CHAPTER VII

THE GOODRICKE’S IN THE PARLIAMENT ARMY

RIEN SANS DIEU

Motto used by them on the seals. Vide Add M.S.S. 21, 419, p.47 21,420 p.p.189 and 21,421, p.p.25,190
My narrative at this period would be incomplete without some reference to other members of the family who were active partisans on the Parliamentary side during the Civil War.

As is well known, family divisions were very frequent at this unhappy time and brothers and near relatives often found themselves ranged against each other in opposing camps. The Goodricke’s were not an exception to this frequently occurring condition, Sir John’s uncle, Colonel William Goodricke and his two sons, Major William and Captain Henry being actively engaged in the Parliamentary Army from the commencement.

Colonel William was the second son of Richard and Muriel Goodricke of Ribston, and brother to Sir Henry Goodricke, Knt. father of Sir John the first Baronet.  He was born in 1582.  In 1612 he married Sarah, daughter of Mr. William Bellingham, of Bromby Co. Lincoln and sister to Richard Bellingham who immigrated to America in 1633 and became Governor of Boston, New England.  At the outbreak of the Civil War, Colonel Goodricke was sixty years of age.  Up to that time he had lived as a country gentleman at Skidby and at Walton Head, Co. York, but when active hostilities commenced he, with his two sons sided with the Parliament.

The earliest information about him at this period, which I have found, is contained in a letter from him to Mr. John Burdin and dated 21st May 1643.  (State Papers, Domestic Series, Chas. I.  Vol. 497,  No. 93).  In this letter the Colonel says that he musters sixty-eight men completely armed and holds them in readiness at an hour's notice whenever

"the Governor will be pleased to command our musters'.

He enclosed in this letter an account of the monies he had collected at Holme-beacon and Howden for the use of the parliamentary army. He declares that the obtaining of this force levy under the warrant of the parliament had been carried out with the greatest of risk to himself and his troop as the agents of the Royalists constantly appeared in parties of horsemen and being in greater strength, resisted the Colonel and his soldiers successfully.

The writer goes on to say that he thinks in the circumstances it will be considered that he did very well in collecting the sum sent, and that he had done his very best without exposing himself and his whole troop unduly to attacks by the enemy.  The Colonel then advises that the Royalists at York

"drooped mightily for their defeat at Wakefield" (21 May 1643)

 which action he describes as one of the bravest which had yet taken place in the north and that the Roundheads

"Killed abundance of men, took 700 prisoners, got 3000 arms, routed three of the royalists best regiments, took Colonel George Goring prisoner, got a world of treasure and many horse." (Vide Chapter VI p.39)

The place where this letter was written was most probably Skidby, near Beverley, or somewhere in that neighbourhood.  The Colonel also says that the day previous to writing his letter he had taken his whole troop for a skirmish to Langrigg (?) but finding

"all the Popish enemy ran away"

they took some swords, muskets, and much clothing, which had been left behind in haste.  There is a voluminous correspondence between Colonel Goodricke and his son Major Goodricke and Captain Baynes between the years 1649 and 1659 preserved in the Manuscripts of the British Museum Library (Add. M.S.S. Vide App. 29.30).   These letters show that the Colonel was probably stationed at York during those years where he acted as an agent for the Parliament in financial matters and that his son, Major Goodricke was with the army during the Scotch expedition in 1650 and 1651, in various parts of the country from 1651 to 1659 and again in Scotland (Edinburgh) 3rd May 1659 (Goodricke, p.p. 49 to 51 and App. 30).   This correspondence does not, however, contain anything of sufficient interest to repeat in detail here and I must refer my readers to my history of the family - the enlarged edition of 1897 - for further particulars if desired.

The letters, however, confirm the well known fact that the greatest difficulty was found by the parliamentary army in procuring the "sinews of war" and that the debt to the officers and men for pay and expenses was not only a daily growing one but one which it was constantly feared would not be discharged.   In 1651, Trustees were appointed by the parliament for the sale of the Crown manors and the Goodricke’s on the side of the parliament appear as purchasers of some of these.  Colonel Goodricke bought the Crown manor of Westwang-in-the-Would, Co. York (Close Roll, 3664 of 1652 part 24, No. 17), and Major Goodricke purchased 23rd March 1651, the

"fee farm rents belonging to the Commonwealth"

payable in respect to the Manors of Hunsingore, Walshford, etc., then the property of Sir John Goodricke, his cousin (App. 31).   But by far the most important

"purchase was that of the Manor of Richmond with its appurtenances, the Palace or Richmond Court, with the site thereof, and sundry other premises."

   This valuable and historical property was conveyed to Major Goodricke jointly with Thomas Rookby and Adam Baynes, of Knowsbropp, Co. York, under a deed enrolled 23 April 1651, in consideration of the sum of £13,562.0.6. (Close Roll No. 3574, 1651, Part 2, No. 22 Vide App. 31, 32).   This appears in the conveyance just quoted as an out and out purchase by the parties named but it seems, from the light thrown upon the transaction by the correspondence with Captain Baynes that it was in reality an assignment to Major Goodricke and other creditors in discharge of arrears of pay due to themselves and some other officers and men in the Parliamentary Army.  (Vide Add. M.S. 21, 429, p.p. 103, 104).   In this Manuscript, Colonel Goodricke and his son Major Goodricke's joint proportion of the £13,562 is stated to be £8,190.2.1.  but it is probable some portion of this sum, even, was on account of other creditors.
However this may have been, it is on record ("Richmond Park" by Sir Thomas J. Nelson, 1883, p. 26) that Major Goodricke commenced to dismantle the palace by stripping off the lead from the roof, etc.  This sort of action would appear to us as unpardonable vandalism but we have to remember the spirit then prevailing and above all the dire necessity there was for ready money.  A purchaser for the Palace, or for what remained, was found in the person of Sir Gregory Norton, Baronet, the materials remaining being valued at £10,782.19.2.

Whether the Goodricke’s were ever paid by Sir Gregory Norton or not seems a little doubtful and there are some family letters, which seem to give colour to the supposition that the purchase price was not paid.  But of one circumstance, however, there is no doubt.  Sir Gregory Norton was one of the regicides and was not only accepted out of the general pardon but also condemned to be executed, though this extreme penalty was not carried out.  His property was confiscated and Richmond Palace was given back to the Queen, 23 June 1660.   There is a 1660 Tract entitled "The mystery of the Good Old Cause," (re-printed by I.C. Hotten April 10th 1863 under the title "Sarcastic notices of the Long Parliament etc. Guildhall Lib. A.6.5.) at page 36 of which it says -

"Sir Gregory Norton, of Sussex, a man but of a mean fortune before these times, as it is said; had Richmond House and much of the King's goods for an inconsiderable value, only they were the price of royal blood, he being one of his prince's judges, and a constant Rumper to the last."

The revulsion of feeling against the Parliament and its army, which began to be felt about 1648, and which had been considerably increased by the execution of the King had gradually but surely spread throughout the Country.  Major Goodricke was in the front rank of those who were longing for a change.  His actions had begun to cause him to be suspected by Cromwell - and in May (19th) 1657; Colonel Robert Lilburne was instructed to enquire into his conduct.  (Lilburne was M.P. for the East Riding of Yorkshire.  He sprang from a good family in the county of Durham.  He distinguished himself by becoming one of the regicides and, at the restoration, was sentenced to life long imprisonment).   Lilburne consequently wrote to Luke Robinson, the then member for Pickering as follows: -

"I must intricate you to desire Captain Strangewayes to inquire privately how Major Goodricke carries himself at his being now in the country, for I hean the souldiery in the North, by trying their tempers.  There is something more than ordinary in his coming downe at this time, and I desire you to instruct Capt. Strangewayes thus much, and to give notice privately to the officers and souldiers to beware of him, and if t'were be amisse, if you know Capt. Strangewayes (as I presume he is) to be against kingship.  I had rather put this trouble upon him, because he is both faithfull and prudent, if he pleases to communicate it to some officers with naming me, and give me some account of it, will be very acceptable." (Thurloe, Vol 6, p. 292)

I have been unable to discover what particular part Colonel Goodricke and his sons took in the Civil War, as, with the exception of the letter from the Colonel dated 21st May 1643, there is no correspondence now existing until 1649.  There are clear indications, however, in the letters which have been preserved that the Colonel and his sons Major William and Captain Henry Goodricke were occupied in various parts of the Country in active service and that Major Goodricke not only took part in the Scottish campaign of 1651, under General Monk, but that that part was an important one.  No adventures, however, are recorded beyond the historical account of the war.
Notwithstanding the divergence in their political opinions, Colonel Goodricke and his sons do not appear to have been in antagonism towards their cousins Sir John and Francis Goodricke.  Some of the letters, which have been preserved, contain evidence, which supports this opinion (Add. M.S. 21421, p. 25, 190, 197) and the manner in which Dame Jane Goodricke refers to the colonel and his son in her will dated 1647 (proved at York, June 1648) also shows that the political differences - great as they were - had not aroused that animosity which might have been expected.

On the 27th June 1657 Cromwell, had, in the presence of the Judges of the Land, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City and members of Parliament assembled at Westminster Hall, seated himself on the coronation chair of the Stuarts, assumed the title of Lord Protector, donned a robe of violet velvet, girt his loins with a sword of state, and grasped the sceptre, symbolic of kingly power.   From that hour distrust beset his days, his nights were fraught with fear.  All his keen and subtle foresight, his strong and restless energies, had since then been exerted in suppressing plots against his power, and detecting schemes against his life, concocted by the Republicans whose liberty he had betrayed, and by the Royalists whose King he had beheaded.  At last, the vigilance with which he had combated his enemies was powerless against the divers bodily infirmities, which now attacked him, and he became sick unto death.  Prayers were offered for him by all his admirers, and so sure were those around him that providence must grant the fulfilment of their desires that one of Cromwell's chaplains said: -

"We asked not for the Protector's life, but we prayed for his speedy recovery etc."

and when this Puritanical fanatic was presently disappointed, Bishop Burnet narrates: -

"He had the impudence to say to God,
          'Thou hast deceived us' (Molloy).

Meanwhile, the Protector lay writhing in pain and terror.  His mind was sorely troubled at remembrance of the last words spoken by his daughter Elizabeth, who had threatened judgments upon him because of his refusal to save the King; whilst his body was grievously racked with a tertian fever and a foul humour.  It was now the 2nd September 1658.  Within the darkened chamber in Whitehall all was silence and gloom; without all was tumult and fear.  Before the gates of the palace a turbulent crowd of soldiers and citizens had gathered in impatient anxiety.  Those he had raised to power, those whose fortunes depended on his life, were steeped in gloom; those whose principles he had outraged by his usurpation, those whose positions he had crushed and ruined by his sway, rejoiced at heart.  The whole country was again ripe for another revolution of a very different description from that which had held sway for the past seventeen years!

As the evening of 2nd September closed in, the elements appeared in complete unison with the distracted condition of the Kingdom.  Dark clouds, seeming of ominous import to men's minds, gathered in the heavens, to be presently torn asunder and hurried in wild flight by tempestuous winds across the troubled sky.  As night deepened, the gale steadily increased, until it raged in boundless fury above the whole island and the seas that rolled round its shores.  In town houses rocked on their foundations, turrets and steeples were flung from their places; in the country great trees were uprooted, corn stacks levelled to the ground and winter fruits destroyed; whilst at sea ships sank to rise no more.  This ever-memorable storm lasted all-night and continued until three o'clock next afternoon - when Cromwell expired (3rd Sept. 1658).  The immediate sequel - not recorded in those popular histories, mostly by biased protestant authors and written for every day college students and the surface-reading public - is well worthy of remembrance.

Cromwell's body was immediately embalmed and interred in great haste in Westminster Abbey, the last home of kings and princes being selected by his friends as the fittest resting place for the arch-regicide.  As it was impossible to honour his remains by stately ceremonials, his followers had a waxen image of him made which they carried to Somerset House - then one of the late king's palaces - and placed on a couch of crimson velvet beneath a canopy of state.  Upon its shoulders they hung a purple mantle, in its right hand they placed a golden sceptre, and by its side they laid the imperial crown, probably the same, which the Protector had secretly caused to be made and conveyed to Whitehall with a view to his coronation.  The walls and ceiling of the room in which the effigy lay were covered by sable velvet; the passages leading to it crowded with soldiery.  After a few weeks the town grew tired of this sight, so the waxen image was taken to another apartment, hung with rich velvets and golden tissue, and otherwise adorned to symbolize heaven, where it was placed upon a throne, clad

 "in a shirt of fine Holland lace, doublet and breeches of Spanish fashion with great skirts, silk stockings, shoe strings and gaiter suitable, and black Spanish leather shoes. Over this attire was flung a cloak of purple velvet, and on his head was placed a crown with many precious stones. "

The room was then lighted

"by four or five hundred candles set in flat shining candlesticks, so placed round near the roof that the light they gave seemed like the rays of the sun, by all which he was represented to be now in a state of glory."

Lest, indeed, there should be any doubt as to the place where his soul abode, Sterry, the Puritan preacher, imparted the information to all, that the Protector

"now sat with Christ at the right hand of the Father."

Protestantism!
But all this pomp, state and gross mockery, in no way overawed the people, who by pelting with mire Cromwell's escutcheon placed above the great gate of Somerset House gave evince of the contempt in which they held his memory.  The effigy was then carried to Westminster Abbey with more than regal ceremony, the expenses of this almost sacrilegious lying-in-state and of the profane funeral procession amounting to upwards of £29,000, a considerable sum at that time. (Molloy).

I will passer the brief inglorious reign of Richard Cromwell, which ended in May 1660rom which time the name of Cromwell was no longer any power in the land.  On 25th May 1660 a vast concourse of nobility, gentry, and citizens assembled to meet and greet their sovereign King Charles II, who landed at Dover amidst the roar of cannon, ringing of bells and such mighty shouting and rejoicing among the people as had not been heard for many a long year.  General Monk who had been mainly instrumental in bringing his royal master to the throne without bloodshed fell upon his knees to greet his majesty; the king raised the general from the ground, embraced, and kissed him.

It was only to be expected that the political pendulum should now swing violently.  The universal joy which filled the nation at the restoration of the monarchy and the end of the era of Cromwellian tyranny and puritanical despotism was accompanied - as was natural - by bitter hatred towards the leaders of Republicanism, especially towards such as had condemned the late king to death.  The chief objects of popular horror now, however, lay in their graves; accordingly, the effigy of Cromwell, crowned with its royal diadem etc. was now exposed at one of the windows at Whitehall with a rope fixed round its neck, by way of showing the death which the original undeserved.

 But this mark of execration was not sufficient to satisfy the exasperated public and on 30th of January 1661, the Anniversary of the murder of Charles 1st the bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton and John Bradshaw were exhumed and drawn on hurdles to Tyburn.

"All the way the universal outcry and curses of the people went along with them"

On arrival at Tyburn, the bodies were hauled out of their coffins and hanged were they remained until after sunset, after which they were taken down, their heads cut off and their loathsome trunks were thrown into a deep hole under the gallows. The common hangman set the heads of these three arch regicides, Oliver Cromwell, John Bradshaw and Ireton, on poles on the top of Westminster Hall. Those who would follow the story further cannot do better than read "Royalty restored" by J.F. Mallory 1887, from which I have been quoting, and which is not everyday history!

 At the restoration Major William Goodricke's name appears among those who received the Royal Pardon in December 1660, which indicates the part that he played in the rebellion had not been an insignificant one. (Signet Rolls, December 1660 Public Record Office). At the end of 1659-60, he appears to have been in residence at Twickenham Court, Sommersetshire, which Estate belonged to him as the inheritance of his late wife who was Eleanor, widow of Nicholas Poyntz and daughter of Rice- Davis of the same place. In 1661 Major Goodricke purchased an Estate at Ely Co. Cambridge, where he married for his second wife Mary, daughter of Thomas Stewart of Stuntney Hall. He continued to reside at Ely where he died July 26, 1666. His father, Colonel Goodricke who, with his younger son Captain Henry, continued to reside at York, died whilst on a visit to Ely January.

The history of this branch of the family descended from Richard Goodricke of Ribston and his wife Muriel Eure, through Richard second son Colonel William Goodricke, the Parliamentarian, was interesting from a family point of view and may be carried up to the present time "Family History," but I propose to leave it at this point in the present, merely remarking in conclusion that the tradition of the Army as a "profession" was continued in the next generation by the sons of Captain Henry Goodricke who were officers and served in several campaigns.

CHAPTER VIII

Sir Henry Goodricke, 2nd Bart. 1642-1705

"LEAL-Y-LIBRE"
Motto used by Sir Henry, inlaid in overmantle of Billiard Room in Ribston Hall

Sir Henry was the elder son of Sir John Goodricke, the first Baronet. As already stated he was born just before the commencement of hostilities (1642 24th October) and his youth and early training were spent amidst the terrible distractions of the Civil War and despotic government that prevailed throughout the length and breadth of the land. At the Restoration he was just eighteen years of age and there can be no doubt whatever that his father had been particularly careful to ensure that his education and discipline should be conducted in such a manner as would develop in him a strong character. And we have reliable testimony that Sir John was not disappointed in his son. Sir John Reresby writing about Sir Henry in his "Memoirs 1634 to 1689" says that: -

"This Sir Henry Goodricke was a those gentleman of fine parts naturally, and improved by great reading and travel, one that being fixed at his excellent seat at Ribston, near Knaresborough, pleased himself there etc.,"

 and at a later date Charles Bertie writing to Lord Dartmouth says that

" Sir Henry and his lady are so generally beloved and esteemed that they need no southern artifice to secure to them the affection of their neighbours ".

But, indeed, if evidence were needed to show the extent of Sir Henry's

"own worth"

of which Grainger writes and which he tells us brought him much attention from the Court it would be readily found in the record of his life and of the various appointments he held under the State and the service he rendered to his country by his honourable discharge of them. I think further that my readers will admit that it is only necessary to study the portrait of Sir Henry, which is presented here, to be impressed with the fact that it represents a man of singularly fine presence and of a character which combines firmness and power with good judgment.

  On Sir Henry's nearing his majority, his father obtained for him a commission as Captain of a Troop of Horse.  This is dated 22 May 1663 and it is probable that it was about this time or soon after that he was introduced at Court, where he would come into frequent company with that old court favourite, Colonel William Legge - the faithful devoted servant to King Charles I, in whose cause he had been such a great sufferer. Legge had been in Scotland in the campaign of 1638,  (probably with Sir John Goodricke) helped Charles to escape from Hampton Court in '47 had been wounded and taken prisoner at the battle of Dorchester and would have been executed if his wife had not contrived his escape from Coventry Goal in her own clothes,  (Burke). After passing through various vicissitudes in   Ireland and abroad he was again (1659) active in the royal   cause. He enjoyed much favour at the Court of Charles II, dying on the 13th October 1670.

Sir Henry Goodricke, at the age of twenty-six, married in 1668, Mary, daughter of this veteran Royalist, Colonel William Legge. Mary, Lady Goodricke, is spoken of by Sir John Reresby as: -

"one of the finest women in his age"

and a study of her portrait, here presented, gives weight to such a description of her. Writing about her Grainger says:

  "Few families were more entitled to praise for their invariable loyalty and the   constancy with which they suffered in that cause. She married Sir Henry Goodricke, Baronet, an alliance suitable in point of family, wealth and dutiful affection to the crown."

(Her brother George Legge was created Baron Dartmouth in 1662, and his only son   William, was raised to the Peerage as Earl of Dartmouth in 1711.

In 1670 Sir John Goodricke died, and his son Sir Henry, then in his twenty-ninth year succeeded to the Ribston Estates and his father's title. (Up to this point I have spoken of him as Sir Henry, as he was a knight by virtue of the Patent of Baronetcy.

Grainger says Charles II knighted him, but I have not yet found authenticated particulars of this.)

For five years Sir Henry and his Lady appear to have lived in quiet retirement at Ribston with "no thoughts of any public business" (Reresby) until a vacancy in Parliament occurred for Boroughbridge - 1673, when Sir Henry was returned (7th November). (He continued to represent this constituency until 1679.) He was also made a Deputy Lieutenant for the West Riding this year - commission dated 26th May 1673.

The rebuilding of the residence at Ribston appears now to have occupied Sir Henry’s attention, and he took it in hand. As shown in Chapter II, Sir John stated in 1669 that it was his intention to re-build Ribston, but his death the following year, delayed the work. Sir Henry evidently considered the old buildings of the Knights Templars, which had been converted into a residence more than a hundred years, previously, were worn out and no longer suited to either the time or circumstances. He accordingly pulled the whole of them down, accepting a very small portion of the chapel, in 1673 and upon the same site, he constructed the new Hall, the main portion of which we see at the present time.

This work of re-building was completed in 1674 and that date was carved above the saloon door facing the south-west, together with the Goodricke cipher, evidently copied from the old one of his (Sir Henry's) grand-father's time in the stained glass of the Hunsingore Church, and the whole, surmounted with a handsome shield, displaying Sir Henry's arms impaled with those of his wife.

It is unnecessary for me here to repeat any description of Sir Henry's work when I have detailed in Chapter II, and which is so well represented in Kip's view. It was, therefore, during the time that Sir Henry was engaged re-building his residence on an extensive scale that he was induced by the vacancy at Boroughbridge and the persuasions of his great friend Sir John Reresby to enter into political life. He was then just thirty-one years of age. He sat for Boroughbridge from 1673 to 1679, and his political career thus commenced, continued until his death. He was again elected for Boroughbridge in 1685 and remained its representative until he died in 1705.

In the year 1678 the state of affairs in Holland had become acute.  The was with France whose growing power was causing great alarm had been dragging on for years and notwithstanding the manful struggle which had been displayed by the Prince of Orange supported by the German States against Louis, Holland was in a bad way.  The Earl of Danby and the nation had urged Charles to join the Dutch and to put up an effectual curb upon the ambition of the French King.  Charles, however, was sincerely anxious for peace and as a means to this end he had consented to the marriage of his niece, the princess Mary, elder daughter of the Duke of York to the Prince of Orange and this had taken place on 4th November 1677 to the satisfaction of the country generally.  But in the spring of 1678 the French King, himself took the field and appeared before Ghent and Ypres, and speedily making himself master of both places, greatly alarmed the Dutch.  Charles immediately began to enlist forces and such was the ardour of the English for a war with France that an army of about twenty thousand men was raised in a short time.  One of the regiments raised for service in Flanders in aid of the Dutch was under the command of Sir Henry Goodricke.  His commission as Colonel is dated February 26th 1678 and this interesting document is still at Ribston folded up with another commission (dated 17th October in the same year) appointing Sir Henry to be Colonel of a regiment of the Trained Bands or Militia.  They are endorsed in Sir Henry's own hand thus: -

"My Commissions for foreign service, and for my Militia Regiment under my Ld. of Danby etc."
      H. Goodricke."

A very interesting Muster Roll dated 1st May 1678 is attached to the Commission for Foreign Service (26th February 1678).  It is written on parchment and gives the names of ten Captains, nine Lieutenants, nine Ensigns, Adjutant, Quarter Master, Chaplain and Surgeon.  First in the list of Ensigns is John Goodricke, eldest son of Captain Henry Goodricke of the Parliamentary Army, and the Roll bears the signatures of Sir H. Goodricke and John Goodricke.

Sir Henry's Regiment, which was a thousand strong preceded to Flanders where it served in 1678, but in August the French King, consented to the evacuation of the towns they had occupied and after some indecision on the part of Holland and England a treaty of peace was ratified at Nymwegen.  By this treaty the Dutch secured the integrity and independence of their country and all the conquests made by the French, which were not inconsiderable, were given up.  Sir Henry's regiment returned to England without having, so far as is now known, been in any engagement whatever and it was disbanded, with several others in March 1679.  (C. Dalton's English Army Lists).

In November 1678 Sir Henry, was in England for on the 21st of that month he was challenged to a duel by one of the Captains of his regiment who had thrown up his commission.  The reason for this action does not appear in the account we have of this affair, nor the name of the offended captain.  The names of the Captains contained in the Muster Roll before mentioned, were: - John Rumsey; Wm. Lesley; Thomas Fairfax; Jonathan Jenings, Christ. Tancred; Symond Pack; Wm.  Norton...Buller and Wm. Stow, and we are left at present to conjecture which of these nine gentlemen it was who challenged his Colonel.

Parliament had met on 21st October 1678 and Sir Henry who was member for Boroughbridge was up for the session.  Sir John Reresby who represented Aldborough, and who was such a close friend of Sir Henry's that they called each other brothers, was also up for the sitting of Parliament.

Sir Henry accepted the challenge and went in search of his friend Sir John Reresby to act as his second.  Sir John was not at home, however, so he sought out Sir Thomas Mauleverer who accompanied him and in the combat, which followed

"Sir Henry wounded and disarmed his adversary while Mauleverer ran his sword through the body."

Sir John Reresby's account of this duel is contained in his Memoirs published in 1875, (page 152,) and it is the only one I have yet found but I may mention that I have good grounds for believing that a very much more detailed record of it does exist and was published in some periodical magazine about the year 1900.  Diligent enquiry had failed, as yet, to discover it, however.

Sir Thomas Mauleverer was a very strong partisan of the Parliamentary Army during the Civil War and one of those who signed out of the general pardon.  I have not yet discovered how it same to pass that he was at large at this period and able to figure on a duel!  Reresby says he had command of a troop in Monmouth's rebellion in 1685 and that

"he was hated as a reputed Papist."  (York: A. & T. Journal, Vol. 8. 1884. p.440).

His career appears to have been clouded with many changes.  On the 28th November 1678 Sir Henry was appointed Ambassador to the Court of Spain in place of Sir William Godolphin recalled.  Godolphin had been ambassador since 1672, but his leaning towards Romanism caused his to be greatly mistrusted and on 12 November 1678 the House of Commons voted an address for his recall.  He remained in Spain, however, openly embraced Roman Catholicism and died at Madrid 11 July 1696.  Sir Henry did not proceed to Spain immediately, however, and it was not until the following April (1679) that a warrant for his expenses was issued by the Exchequer.  the amount allowed him was £5 per day for his "ordinary entertainment" and £500 for his "equipage." (Signet Rolls 1679 & 1684).

Sir Henry's formal "Instructions" which are rather long but very interesting are contained in Rawl M.S. App. 256, p.p. 138-141 and will be found printed in full in my Family History.  (Goodricke p.p. 25 to 27)   They bear the signature of Charles II and in a postscript the King instructs Sir Henry to express to the Spanish King his desire for the prosperity of the Spanish Crown and particularly for the Spanish Netherlands and to remind his Majesty how he (Charles) pressed the French King to concede more advantageous conditions than those arrived at in the Nymwegen treaty.  He also reminds Sir Henry how quickly and at what cost an Army was levied in England and sent over to oppose the French and having himself been an officer in this army and an eye-witness of its arrival and marches in Flanders he could personally assure the King of Spain of the great interest in Spanish affairs which obtained at the English Court.  These instructions are dated 10th June 1679.  Sir Henry proceeded to Madrid travelling through Holland and France.  The journey was an "extraordinary" one and apparently it took an inordinate time, as we do not hear of Sir Henry's arrival at Madrid until December 1679.  The King of Spain (who was Charles II) had just been married to Marie Louise of Orleans and in a letter dated 5th December, Sir Henry complains of the delay in his reception at the Court, everything being postponed until after the public entry of the new Queen, which had then been fixed for 21st December.  Sir Henry says: -

"The preparations are magnificent and question less, the solemnity will be very splendid.  The Queen is admired by all, and behaves herself to admiration."

On 16th January 1680, Sir Henry had an audience of the King and Queen and he then presented the letters he carried from the English Court.  In a letter to Lord Clarendon dated February 8th 1680 (Add. M.S. 17017, p. 66, Brit. Mus.)  Sir Henry describes the audience in a most interesting manner but as this letter is printed in full in my Family History p.p. 27 & 28 (Vide end of this volume) I will not repeat it.

Affairs were not prosperous with Spain at this time.  The monarchy has been described by Mr. W.A. Phillips, M.A. in the Encyc: Brit: 11th Ed. (Vol. 25, p. 552) as:

"an inert mass which Louis XIV treated as raw material to be cut into at his discretion and saved from dismemberment only by the intervention of England and Holland."
"Spain took a subordinate and passive part in the Dutch wars - the King was imbecile."

Of troubles with France there had always been an abundance and the differences between the Spanish and French Courts which were still simmering at the time of Sir Henry's arrival - burst out into flame in the winter of 1682.  It appears that Charles (England) had offered to mediate between the Spanish and French Kings and Sir Henry was instructed accordingly.  The Spanish King however was ill-leased, and there can be little doubt that his loss of power in Holland added to the general inertness and deficiency in strength of the whole nation, and probably, too, the distrust - no doubt justly felt - of the English King - all contributed to the hostile attitude now assumed towards the English Ambassador. all contributed to the hostile attitude now assumed towards the English Ambassador.  About 10th December 1682, Sir Henry was peremptorily ordered to take down Royal Arms from above his gate and leave the City. This order Sir Henry ignored and he was consequently seized (10th December) and conducted out of the City to a convent of the Hieronymites. Lady Goodricke was also separately conducted to the same place, the same day, in the Dutch Ambassador's Coach. A full account of what now happened, extracted from the 7th Report of Royal Commission on Historical M.S.S. Vol 7, will be found at pages' 29-30 of my Family History, so I will not repeat it here. Suffice it to say that Sir Henry and his Lady were detained prisoners at the Convent and were not even allowed to return to Madrid to gather up their effects. It was not until 28th January 1683 that Lady Goodricke was able and permitted to leave and join Sir Henry who had fled previously in some haste. They met on the road some distance from Madrid and journeyed together through Catalonia and France, passed through Paris about the middle of March and reached London about the end of that month.

Of course such treatment of an Ambassador was wholly unjustifiable and it was felt in Madrid that it was very ill-timed, but the insult had been hastily offered by the Spanish Court and having determined not to accept any intervention on the part of the English King, Spain now went a step further by resolving to forbid the importation of goods of English manufacture.

King Charles died on 6th February 1685, the Monarch who, it is remarked

 "never said a foolish thing, nor ever did a wise one."

James, Duke of York, now became King and one of his first acts was to attend openly and with all of the ensigns of his Royal Dignity, at the Mass of the Roman Communion and by this imprudence, he exhibited the strong bias of his religious feelings. While in the Privy Council chamber, he made professions of his determination to maintain the Established Church, he secretly sent Caryl, as his agent, to Rome to make submissions to the Pope and to pave the way for a solemn re-admission of England into the bosom of the Roman Church.

A Parliament was summoned, May 19th 1685, to which Sir Henry Goodricke was again returned as member for Boroughbridge. He had previously, 12 August 1684, and again 6th April 1685, received Commissions as Deputy Lieutenant for the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Sir Henry was, however, a very strong hater of Popery and he joined most heartily in the general disgust at the new King's proceedings and despotic conduct, which were destined to bring ruin upon him so speedily.

Beyond his position as a Member of Parliament and a Deputy Lieutenant, Sir Henry appears to have taken no active public part in politics during the short reign of James II (1685-1688) until near its end when he became a strong supporter of William Prince of Orange.
But although Sir Henry did not assume any outward participation in politics, he was a silent observer of all that was taking place. He witnessed the open defiance of the Test Act, the appointment of Romanists as Privy Councillors, Civil and Military Officers, the consecration of four Roman Catholic Vicars Apostolic, the royal chapels used for Roman Services, the appointment of a Roman as Master of University College, Oxford and another as Dean of Christ Church. In fact, James was favouring the Roman Church to the utmost of his power and doing everything he could to depress the Church of England.

As history relates, matters rapidly grew from bad to worse and the greatest indignation was manifested throughout the length and breadth of the Kingdom. At length, the King's "Declaration of Indulgence" by the Test Act was nullified and the order in Council that it should be read during divine service in all churches and chapels throughout the Kingdom, brought down the just anger of the whole community. The Bishops, towards whom all eyes were directed, hesitated not a moment and convening a meeting at Lambeth on 18th May (1688) resolved that the Declaration should not be read. The King told the Bishops that for their "rebellion" they should feel his displeasure.  The Primate and six Bishops were commanded to appear before the King in Council on 8th June and, upon their refusal, they were thrown into the Tower and tried at Westminster Hall on 29th June. The Jury sat all night and next morning returned a verdict of Not Guilty. This was received everywhere with the wildest joy. London was one blaze of light; the Bishops were called the saviours of the nation. This was the final act, which culminated in James' downfall. No time was lost. On the very day of the Bishops' acquittal an invitation signed in cipher by seven leading men in England, including Compton, Bishop of London and Lord Danby was dispatched to Holland to invite the Prince of Orange to come to England to intervene on behalf of the liberties and religion of the country.

Still not warned by the popular feeling, James refused to give way and it was not until October that he saw his errors, but it was too late.
On 5th November 1688, William of Orange landed at Torbay. Every day now added to James’s misfortunes. One by one his friends fell from him, then his son-in-law, the Prince of Denmark and finally his own daughter Anne, forsook him and on the 23rd December 1688, James escaped from England never to return. On the same day William of Orange entered London.
In these stirring times Sir Henry Goodricke ceased to be a passive spectator any longer.  Every motive, both civil and religious concurred to alienate the King from every rank and denomination of men and Sir Henry united himself with the Earl of Danby (Thomas Osborne, afterwards created Duke of Leeds) of Kiveton, Yorkshire, the Duke of Devonshire and others, in the active promotion of the revolution which placed William on the throne.  The Earl of Danby was a Yorkshire man and a personal friend of Sir Henry who placed Ribston Hall at his disposable as a suitable centre for the discussion of plans.  As before mentioned, Danby was one of the seven leaders of the Revolution who, on 30th June 1688, signed the invitation to William of Orange.

Frequent private meetings were held at Ribston at this time, the earliest of which, any positive account exists taking place on 29th September 1688, when Lord Danby, Lord Dumblane and Charles Bertie were all staying with Sir Henry.  (Dartmouth Papers. p.138.)  Lord Danby, in his letters published in 1710, mentions a later meeting.  He says: -

"The Duke of Devonshire came to Sir Henry Goodrick's house in Yorkshire purposely to meet me there again, in order to concert the times and methods by which he should act at Nottingham (which was to be his post) and me at York (which was to be mine) and we: agreed that I should first attempt to surprise York, because there was a small garrison with a governor there, whereas Nottingham was but an open town, and might give an alarm to York, if he should appear in arms before I had made any attempt upon York, which was done accordingly."

From the evidence we have there can be no doubt that the plans for the seizure of York were fully matured at these meetings, the only point left undecided being the moment which would be most opportune for action and this, of course, had to be left for development.

 The promoters of the Revolution were all men of strong determination and will.  They needed no convincing that James's intention was to introduce Popery, and what was worse they fully believed that he had imposed a superstitious Prince of Wales upon the nation in order to promote Popery and to defeat the Prince and Princess of Orange of their right of succession; all this appeared but too clear.  They had promised him their support with their fortunes and persons and now that news was reaching the country of William's impending departure from Holland it was felt that the time for action was near at hand.

The greatest alarm was felt all through the country at the news, now spreading rapidly, of the intention of the Prince of Orange to invade the Kingdom and the wildest rumours and speculations were rife as to what was likely to happen.  It was suggested in Court circles that William's aim was to be for the crown and the capture by the Dutch of the trade of England while on the other hand the revolutionists were careful to keep their plans secret and persistently to declare that

"the prince was coming to maintain the Protestant Religion and would do no harm to England."

It was about the 4th October 1688 that Lord Fairfax (Thomas, 5th Baron Fairfax, 1657-1710 M.P. for Co, York) Lord-Lieutenant of the North Riding, who was then at York observed to Sir John Reresby, Governor of York, that he thought it could be for no good purpose that the Lords Devonshire and Danby had come down to the country, that they were both of them frequently at Sir Henry Goodricke's, Devonshire pretending he had come only to visit his Estate and Danby to drink the medicinal waters at Knaresbrough!  Reresby says he paid all imaginable civilities to Lord Devonshire at York and had even travelled to Ribston to pay his respects to Lord Danby

"not once suspecting that men of their high quality and great estate could intend anything prejudicial to the government or dangerous to themselves."

  Two days after this (about 7th October) James appointed the Duke of Newcastle to be Lord-Lieutenant of all Yorkshire, and the Duke immediately coming to York commissioned his deputies, of whom Sir Henry Goodricke was again named for the West Riding.  (Commission dated 10th October 1688, now at Ribston),

Important events now followed quickly.  William had landed at Torbay (5th November) and the news reached York by express messenger very quickly.  Reresby at once advised the Duke of Newcastle but his Grace replied that owing to the distance of Torbay from York he did not consider his presence yet necessary!  The Deputy Lieutenants were at this moment all in York and the promoters of the revolution were keenly alert.  Sir Henry Goodricke now took the initiative and proposed that a meeting of gentry and freeholders should be held in the Guildhall for the purpose of drawing up a petition to the King and also

 "to consult on such matters as might be for the honour of God and their own welfare and safety."

Reresby seconded this proposal and a meeting was called, the Duke of Newcastle being asked to attend.

On the 19th November the Duke of Newcastle came to York and Sir John Reresby writes that he sat with his Grace until midnight discussing the position with him and that they mutually arrived at the resolution that if the petition proposed by Sir Henry Goodricke was not conceived in terms of the strictest loyalty they would not sign it.

The following day the Duke called together his deputy-lieutenants, asked them if there was anything meant by the proposed assembly more than to make a declaration of loyalty to His Majesty?  Sir Henry Goodricke at once declared in plain language that he intended to petition for a free parliament, and hoped that the rest, who should meet would concur therein.  The Duke was so much offended at this that he said he would not remain to be overruled by his deputies and would leave York the next day - which he did, the governor protesting.

On the 22nd November 1688, the long looked for meeting in the Guildhall took place.  All the Deputy Lieutenants of the three Ridings were present with several noblemen and a multitude of esquires and substantial yeomen;
the militia was drawn up under arms to preserve the peace.  Sir John Reresby was not present.  Sir Henry Goodricke led the meeting.  He said

"That there had been a great endeavour by the government to bring Popery into the kingdom of late years, and to invade the laws in many ways; that there was no way to redress grievances of this and other natures but by a free Parliament; and therefore this was the only time to petition the King for it; and a better pattern could not be followed than what the Lords spiritual and temporal, or some of them had done   before."

  Sir Henry they read to the meeting the proposed petition to the King.

 Sir Thomas Yarburg, Sir Lionel Pikington and Mr. Stockdale suggested that some expressions in the petition should be softened and that the petitioners ought to assure the King that they would support him with their lives and fortunes in the dangers, which threatened both him and the Kingdom.  These suggestions were not agreed to, however, and Sir Henry and his supporters - those who did not approve of it in its final form leaving the Hall, ultimately drafted the petition.  The signing of the petition was then commenced, Sir Henry Goodricke and Mr. Wortley Montagu leading but before a third signature could be affixed an alarm was raised by Mr. Tancred who rushed into the Hall crying out that the Papists had risen and fired at the Militia.  Whether or not this was part of the original plan or whether it had been expected that the meeting would not last long enough for the signing of the petition to be reached can now only be conjectured but it seems quite plain that what did now happen had all been pre-arranged and that it was carried out exactly as desired by the promoters.  Confusion ensued, all the gentlemen rushing out, Sir Henry Goodricke, Mr. Montagu and Mr. Tancred being among those whose horses were held in readiness.  The concluding episode in this affair by which York was seized for the Prince of Orange immediately followed.  By previous design, well-arranged and still better carried out Danby now appeared at the head of about a hundred horsemen and riding up to the militia raised the cry

"No Popery!  A free Parliament!  The Protestant Religion!"

The militia echoed the shout.  Then the garrison was instantly surprised and disarmed, the governor, Sir John Reresby being placed under arrest.  The City gates were closed and sentinels posted everywhere.  The people were not prevented from attacking and pulling down a Roman Catholic Chapel, but no other harm or destruction appears to have been perpetrated.  The next day - 23rd November 1688 - the Guildhall was early crowded with the chief of the country gentry and the principal magistrates of the City.  The Lord Mayor took the chair.   Danby then proposed a declaration should be drawn up setting out the reasons, which had induced the friends of the Constitution and the opponents of Romanism to rise in arms.  This declaration was eagerly adopted and it speedily received the signatures of six peers, of five baronets, of six knights, and of many gentlemen of importance in the county.  It is needless here to say that to this historical document Sir Henry's signature was affixed!

Poor Sir John Reresby!  Sir Henry's distress for him in his discomfort now showed itself and he immediately went to Sir John, now under arrest, and did his utmost to persuade him to join the ranks of the victorious and reforming party, but his persuasions were all in vain.  Sir John would not yield, although he agreed with the purport of the petition, he replied that his signing of it would be equivalent to joining in the armed force to back it up.  The truth was that Reresby like the vast majority of the gentry throughout the land had for some time past been growing lukewarm and disgusted in the royal cause.  He had been elected M.P. for York City at the General Election after the accession of James II and had uniformly taken a prominent part in the House of Commons as a supporter of James.  A few days later, Reresby requested Danby's leave to go to his country house at Thrybergh promising to remain there quietly and inoffensively whereupon Danby invited him to dinner and immediately told him he would release him on his promise.  Danby also said how the Duke of Newcastle's absence had favoured their plans.

Reresby retired to Thrybergh.  He was presented to William III in 1689, but he died suddenly 12th May in that year at the comparatively early age of fifty-five.

After the successful capture of York, Sir Henry lost no time in proceeding in the direction of his home, and stopping at Knaresborough he entered the Town Hall where a meeting of Roman Catholic gentlemen in the Commission of the Peace was assembled.  This he abruptly interrupted, and drawing his sword, informed them that the authority under which they were sitting was superseded and proclaimed William the Third King.

Sir Henry's popular actions in support of William and reformed government and against the Romanists, and his close association with the great leaders of the revolution naturally brought him prominently forward at the new Court.  He was appointed Treasurer in respect to the collection and disbursements of the taxes in the county of York (Signet Rolls) and on 26th April 1689 he was advanced to the post of Lieutenant General of the Ordnance in succession to the Earl of Shrewsbury.  This position he held until 29th June 1702 (Signet Rolls).

(In June 1907, I came across a collection of 53 original letters written in 1691 and 1692 to Sir Henry in his official capacity as Lieutenant General of the Ordnance.  They are very interesting and I would have acquired them had not the owner, B. Dobell, 77 Charing Cross Road, asked an exorbitant price for them.  They form Item No. 367 in his Catalogue No. 150).

On 13 February 1690 Sir Henry was sworn of the Privy Council.  (One of his signatures as privy councillor can be seen in Add. M.S. 34195, p.p. 119, 125).  He was also a Privy Councillor to Queen Anne.
Few of his speeches in the House of Commons are recorded, but those that have been preserved are

"brief, and to the purpose."

Sir Henry's last act of building or restoration was the "repairing and embellishing" of the old Chapel at Ribston which he completed in 1703 and to commemorate which he erected therein a tablet (Goodricke 32) on which he has recorded his opinion that King William III was

"Our deliverer from Popery and slavery"

a sentiment it is certain, he not only felt most strongly but also shared with others in a marked degree.  Sir Henry died 5th March 1705 and thus ended the life of undoubtedly the most distinguished member of the Goodricke family, if comparisons are allowable.  Mary, Lady Goodricke, died 19th March 1715, aged only sixty-eight and was buried in the Dartmouth family vault in Trinity Church in the Minories, London.

Before closing the present chapter I feel I must allude to the sad story of the Reresbys, as Sir John was not only a neighbour of Sir Henry Goodricke but also a very close friend.  Of the many instances of the reverses of great families, there is scarcely one so striking as that I am going to relate.  This story is not intended to "adorn a tale" but to "point a moral," a sad moral, indeed, and to tell of the utter destruction of a time-honoured race by the profligacy and wickedness of one single descendant, which deplorable circumstances Sir Henry Goodricke lived to witness and to lament.

A grand old pedigree was that of these Reresbys, their home at Thrybergh, one of the loveliest in Yorkshire, and their high county position, the fair result of good and honourable lives and deeds.  We have just seen how, after the capture of York in November 1688, Sir John Reresby, the Governor was permitted to retire to Thrybergh where he died suddenly in May of the following year.  His son William succeeded to the family honours, and this descendant of an honoured line, the possessor of ample Estates and of a name renowned both in the history and literature of his country lived to see him stripped of every acre of his broad lands.

Intemperance and gaming were Sir William's particular weakness and that particularly vile folly, cock fighting, was one of his vices.  Thrybergh was said to have been lost on a single bet so low had Reresby fallen and the wretched spendthrift was at length reduced to such abject beggary that he accepted the menial post of tapster in the Kings' Bench Prison, and was tried and imprisoned for cheating in 1711.

Beautiful Thrybergh was lost in 1705.  John Savile, Esq. of Methley, purchased it.

Sir William Reresby died in abject poverty, "unwept and un-honoured."  His only brother, the landless Sir Leonard, survived him, but at his death the title expired.  (Burke)

"Virtute Victoria"

Motto used by Sir Henry Goodricke on Seal 25th January 1679.

Stowe M.S. 746 p. 7.