neville’s in war, and Raby, their festive Hall in peace, had passed into strangers' hands, and nothing remained for the exiled Lord! He subsisted on a miserable pittance from the King of Spain, dying penniless and forgotten on 16th November 1601. Though the insurrection was suppressed so easily the Earl of Essex and Sir George Bowes put vast numbers to death. Sixty-six people were executed at Durham, many others were executed at York and some were removed to London.
Richard Norton, his sons, Christopher and Marmaduke, and
his brother Thomas Norton, and about fifty others of noble extraction or of
other distinction were tainted of high treason 7th Nov. 1569 and their
possessions forfeited. Richard Norton fled to Flanders where doubtless he
rejoined the Earl of Westmorland, and died there in poverty 9th April 1585 (aged
91), the
"Patriarch of the Rebellion."
His brother Thomas was hanged and quartered in the presence of his nephew Christopher at Tyburn on 27th May 1570. The fate on the sons of Richard Norton was as follows: -
Francis, the eldest, was a fugitive with his father;
John, the second, was of Ripon, was not implicated;
Edmund, the third, was ancestor of the Lords Grantly. He was of Clowbeck, Co.
York, and died there in 1610. He was not implicated;
William, the fourth, was tried with his uncle Thomas and Brother Christopher but
was pardoned;
George, the fifth, was a fugitive with his father;
Thomas, the sixth, died without issue, was not implicated;
Christopher, the seventh, was hanged and quartered with his uncle Thomas, at
Tyburn, 27 May 1570;
Marmaduke, the eighth, pleaded guilty but was pardoned and died at Stranton
where he was buried 4th Nov. 1594. He was kept a prisoner in the Tower,
however, until 1572.
Sampson, the ninth, and youngest son, was a fugitive with his father and was at
Mechlin in 1571, then a pensioner of the King of Spain.
Richard Norton had seven daughters, all well married.
For the information above recorded I am greatly indebted to Hutchinson's History of Durham; "Vicissitudes of Families" by Sir Bernard Burke; Surtees' History of Durham; Whitaker's Wordsworth has immortalised the vicissitudes of the Norton’s in his well known poem the "White Doe of Rylstone" of "The Fate of the Norton’s," but it is a matter for regret that his poem is not true to facts and reference must be made to the works I have mentioned for an accurate account of the sad fate of this noble family.
For a full pedigree of the Norton family vide -
"Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire" Vol. II 1874 by Joseph Foster.
The interesting portrait of Richard Norton here presented is from a panel in the
possession of Lord Grantly.
It is worthy of notice that in the original picture the countenance of old Norton is florid, the hair grey, the slight beard of a sandy colour and the eyes small, grey and intelligent.
There is an interesting story related about Christopher
Norton, who was Richard Goodricke's brother-in-law, which may be introduced
here. Christopher was enrolled a knight and in Lord Scrope’s guard at Bolton
Castle during the imprisonment there of Mary, Queen of Scots. In his
confession before his trial he relates one of his adventures at Bolton, which is
characteristic. One day in winter, when the Queen had been knitting at the
window-side, after the window was covered she rose and went to the fireside.
She looked for one of her servants to hold her work, and as they were all gone
down into the kitchen to bring up the meat, she called young Norton to her, who
was then standing by looking at Lord Scrope and Sir Francis Knollys playing at
chess. Lady Scrope was also there, with many other gentlemen in the room. But
cautious Sir Francis had an eye on the bird he guarded so closely, and when he
saw young Norton holding the Queen's work, when he had finished his game, he
called Norton's captain to him, and asked if Norton was ever on guard, and being
told he was, he bid him watch no more
"For the Queen would make a fool of him!" (Yorkshire Anecdotes).
As stated earlier Christopher was hanged and quartered with
his uncle Thomas, 27th May 1570.
"Longum est iter per proecepta, breve et efficax per exemple"
"The way by precept is tedious, by example short and
effectual"
Our Libraries are abundantly supplied with stories of the civil war. Some of
these are true and exact records; others are built upon facts embellished by
vivid imagination, while yet others are pure romance, the product of more or
less gifted creative minds. All of them, however, are intensely interesting
for the lover of history, as they are mostly stories full of the brave and loyal
acts and deeds of those whose lives were spent in, and in thousands of cases,
sacrificed to the causes which they cherished uppermost in their hearts and upon
the maintenance of which they deemed the peacefulness of the future and the
welfare of their country entirely depended.
Notwithstanding the existence of these voluminous records
of the civil war, however, I am in the pages, which follow, adding one more to
the stories of that fascinating period. It is one, which has never been told,
not even briefly, and I must leave my readers to judge whether or not I have
been justified in the labour I have expended in writing the narrative.
I have adhered strictly to well authenticated facts and resisted the strong
temptation to "adorn" my tale by incursions into the attractive regions of
romance not withstanding the greater interest, which would undoubtedly have been
created by following such an inclination.
Should my story be considered a little "dry," therefore, my readers, having my assurance that it has been compiled very largely from the archives of the nation and the works of undeniably reliable historians, will have the satisfaction of knowing that it is quite true.
With these prefatory remarks, then, I present my account of Sir John Goodricke's life and adventures.
At the time when my story commences, that is in the year 1639 the Ribston family consisted of Sir Henry Goodricke, Knt., its owner, aged 59, Dame Jane Goodricke, (who was daughter of Sir John Savile, of Methley, Co. York), his wife, aged 56, and their children, John, aged 22, Savile 20, and Francis, probably 18 and two unmarried daughters. Sir Henry's eldest daughter Mary was then the wife of Sir Richard Hawkesworth, Knight, of Hawkesworth Hall, near Otley, and they had two young children.
John Goodricke was the seventh but eldest surviving son of Sir Henry and was born 20th April 1617. He was educated, as was his brother Francis, at Aberdeen as his father considered the discipline there stricter than in the English Colleges (State - Vol. 414 No. 55, also App. 10). At the age of nineteen that is in 1636, he was sent to France for travel and education accompanied by his servant George Anderson, a Scotchman. He remained in France a year and a half and returned home to Ribston in 1637 when he became a Captain of the Trained Bands in the County of York and in 1638 he received a Captain's commission in the first Lord Fairfax's regiment of foot. In the State Papers of 1638 there are some very interesting records of John Goodricke. There is a letter from him dated 12 January 1638 addressed to Mr. Livingstone the Tailor in London enquiring the price of a complete suit of armour suitable for a Captain of a foot company and ordering many articles of clothing in accordance with a list enclosed, all of which he desired might arrive at Ribston precisely by the 12th February 1638 as it was intended there should be a meeting of the Deputy Lieutenants a few days later (19th February 1638) at which he had to appear before his colonel, Lord Fairfax (State Vol. 409, No. 72, also App. 9). Another letter from Dame Jane Goodricke, his mother, dated 14th January 1638 deals with the same subject of armour and clothes for her son John. (State Vol. 409, No. 85, also App. 10.)
Under the command of the King, Sir Henry Spiller, Knight, examined John Goodricke and his servant George Anderson on 7th March 1638 (State Papers). The record of this examination, the precise object of which is not clear, shows that John Goodricke had been a Captain of the Trained Bands since September 1637 and that he purposed to provide himself with arms etc. to attend his Majesty as a Captain of a Company of Foot in Lord Fairfax's regiment, and further, to attend his Majesty in arms as a private gentleman if not as a captain in the summer of 1638. (State Vol. 414, Nos. 55 & 56, also App. 10.)
The troubles which led up to the Civil War were now beginning to manifest themselves and the King having resolved to enforce submission to his will by an appeal to arms, set out upon a crusade against Scotland in March 1639 arriving at York on the 30th of that month where he was greeted with a very fulsome address delivered by Sir Thomas Widdrington, Recorder of that City, and it is stated (in the "Fairfax correspondence") that on that occasion Captain John Goodricke showed his and his father's devotion to the royal cause by presenting his Majesty with a bag containing 300 pounds in gold. Sir Ferdinando Fairfax (afterwards the second Lord Fairfax) who was Colonel of a regiment of Yorkshire Trained Bands was in attendance upon the King. The King had levied an army of nearly twenty thousand foot and above three thousand horse, which was put under the command of the Earl of Arundel. The King put himself at the head summoning all the peers of England to attend him. While at York the gentlemen of Yorkshire endeavoured to influence his Majesty to reconsider his intention of proceeding against the Scots and presented an address to him with this object which was signed by twenty of the leading gentlemen of the County - Sir Henry Goodricke being one of the signatories. The King was unmoved, however, and was more than ever determined to press hostilities vigorously. The Earl of Arundel, the Commander-in-Chief advanced by forced marches to Berwick and Sir Ferdinando Fairfax received his order from Lord Arundel under date 17th May 1639 to attend the King with his regiment at Goswick, near Berwick.
John Goodricke, who was then but twenty-two years of age accompanied the expedition and on their arrival at Berwick he received from the hands of Lord Arundel his Captain's commission. This document, which is still preserved with numberless others among the archives at Ribston is interesting. It runs thus - (App. 11) : -
"To Captain John Goodricke: -"By the authority and power given me from ye sovereign Lord King Charles under the great Seale of England as General of his Mats. Army, I doe hereby constitute and appoint you Captain of one Company of CXX tye Foote of the trained bands of the County of York, whereof Sir Ferdinando Fairfax, Knight, is colonel, etc. etc. Given under my hand and Seale at Berwick the 26th day of May 1639.Arundell and Surrey."
As has been seen Sir Henry Goodricke had shown much foresight in the bringing upon his sons, he had placed John and Francis in a University where the discipline was strict and John in his examination before Sir Henry Spiller confessed that he had found this to be its character. Everything seems to have been done to educate John in the manner which would be the most suited to the position he was expected to fill in the county and to cultivate in him that loyalty to the Crown, which, it is on record, his father showed so conspicuously. And this training and discipline was eminently successful, as we shall very soon see. The spirit of loyalty to the Throne suffused his whole nature and when the call came to show and prove himself John was at once ready for action.
As we have just seen John Goodricke accompanied the King in the expedition to Scotland in the early summer of 1639. The Scottish Army was as numerous as that of the King, but inferior in cavalry, yet notwithstanding their leaders immediately sent submissive messages to the King and craved to be admitted to a treaty. Charles believed, however, that Scotland had never before been so united and so animated in its own defence although it had often been able to foil the force of England and he began to fear that he would now find much greater difficulty in subduing by force a people so deeply inflamed with religious prejudices, and the possible misfortune of a defeat from the opposing army weighed heavily with him. He would not hazard it, so a sudden peace was concluded, and the Scotch expedition of 1639 resulted ignominiously!
The next year, 1640, was, as is well known, full of stirring events and there were many unmistakable instances, including the attack upon Laud in his palace at Lambeth, which were presages of some great revolution looming in the near future.
How John Goodricke was employed during 1640 I have not discovered. It was on Nov. 11th in this year that Lord Strafford and Archbishop Laud were impeached for high treason and thrown into the Tower. The next year saw the execution of Strafford when that notably touching incident occurred. Strafford, in passing from his apartment to Tower Hill, where the scaffold was erected, stopped under the window of the cell where Laud was confined, with whom he had long lived in intimate friendship, and entreated the assistance of his prayer in those awful moments which were approaching (May 12th 1641). The aged primate dissolved in tears pronounced, with a broken voice, a blessing on his departing friend and sunk on the ground, while the procession passed on.
On 22nd July in this year Sir Henry Goodricke died at
Ribston. There is a letter in "the Fairfax correspondence" dated 23 July 1641
from Mr. Thomas Stockdale of Bilton Hall, near Harrogate, to Lord Fairfax in
which Sir Henry's death is mentioned in somewhat quaint language (Vol. II. p.
214). Mr. Stockdale writes: -
"Yesterday good Sir Henry Goodricke left us; he hath been sick about three weeks. His disease, by the symptoms, seemed to be the stone, of which he rather languished than suffered any extreme fit. But the nauseous ness of his stomach would not admit of meat, which wanting, his spirits wasted; so, yesterday about two o'clock afternoon he died, at the loss of whom I am not a little grieved, for I have found him very nobly respective to me, and upright in all his intentions, so far as I could observe. I am now going to attend his burial."
It was at this period that John Goodricke again showed his
loyalty to the King and was raised to the dignity of Baronet. The Patent for
this creation bears date 14th August 1641. It is an exceedingly long document
in Latin but it will be interesting to give here, translated, one extract, which
occurs early in the document. It says: -
"Now know ye that we of our special grace and of our certain knowledge and mere motion have erected preferred and created and by these presents for us our heirs and successors do erect prefer and create our beloved John Goodricke of Ribston in the county of York esquire (a man of a family with ancestral reputation and rectitude of morals who with a generous and liberal sprit gave and afforded us a full and sufficient aid and succour to maintain and support thirty men in our foot regiments in our said Kingdom of Ireland for three whole years for the defence of our said Kingdome and especially for the security of the plantation of the said province of Ulster) unto the dignity Estate and degree of a Baronet and the same John Goodricke We for us our heirs and successors do prefer constitute and create by these presents a Baronet to have to him and the heirs male of his body, lawfully begotten for ever". Etc. etc.
On 7th October following Sir John Goodricke married at Trinity Church, York, Catherine daughter and co-heiress of Stephen Norcliffe, Esq., of York. Sir John was then twenty-four years of age and his bride had just attained her majority. In the following month (November 1641) the King passed through York on his journey from the North and Sir John's devotion to the royal cause brought him a further mark of favour, as he was knighted by the King in person, notwithstanding the fact that he had so recently been the recipient of a high degree. (Fairfax correspondence Vol. II, p. 269).
On October 24th in the next year (1642) Lady Goodricke gave birth to a son, Henry, who became the second Baronet. This son was baptised at Hunsingore on 5th November 1642 (Parish register).
The Civil War had now broken out, the King had erected his standard at Nottingham on 25th August 1642 which event may be justly regarded as the opening scene of the great Civil War. Sir John lost no time in espousing the royal cause, and leaving wife, infant and mother, entered on that active service which was destined to bring him such speedy trouble and distress. It is recorded that in October 1642 Sir John, being then a Colonel in the King's Army sent one of his Captains with a squadron of horse to Hawkesworth Hall to arrest Sir Richard Hawkesworth who was captured and carried off to York where he was kept a prisoner for nearly two years. It must be remembered that Sir Richard Hawkesworth's wife was a sister of Sir John Goodricke but she was living in separation from him owing to Sir Richard's brutal conduct. Contrary to every tradition of his house Sir Richard had taken up arms against the King. The disputes between Sir Richard Hawkesworth and his wife were the subject of much litigation and engendered great animosity all round. In his paper on Hawkesworth Hall in the Bradford Antiquary for 1903, Mr. Harry Speight, the indefatigable Yorkshire historian, deals at some length with this matter and again in his History or Kirkby Overblow he refers to the disputes between Sir Richard and his wife, which were fomented greatly by Mr. Miles Dodson of Kirkby Overblow. But it is not my intention to dwell here on the Hawkesworth disputes which, nevertheless, involved the Goodricke’s at Ribston and Sir John's uncle Lieutenant Colonel William Goodricke in a great deal of family trouble. I have referred to the subject in order to explain Sir John Goodricke's action in arresting his brother-in-law.
Sir Richard Hawkesworth against whom there was no doubt a great amount of animosity on account of his unnatural conduct to his wife, and Sir Richard having further aggravated matters by taking up arms against the King, the opportunity for paying off some old scores would in the circumstances, be far too tempting to be neglected! This act was probably one of Sir John's earliest if not actually the first after the outbreak of hostilities though Mr. Wheater in his "Mansions of Yorkshire" gives an extract from Sir Thomas Fairfax's writings to the effect that an attack by Sir John Goodricke and others on Sir John Savile in which three were killed and Sir John Savile and all the rest made prisoners
"was the first guiltless blood shed in the County since the King left these parts."
I have failed to obtain any verification of this quotation however and as no date is attached to it the exact weight it should carry seems doubtful.
Sir John was, however, accused in Parliament by Mr. Thomas Stockdale, who has been previously mentioned in this narrative, of plundering his house & etc., and if such an act were committed, which Sir John emphatically denied, as we shall see a little later on, it must have taken place between the time of which I am writing (October 1642) and the 18th of December following when the siege of Bradford occurred in which Sir John was a conspicuous leader. At the beginning of the troubles, Yorkshire was the scene of an important part of the war. The King, after being shut out of Hull marched towards the South, set up his Standard at Nottingham and placed the command of the four northern counties with William Cavendish, Earl of Newcastle, who garrisoned York.
Sir Ferdinando had now become the (2nd) Lord Fairfax in
consequence of the death (2nd May, 1640) of his father, the old Lord Fairfax,
and he had now sided with the Parliament, being appointed General of the
Parliamentary Forces in the same counties.
NOTE. Thomas Fairfax, First Lord Fairfax, died 2 May
1640 and was succeeded as 2nd Lord by his son Ferdinando, who was then fifty-six
years of age. At the beginning of the Civil War, Ferdinando was the
Parliamentary General for York and became eminently distinguished. After
defeating the Earl of Newcastle in 1642, Lord Byron in 1643, and Col. Bellasis
in April 1644, at Selby, he had the chief command at the battle of Marston Moor
in the July of the same year (1644) and they’re, routing the royal army under
Prince Rupert, he took possession of the City of York, as governor. Lord
Ferdinando died 14 March 1647-8 and was succeeded by his eldest son and
companion in arms, Thomas, 3rd Lord Fairfax, the great Lord Fairfax of history,
who was born 17th Jan. 1612 and who had distinguished himself as a republican
military leader as Sir Thomas Fairfax.
In 1650 Lord Fairfax resigned the command of the army to Cromwell, and nine
years afterwards his Lordship, coalescing with Monk, assisted zealously in
restoring the monarchy. He had an only child, Mary, who married in 1657, George
Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham. He died 12th November 1671 aged fifty-nine
only. (Burke).
Lord Ferdinando and his son, Sir Thomas Fairfax, kept up a continual war of out-post. A party of Newcastle's forces under Sir William Savile seized upon Leeds and held some of the smaller places in the neighbourhood, particularly Wakefield. Sir Thomas Fairfax occupied Bradford, as being an important position for communication with Lancashire. Between the two rival posts there were frequent skirmishes.
The siege of Bradford took place on Sunday, 18th December
1642. A contemporary account of the event was written by the parliamentarian
Joseph Lister that will be found at (page 18) of my Goodricke family history.
Probably this account ought to be accepted with caution. From other authorities
we hear that Sir William Savile, Sir Marmaduke Langdale, Sir John Goodricke,
Colonel Eure and others commanded the royalists in person. Their numbers are
differently estimated, fourteen of fifteen hundred according to the periodicals
of the time, seven or eight hundred according to Sir Thomas Fairfax's own
estimate. Sir Thomas Fairfax (in his memorials) gives the following brief
account of this affair - (vide York A. & T. Socy. Journal Vol. 8 (l884) p. 207).
"The first action we had been at Bradford. We were about three hundred men, the enemy seven or eight hundred, and two pieces of ordinance. They assaulted us; we drew out close to the town to receive them; they had the advantage of the ground, the town being encompassed with hills, which exposed us more to their cannon, from which we received some hurt. But our men defended those passages by which they were to descend so well, they got no ground of us, and now the day being spent they drew off, and retired to Leeds."
Lister records that those engaged on the Royalist side were Colonel Eure, Major Carew, Sir Francis Howard, Captain Hilliard, Colonel Edrington, Colonel Goring, Sir William Savile, Sir Marmaduke Langdale, Sir Thomas Glenham, Sir John Goodricke, Sir Ingram Hopton, Captain Neville, Captain Batt and Captain Binns, each in command of his own troops. Lister reports that Captain Binns was mortally wounded and died at Leeds two days afterwards. Major Carew was made prisoner. The wounded were Sir John Goodricke who
"got a bastinado"
and had his horse killed with a scythe, Colonel Goring, and about a hundred soldiers.
After the sharp contest at Bradford, which resulted so adversely for the Royalists, they retired to Leeds followed by Sir Thomas Fairfax. Sir Thomas found, however, that they had abandoned the town and had gone to York. Still advancing upon them, Fairfax took this post at Tadcaster and, his force being increased to 1,000 men, he resolved to keep the pass at Wetherby and with that view Sir Thomas went to Wetherby with 300 foot and 40 horse. The Royalists surprised him there at six o'clock in the morning, but after a sharp encounter they retired. The Royalists made another attempt after this, but they were defeated, Sir Thomas Fairfax following them for several miles and taking many prisoners. Sir John Goodricke and Captain Hilliard were among the captured.
These officers were immediately conveyed to Manchester,
then in the hands of the Parliamentarians, where they were placed in
confinement. On 21st January 1643 the Commons assembled in Parliament ordered
it:
"That the Petition of Mr. Stockdale shall be taken into consideration in due time for his relief. And do further order that Sir John Goodricke, who plundered the said Mr. Stockdale to a great value, and is now a prisoner in Manchester, be not exchanged, or any other ways enlarged, until he make full satisfaction to the said Mr. Stockdale for the wrongs and injuries done unto him, for his losses and damages sustained by the said plundering." (Commons Journals).
Sir John emphatically denied having taken any part in the plundering of Mr. Stockdale's property, affirmed that he was never at his house nor upon his lands since the war began nor any of his troops by his command or with his knowledge. (Royalists Composition Papers, lst Series. Vol. 113, p.p. 47, 107, Record Office).
It was during Sir John's confinement at Manchester that his
mother, Dame Jane Goodricke sent him his father's Bible in French printed in
1622, on the fly leaf of which she wrote: -
"Son John,
I have sent you to Manchester your father's French Byble a jewel to which
you are no stranger. This book was the delightful study of his freedom and
trust it may bee the profitable delight of your confinement by the assistance of
God's most Holly Spirit is the Hearty desire and shall be the humble prayers off
Your loving mother,
Jane Goodrick."
Post p.s. What you find written of your worthy Father's Hand be careful to
preserve, for I part not willingly with any of his manuscripts."
The following is added in Sir John's handwriting: -
"This Bible I bought at Tours in France Anno Ani 1638, and brought it with me
into England as a present to my Father; after whose death it was sent to me by
my mother, being Prisoner of War in Manchester, as the best companion in
solitude.
John Goodricke."
"I have found by experience that The Bible is most profitably read when a man
reads it in his mother Tongue, however he understands it in foreign languages
and (as the food we are accustomed to) is soonest digested into solid
nourishment."
This very interesting relic of Sir John is still preserved with jealous care at Ribston Hall. At this time Leeds was in possession of the Parliamentary Army under Lord Ferdinando Fairfax, York being in the hands of the Royalists with the Earl of Newcastle who had a large number of Parliamentarian prisoners.
Fairfax had made overtures with the object of obtaining the release of the prisoners at York by an exchange for those held at Manchester but from a joint letter from Sir John Goodricke and Captain Hilliard written at Manchester on 4th May 1643 and addressed to Lord Fairfax at Leeds (Harl. M.S. 7001 p. 162) It is seen that Newcastle would not accept the terms (app.12). As stated Lister reported that the officers wounded in the attack on Bradford were Sir John Goodricke and Colonel Goring. We have just seen that Sir John was subsequently captured and conveyed to Manchester. Colonel Goring escaped and shortly afterwards defeated Fairfax at Seacroft Moon, near Leeds, (March 1643), but in the May following he was taken prisoner at Wakefield on the capture of the town by Fairfax. (Vide Chapter VII p.51)
It appears that Sir John was transferred from Manchester to safe custody in the house of Lord Petre in London whither Colonel Goring was also sent as on 14th August 1643 an order was passed in Parliament for them both to be sent to Lord Fairfax at Hull to be disposed of as his Lordship thought fit, but in the meantime they were removed to the Tower of London. Goring, however, was successful in effecting an exchange in April 1644 and was liberated, several further orders concerning Sir John's imprisonment were passed by the Commons, the last being on 18 October 1643 when it was ordered that the Lieutenant of the Tower should deliver him on board the ship "Desire" laden with ammunition for Hull to be handed over to Lord Fairfax at that place. This order, however, was not carried out and Sir John continued in imprisonment in the Tower, where Archbishop Laud had been lingering in confinement for the past three years.
In August 1644, Catherine, Lady Goodricke, Sir John's young wife died at Ribston, and was buried on the 27th of that month in the vault beneath the Chapel there - (Hunsingore Parish register). The news of this sad event must have been heard with the deepest sorrow by the imprisoned husband whose health was beginning to be impaired by the close confinement in the Tower surrounded as it then was by the pestiferous moat which at that time acted as the chief drain constantly causing outbreaks of fever and sickness of various descriptions.
On 10th January following (1645), early in the morning, the old Archbishop Laud was led forth to the scaffold he who had once seemed to hold the destinies of the Church in England in the hollow of his hand. Little as those who sent him to the block imagined it, there was a fruitful seed in his teaching which was not to be smothered in blood, and if the immediate object for which Laud had striven could never be permanently realized, his nobler aims were too much in accordance with the needs of his age to be baffled. It is little that every parish church in the land now, two centuries and a half after the years in which he was at the height of power - presents a spectacle, which realizes his hopes. It is far more that his refusal to submit his mind to the dogmatism of Puritanism, and his appeal to the cultivated intelligence for the solution of religious problems, has received an ever-increasing response, even in regions in which his memory is devoted to contemptuous obloquy. (Gardiner II, 108).
"We thank God,"
writes Bishop Collins in his "Laud Commemoration" volume,
"For his noble care of the poor, and his large and generous aims for the English race, afor his splendid example of diligent service in Church and State for this work was the great promoter of learning of his age."
On the very day of Laud's execution the use of the Prayer book was forbidden under penalties and the Directory for Public Worship substituted for it. It was also made a punishable offence to kneel at the reception of the Holy Communion, or to use any kind of symbolism in sacred things, such as the ring in marriage; and when any person departed this life, the dead body was to be interred without any kind of religious ceremony nor were the friends allowed to sing or read, or pray, or kneel, at the grave. The holy and beautiful petitions of our liturgy had to give place to long and tedious harangues from illiterate fanatics, have two and three hours duration and the observance of Church festivals were strictly forbidden. Religious anarchy was fast developing indeed!
In January 1645, driven almost to despair, Sir John Goodricke made a determined attempt to escape from the Tower which was packed with Royalist prisoners at this time, for nearly all the most prominent prisoners made by the Roundheads were consigned to those walls. This distressed community numbered among them Colonel George Monk, afterwards Duke of Albemarle who had been committed in 1643, Sir John Hotham and his son, charged with attempting to give Hull over to the Royalists, Sir Alexander Carew, Governor of Plymouth imprisoned on a similar indictment, Lord Maguire, Colonel McMahon, and
"gallant Cavaliers in plenty filled the cells"!
At the period of which I am now writing there had been no less than four executions on Tower Hill between 1 December 1644 and the end of February 1645, in addition to the Archbishop. The unhappy victims were Sir A. Carew, December 23, 1644; the two Hothams, January 1645; and Lord Maguire. Lord Maguire, an Irish Royalist had escaped from the Tower with Colonel Macmahon in August 1644. Both were re-captured, Macmahon being hanged and quartered at Tyburn, 1645, while Maguire was beheaded on Tower Hill 20 February 1645. There had been many escapes from the Tower walls at this time, the details of which we possess, but the exact means employed by Sir John Goodricke for the successful accomplishment of his design I have not yet discovered.
His escape is recorded in three periodicals of the time: -
The "Mercurius Civicus: of Jan. 25th to Feb. lst 1644-5
The "Parliament Scout" of Jan. 26th to Feb. 2nd.
The "Weekly Account" No. 22. Thursday, lst Feb.
He was disguised as a butcher and was proceeding to Oxford to join the Royalists when he was overtaken, captured by Captain Barksted (the regicide) and conveyed to Windsor and then again to the Tower. When taken (Tuesday, 30 January 1644-5) he was on horseback, disguised in the habit of a butcher and seated behind another man. In his pocket were found eighty pieces of gold coin. The exact date of his re-imprisonment in the Tower I have not discovered but there he was securely kept until March in the following year, (1646) fifteen more months.
The poverty of the King was no greater than the poverty the
gentlemen and noblemen who surrounded him at Oxford or who were suffering for
his cause in the Tower and elsewhere. Whether their Estates lay in the enemy's
country or not, their rents remained unpaid and the distress amongst the loyal
gentry was very great and was marked by the increasing number of those who took
the "Covenant" at Westminster and compounded for their own property by the
payment of heavy fines.
Probably some day in the future, as the voluminous records in the Public Record
Office are gradually more and more opened out, some detailed account of Sir
John's escape and re-capture may be revealed and a thrilling story laid bare in
which, of course, others - probably his relatives, may have played a conspicuous
part. In the meantime we must be satisfied with the account I have just given
as all that is at present authentically known. Like hundreds of others all over
the country Sir John was becoming heartily weary. Upwards of three years of
close confinement in the Tower had told most seriously on his health and he
resolved on following the course of compounding for his Estate and, if possible,
obtaining his release from the terrible position he was in. Consequently about
the beginning of November 1645, Sir John drew up his petition to Parliament but
this was not presented to the house until 22nd December following. (Vide.
Goodricke p.p. 20 to 23 and App. p. 13.). The Commons made an order the same
day, that Sir John's petition be referred to the Committee for report.
On 29th December 1645, Sir John was conducted from the Tower to Westminster and took the National Covenant which was the step necessary as a preliminary to any further proceedings. On 2nd February in the next year, 1646, the Committee for the West Riding of York issued their certificate concerning Sir John's Estate, (Goodricke p. 21) and on 23rd March 1646 the House of Commons passed an order accepting the sum of £1,200 as
"a fine for his delinquency, his offence being bearing arms against the Parliament."
The sequestration was therefore removed and on 26th March 1646 the Commons passed the order
"That Sir John Goodricke, now Prisoner in the Tower (having compounded for his Delinquency, and Discharge of his sequestration, and the said Composition being accepted by this House) that he have his Enlargement, and be discharged from any further Restraint or Imprisonment."
On 6th August 1646 the House of Lords on 25th of the same month confirmed the Commons passed an “Ordinance” of pardon to Sir John and this. (App. 13).
There was certainly not much room for complaint as to the despatch of Sir John's case by the Commons when the business had been introduced in the House, but there was a decided touch of irony in the Common's resolution that the 1,200 fine had to be paid over by the Committee at Goldsmith's Hall to Mr. Thomas Stockdale "towards satisfaction of his losses" which were reported by the committee to amount to the sum of £5,216 a considerable sum in those days. This portion of the order must have possessed some sting for Sir John inasmuch as he had protested that he had taken no part in or had any knowledge of the destruction at Mr. Stockdale's house. However, the precise manner of the disposal of Sir John's fine was immaterial really, since by an order dated lst April 1643 the Commons had declared that the sequestered estates of "Delinquents" should go to the maintenance of the public affairs. ("Sarcastic notices of the Long Parliament" by I.C. Hotten. A rare work in Guildhall Lib. A.C. 5.)
Mr. Stockdale was one of the members of Parliament for Knaresbrough (elected 1642) and his residence was Bilton Hall, near Harrogate. He died in 1653 and was buried in Knaresbrough Church. He was a strong partisan of the Parliament and an intimate friend of Lord Fairfax with whom he kept up a correspondence. (Sir John's composition Papers are preserved in original at the Public Record office, London, In "Royalists Composition Papers" lst series, Vol. 113, p.p. 47, 107 and 2nd series, Vol. 4, p.p. 246, 249, etc. These are printed at p.p. 73 to 80 of the Yorkshire Arch. Socy's Record Series Vol. 15. printed in 1893, which, of course, is more accessible than the volumes in the Public Record Office. The resolutions of the parliament can be seen in the journals of the House of Commons Vols. II, III & IV, and the Journals of the House of Lords 25th August 1646. Vol. VIII, p.p. 470, 472).
It should be noted that the fine of £1,200 was subsequently
increased on 22 November 1650 by £143.10.0. making a total of £1,343.10.0.
(Vide. Y.A.S. Vol. 15. p. 80)
.
Sir John was now released from the Tower, March 1646, having been a prisoner of
war continuously form January 1643, and we can easily picture to ourselves the
joy with which he would be welcomed back to Ribston and the loving embraces of
his aged mother whose anxiety during the whole time of her son's imprisonment
must have been almost past endurance. And there was the little son and heir,
Henry, now approaching four years of age, to be presented virtually for the
first time to his father! But there was a sad blank, there was no wife to
enfold him in her arms, and notwithstanding the great joy of feeling his freedom
once more, the homecoming must have had its pangs of sadness hard to bear and
suppress by a man of Sir John's temperament and age for he was only verging on
thirty years.
But there was little now to be done at home, Hunsingore Hall, one of Sir John's residences had been completely destroyed by the enemy and the country was in such a condition of disturbance and uncertainty and almost entirely in the hands of the puritanical parliamentary army that it would appear as if order, peace and prosperity would take years to establish and what was more - Sir John's fine had been accepted by the Parliament and his person released from imprisonment in the Tower on the undertaking that he gave his honourable word and good security
"Never hereafter to act or doe anything to the prejudice of the State,"
and this undertaking he had given, and
"his word was his bond."
Moreover the War was not over and the condition of the royalists was becoming worse and worse. The Parliament was now forcibly levying further contributions from the gentry and land owners for the purpose of continuing the War, and no sooner had Sir John reached his home than he received a peremptory order from the "committee for advance of money" to contribute to Parliament a further sum of £1,000 as his assessment towards the parliamentary army war chest!
Sir John, however, deemed it wise to place himself beyond the reach of the parliament and, looking to the conditions of his release, out of the reach of the Royalists too, and the possible temptation to again join them, and had consequently gone abroad. In nearly all the old Baronetages it is stated that Sir John effected his escape from the Tower to France where he remained until the Restoration, but this is obviously incorrect in the face of the accounts in the newspapers of the time of his escape and re-capture, and the voluminous documents in the Record Office relating to his composition and release from the Tower in March 1646. It seems, however, that his sojourn at home was short, for we find him a visitor at the English College at Rome in June 1647, and again at Ribston in March 1649. He appears to have ignored the odious tax levied upon him for the maintenance of the war by the Parliament but whether this was evasion implemented by his absence from the country or not we cannot say and now on 20th February 1649 an order was passed by the Committee to again sequester his estate in consequence of continued non-payment. Francis Goodricke, Sir John's brother now comes on the scene and deposes 8th March 1649 to his debts amounted to £1,290 and that Sir John had sold portions of his lands to the value of £45 a year to enable him to meet the composition of £1,200 in 1646. On 15th March 1649 this tax was reduced to £250 but on 22nd idem Sir John, apparently then at Ribston, appealed and on 5th April 1649 it was finally ordered that he was to pay £150 at once, and £50 in one month, the remainder to be respite. It was on 22nd November 1650 that he was fined a further sum of £143.10.0. in connection with his original fine in 1646 and on this date (22 November 1650) he appears to have been at Ribston.
Early in the year 1648 Dame Jane Goodricke, Sir John's mother, died at Ribston at the age of sixty-five, but whether Sir John was then at home or abroad is uncertain. Her sons Savile and Francis Goodricke proved her will at York in June 1648.
There is further evidence that Sir John was in residence at Ribston in 1652 as in that year he and his brother Francis jointly erected the beautiful white marble tablet in the chapel to the memory of their ancestors and to Catherine, Lady Goodricke, who died in 1644.
Before closing my story of Sir John's activity during the Civil War, I am tempted to give a short account of the sacking of Basing House on 11th October 1645 which event has become memorable for all time in consequence of the most noble defence by John Powlett, Marquis of Winchester, who faced death and utter destruction rather than flinch one hair's-breath in his loyalty to the King. I have really some small excuse for introducing this most fascinating narrative into my work - it is that in the year 1707 Sir Henry Goodricke, eldest grandsons of Sir John about whom I have been writing, married in York Minster, Mary, only daughter of Tobias Jenkyns of Grimstone, Co, York by his wife Lady Mary Powlet, grand-daughter of the good old John Powlet, Marquis of Winchester, the aged noble defender of Basing House. The story of the defence of Basing is so well known as almost to discourage any repetition, but it illustrates such a striking instance of the spirit exhibited on both sides during the Civil War that it will for ever continue memorable in history.
"THE SACKING OF BASING HOUSE. 11th October 1645.
"Cromwell marched on Basing House from Winchester to
which Dulbier, an old German officer had for some weeks been laying siege.
Cromwell arrived on the 8th October 1645 bringing with him a complete train of
artillery. It was through the possession of siege-guns that he hoped to win his
way where so many of his predecessors in command had failed. On the 11th when
he was ready to open fire, he summoned the garrison to surrender. The defenders
of the noble mansion of the Catholic Marquis of Winchester - Loyalty House, as
its owner loved to call it - were not the professional soldiers to whom Cromwell
was always ready to give honourable quarter. If they refused quarter now it
would not be offered to them again.
There were no signs of yielding. By the evening of the 13th two wide
breaches had been effected, and at two in the morning it was resolved to storm
the place at six. At that hour the storming parties were let loose upon the
doomed house rising for the last time in its splendour over field and meadow, it
has been said that the old house and the new were alike to make an emperor's
court. The defenders were all too few to make head against the surging tide of
war. Quarter was neither asked nor given till the whole of the buildings were
in the hands of the assailants. Women, as they saw slaughtered before their
faces, rushed forward with the intrepidity of their sex to cling to the arms and
bodies of the slavers. One, a maiden of no ordinary beauty, a daughter of Dr.
Griffith, an expelled City clergyman, hearing her father abused and maltreated,
gave back angry words to his revilers. The incensed soldier, maddened with the
excitement of the hour, struck her on the head and laid her dead at her father's
feet. Six of the ten priests in the house were slain and four others reserved
for the gallows and the knife. After a while the rage of the soldiers turned to
thoughts of booty. Plate and jewels, stored gold and tapestry, fell a prey to
the victors. The men who were spared were stripped of their outer garments, and
old Indigo Jones was carried out of the house wrapped in a blanket because the
spoilers had left him absolutely naked. One hundred rich petticoats and gowns,
which were discovered in the wardrobes, were swept away amongst the common
plunder, whilst the dresses were stripped from the backs of the ladies. It is
impossible to count with accuracy the number of the sufferers. The most
probable estimate asserts that one hundred were killed and three hundred taken
prisoners. In the midst of the riot the house was discovered to be on fire.
The flames spread rapidly, and of the stately pile there soon remained no more
than the gaunt and blackened walls, The Marquis himself owed his life to the
courtesy with which he had formerly treated Colonel Hammond, who had been his
prisoner for a few days. Hammond now in turn protected his former captor,
though he could not prevent the soldiers from stripping the old nobleman of his
costly attire. After this the lord of the devastated mansion was safe from all
but one form on insult. Consideration for fallen greatness never entered into
the thoughts of a Puritan controversialist. A Catholic was beyond all bounds of
religious courtesy and Hugh Peters thought it well to enter argument with the
fallen Marquis. Did he not now see, he asked him, the hopelessness of the
cause, which he had maintained? "If the King" was the proud reply, "had no more
ground in England but Basing House, I would adventure as I did, and so maintain
it to the uttermost. Basing House is called Loyalty."
"I thank God,” wrote Cromwell to the Commons, "I can give you a good account
of Basing"." (Gardiner II, 362).
To return to Sir John - we have now arrived at that period in my narrative when probably the greatest tragedy in the history of our country was enacted, namely the judicial murder of the King. On 30th January 1649 he suffered martyrdom. Thus the triumph of the Puritans was complete, having first pulled down the Church they next destroyed the throne, Cromwell would not allow the King's remains to be buried in Westminster Abbey so they were taken to Windsor where they were interred on 7th February in St. George's Chapel without any service whatever, the book of Common Prayer having then been suppressed. For eleven years - 1649 to 1660 - England was governed through the army - there was no King, no House of Lords, the Church was suppressed and in abeyance and the government of the country was nominally a republic, but in reality a despotism, limited only during Cromwell's lifetime by the wisdom and moderation of that despot! The Prayer-book was forbidden by law to be used even in private houses and Evelyn in his diary describes a service in London at which he and his wife were present when the parliamentary soldiers held their muskets against them as they went up to receive the sacrament - as if they would have shot them at the Altar. Seven thousand of the clergy, not reckoning curates, were ejected from their livings - all the Bishops were ejected only nine of them surviving the Commonwealth and eighteen dying in poverty, one (Wren of Ely) having been imprisoned for eighteen years. As the great majority of the clergy were married men it has been computed upon good authority that fully thirty thousand persons were turned out to starve! But the story is too well known to readers of history to need repetition. Cromwell, when it was too late found out his mistake and would willingly have restored the Church and the Monarchy. His last years were consumed with remorse, bitterness and an ever-present dread of assassination. He died 3 September 1658, eighteen months of anarchy ensued. Dissension pervaded the army; and the nation, sensible of its degradation, longed for the restoration of the Church and of the Throne. (Hore).
About the year 1653 Sir John Goodricke married for his second wife Elizabeth, widow of William, third Viscount Fairfax, of Gilling Castle, Co. York, and daughter of Alexander Smith Esq., of Sutton, Co. Suffolk, and by her he had an only son, John, born 16th October 1654 who eventually succeeded to Ribston in 1705 and was the third Baronet.
The place where Sir John was married and the exact date of that event I have not been able to discover.
Little remains to be recorded about Sir John. He was returned as Member for Thirsk in the Parliament called by Richard Cromwell to meet on 27th January 1659 and at the Restoration he was elected member for the county of York, 25th March 1661. He was Deputy Lieutenant for the West Riding 1662, 1667 and 1668; these commissions are still at Ribston.
He died at Ribston in 1670, his Will, bearing date 19th September 1669 being proved at York 25th November 1670. His widow survived until 1692 and resided at Moulsham Hall, Co. Essex.
His eldest son Sir Henry, 2nd Baronet, succeeded Sir John in Title and Estates then twenty-eight years of age.
Cipher formerly in one of the windows of the old church at Hunsingore now in the vestry of the new edifice. There is in the same window a companion cipher “Savile”. There are a few of the ancient kneeling pads with the Goodrick cipher woven in them still (1885) preserved in the Church. CAG.