|
⬆︎ Use pull down menus above to navigate the site.
|
|
Joshua Greatheed of Gildersome © Charles Soderlund 10/25 (Revised)
For a PDF version of this biography...... Click Here.
Introduction
It seems odd that Joshua Greatheed has remained unstudied for so long since he was at the centre of perhaps the biggest events in Gildersome and Morley's modern history. But then again, the Farnley Wood Plot and the 1663 risings in Yorkshire have been treated as mere footnotes by academics and by local historians as well. Greatheed can also be looked upon as the patriarch of the Scatcherd family, his wealth and property became their legacy and brought about their creation as one of Morley's premier families. The following is an attempt to rectify that oversight.....
Now followeth the Charracter of Joshua Greathead of Gildersom who was called Major Greathead he was reported to be a cunning knaveish man it was a very dangerous thing to be in his company, he was hated by all good men, yea of his neighbours who all stood in awe of him, he was employed sometime to collect Hearth money but behaved himself very ill and was cast out afterwards he was cast into prison, by his Letigacy at the suite of Richard Lepton of Gildersome for Three hundred pounds & died in the Kings Bench at London (1)
The above quote was probably written soon after Joshua Greatheed's death in 1685. The excerpt is from a document found at Wakefield in the office of the Manor Court, contained within a packet of miscellaneous deeds. It was penned in a seventeenth century style by someone unknown, who was familiar enough with Greatheed to have knowledge of the lawsuit between him and Richard Lepton. That event wouldn't have been widely discussed at the time. The rest of the document contained details of the executions of the so called traitors who participated in the Northern Rising of 1663 and the Farnley Wood Plot.
Above: the only likeness of Joshua Greathead known to be in existence. From a Scatcherd collection on display at Morley's Town Hall.
Above, Joshua Greatheed's house, we'll call Major's Hall, in Gildersome on today's Church St.
It was pulled down around the turn of the twentieth century, |
Joshua Greatheed (1615-1685) was born in Morley, at Morley Hole, and moved to Gildersome sometime in the 1640s. In my opinion, he was Gildersome's most famous resident and still retains that status today. On the other hand, as the above quote suggests, he was probably Gildersome's greatest scoundrel. I hope to demonstrate this as the biography progresses. During the turbulent Civil War, he served in the Parliamentary Army under Thomas Fairfax and was promoted to Major for competence and bravery. His role in uncovering the "Great Northern Rebellion" of 1663 and especially the Farnley Wood Plot gained him notoriety, not just in Yorkshire, but within the halls of government, all the way up to King Charles the Second. However, he was vilified as the traitor responsible for the execution and imprisonment of many West Yorkshire men by his ex-comrades-in-arms and fellow nonconformists. After the Plot, he applied to the King, and was granted a position as collector of the Hearth Tax in Yorkshire. His first assignment as collector, in 1666, was a failure when he came up over £2000 short. Thus began a series of investigations and charges that plagued him throughout the remainder of his life. During these hearings he consistently pleaded his innocence and blamed others while claiming his inability to reimburse the Exchequer. In response, the Crown seized many of his properties. Despite his obligation to repay the Crown, which he never did, he continued to wheel and deal, buying and selling properties, especially those rich in coal, and borrowed money which was hardly ever repaid, thus engendering numerous lawsuits. It was one of these lawsuits (1681), filed by a close neighbour in Gildersome, which eventually brought Greatheed down. He was incarcerated in London’s Fleet Street's debtors prison where, after a few months, he died.
|
|
Before proceeding I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions that have become part of his legend.
First, the portrait (right) which has been widely circulated showing the sitter with a tricorne under his right arm is not Joshua Greatheed but rather his great grandson Samuel Greatheed born 1710 in the Caribbean.This mezzotint resides today at the National Portrait Gallery in London. Below is the Gallery's own citation: Sitter: Samuel Greatheed by Richard Houston, after William Hoare mezzotint, mid 18th century 12 1/2 in. x 8 3/4 in. (316 mm x 222 mm) Purchased with help from the Friends of the National Libraries and the Pilgrim Trust, 1966 Reference Collection NPG D2487 William Hoare (1707-1792), Portrait painter. Artist associated with 74 portraits, Sitter in 6 portraits. |
Click the portrait to enlarge.
|
Click on the signatures to see an enlarged version
|
Second, Joshua Greatheed and his family used 'heed' when spelling their surname instead of the familiar 'head' in common use. Most of Joshua's family who appeared in the Batley Parish register, from 1560 on, used the 'heed' version. Joshua Greatheed himself, when signing deeds and other documents, used the spelling "Greatheed." I've seen his signature on many documents from the National Archives (Kew) and the West Yorkshire Archives Services (WYAS). Above left, is an example from a 1670s deed signed by Joshua Greatheed as witness to the signing. The text reads, “Sealed and delivered in the presence of us, // Joshua Greatheed - Franncis Rodes, her T mark - Josias Brooke.”
Left: A sketch of the tomb of Henry Greatheed, the Major’s son. Notice the spelling of the name. (2) This same spelling accompanies archival documents as well as Batley birth, marriage and death records pertaining to Joshua's ancestors and descendants. Norrison Scatcherd (1780 - 1853), who wrote the long winded, “A History of Morley,” was a direct descendant of Joshua Greatheed. Scatcherd mentioned his illustrious ancestor quite a few times; each time he did so, he used the spelling Greatheed. Only the descendants of Thomas Greatheed, Joshua’s father, used the Greatheed spelling, making it a useful research tool when tracing the family's line. |
Third, legend has it that after the Farnley Wood Plot, the Major was so hated by his neighbours that he dared not show his face in Gildersome and Morley. However, after 1663, every official document I've come across describes him as being "of Gildersome."
Note: I may call Joshua Greatheed "the Major" instead and will use the Greatheed spelling when referring to the family in general or when it's specifically used in a document. I will use one of the numerous spelling variations, such as Grethed or Greathead when it's often used in the records.
Note: I may call Joshua Greatheed "the Major" instead and will use the Greatheed spelling when referring to the family in general or when it's specifically used in a document. I will use one of the numerous spelling variations, such as Grethed or Greathead when it's often used in the records.
1. The Earliest Greatheeds
During the Middle Ages, there were pockets of Greatheeds here and there all over England, though mostly in the eastern counties. There was even a cluster in Scotland. Those who made it into the surviving records were churchmen, rate payers, titled persons and law breakers of the lower classes. One, though base born, even made it into the history books. Robert Grethed, better known as Robert Grossetêste (French for Greathead) who became Bishop of Lincoln. He was born to a common family in Suffolk (c.1168 -1253) and rose to become a celebrated statesman, philosopher, theologian and scientist. (3)
Newly acquired research has led me to conclude that the early Greatheed family of Morley was moderately wealthy and locally influential and that they resided on two main properties, one located at Scholecroft and the other at Morley Hole. It's possible that both properties were occupied by the same family which split in the early to mid sixteenth century, though it could have been earlier. In addition, because their occupancy in Morley was almost three centuries long, it stands to reason that many from the numerous generations there, left the nest and settled in various locations in Batley Parish and also to Leeds, Wakefield, York and other Yorkshire towns. For example, one Rychard Greathead of Leeds appeared in the 1552 will of Ann Walker of the same place. (4)
The earliest record of a Greatheed in Morley is in 1379, where one Willelmus Gretehede was found in a list of Morley's free tenants having paid a poll tax of four pence, the same amount as the thirty three others on the list. (5) Where did he come from? Was his family long term Morley residents or did he arrive recently from elsewhere. As far as I can tell, the closest contemporaneous evidence of a Greatheed to Morley's Willelmus Gretehed would be Robert Grethed (probably 1340 to c. 1400) whose uncle was Sir Robert de Swillington, Knight. Robert Grethed owned a great deal of property in Swillington, Great Preston and Kippax as well as in other English counties. Robert was a clerk to Sir Robert and parson of Eckington in Derbyshire and, at the end of his career, was knighted.(6) There's nothing to connect the wealthy Robert Grethed to the free tenant of Morley, yet perhaps there's a common ancestor that’s not too distant. The next record of a Greatheed in Morley doesn’t appear until circa 1500.
Below is a partially speculative family tree of the Morley Greatheeds. Each individual is numbered for easy reference when they appear in the text. Also, every person is supported by extant records, though some of the dates are estimated. Numbers 1 thru 8 were inhabitants of Scholecroft, though doubtless there were also other Greatheeds residing there. Number 9, Robert of the Morley town branch, did exist in approximately that generation, but whether his father was John (3) or traced his direct line to Thomas (2) or William (1) remains to be seen. Nicholas (10) was married twice, first to an unknown spouse, then in 1563 to Agnes Austwick. His name as the father of numbers 12 thru 14 appeared in the Batley Parish register, but did not appear accompanying his children 15 thru 17. Thomas (17) was recorded with only the name Greatheed without a christian name and father’s name, making his position on the tree guesswork. Thomas' (17) children are numbers 18 thru 24. Peter and Nicholas' birth must have been recorded in the Batley Parish register during an eleven year span in which the pages had been torn from the book and subsequently vanished. Joseph died in 1614 so it's possible to infer that Joseph was born during another period of missing parish records. Thomas (17) died in 1622.
An interesting but important fact: In the Batley Parish register, all the family names of the Morley branch, from Robert to Thomas (17) were spelled Greatheed. And, all of Joshua Greatheed's children and descendants who went to the Caribbean used the same spelling.
During the Middle Ages, there were pockets of Greatheeds here and there all over England, though mostly in the eastern counties. There was even a cluster in Scotland. Those who made it into the surviving records were churchmen, rate payers, titled persons and law breakers of the lower classes. One, though base born, even made it into the history books. Robert Grethed, better known as Robert Grossetêste (French for Greathead) who became Bishop of Lincoln. He was born to a common family in Suffolk (c.1168 -1253) and rose to become a celebrated statesman, philosopher, theologian and scientist. (3)
Newly acquired research has led me to conclude that the early Greatheed family of Morley was moderately wealthy and locally influential and that they resided on two main properties, one located at Scholecroft and the other at Morley Hole. It's possible that both properties were occupied by the same family which split in the early to mid sixteenth century, though it could have been earlier. In addition, because their occupancy in Morley was almost three centuries long, it stands to reason that many from the numerous generations there, left the nest and settled in various locations in Batley Parish and also to Leeds, Wakefield, York and other Yorkshire towns. For example, one Rychard Greathead of Leeds appeared in the 1552 will of Ann Walker of the same place. (4)
The earliest record of a Greatheed in Morley is in 1379, where one Willelmus Gretehede was found in a list of Morley's free tenants having paid a poll tax of four pence, the same amount as the thirty three others on the list. (5) Where did he come from? Was his family long term Morley residents or did he arrive recently from elsewhere. As far as I can tell, the closest contemporaneous evidence of a Greatheed to Morley's Willelmus Gretehed would be Robert Grethed (probably 1340 to c. 1400) whose uncle was Sir Robert de Swillington, Knight. Robert Grethed owned a great deal of property in Swillington, Great Preston and Kippax as well as in other English counties. Robert was a clerk to Sir Robert and parson of Eckington in Derbyshire and, at the end of his career, was knighted.(6) There's nothing to connect the wealthy Robert Grethed to the free tenant of Morley, yet perhaps there's a common ancestor that’s not too distant. The next record of a Greatheed in Morley doesn’t appear until circa 1500.
Below is a partially speculative family tree of the Morley Greatheeds. Each individual is numbered for easy reference when they appear in the text. Also, every person is supported by extant records, though some of the dates are estimated. Numbers 1 thru 8 were inhabitants of Scholecroft, though doubtless there were also other Greatheeds residing there. Number 9, Robert of the Morley town branch, did exist in approximately that generation, but whether his father was John (3) or traced his direct line to Thomas (2) or William (1) remains to be seen. Nicholas (10) was married twice, first to an unknown spouse, then in 1563 to Agnes Austwick. His name as the father of numbers 12 thru 14 appeared in the Batley Parish register, but did not appear accompanying his children 15 thru 17. Thomas (17) was recorded with only the name Greatheed without a christian name and father’s name, making his position on the tree guesswork. Thomas' (17) children are numbers 18 thru 24. Peter and Nicholas' birth must have been recorded in the Batley Parish register during an eleven year span in which the pages had been torn from the book and subsequently vanished. Joseph died in 1614 so it's possible to infer that Joseph was born during another period of missing parish records. Thomas (17) died in 1622.
An interesting but important fact: In the Batley Parish register, all the family names of the Morley branch, from Robert to Thomas (17) were spelled Greatheed. And, all of Joshua Greatheed's children and descendants who went to the Caribbean used the same spelling.
Scholecroft Branch Morley Town Branch
⬇︎ ⬇︎
⬇︎ ⬇︎
2. The Greatheads of Scholecroft
|
According to a 1981 West Yorkshire Archaeological Survey: "By an arrangement made in 1246 the vicar of Batley was to receive the altarages and tithes of sheaves from Scholecroft, Howley and Finsdale, which may have been hamlets in Batley township.”(7) This 1246 date was not Scholecroft's earliest mention, a charter made a decade earlier placed it in Morley township. Nor was this all from the mid thirteenth century, as Scholecroft is mentioned in three other documents, one of which declared that a “John de Soothill took yearly from free tenants in Scholekroft 40d.”(8) These medieval references provide proof that Scholecroft was indeed a hamlet of some value. The same archaeological survey also claimed the possibility that during the Middle Ages the hamlet of Scholecroft was located a little less than half a mile to the north of its present location near an ancient field called "Old Scholecroft”(see right). I believe that at least since late Tudor times until the present, the site commonly known as Scholecroft was situated at today's Hillcrest Farm off Scotchmans Lane.
The earliest record placing a Greatheed at Scholecroft can be found in a circa 1500 Early Chancery proceeding entitled Feltwell v Grethed.(9) The plaintiffs were Richard Feltwell and Isabel, his wife, and John Dukkyby and Alice, his wife. Both Isabel and Alice claimed they were the daughters of John Nybson alias John Greeted, son of John Grethed and son of William Grethed. The defendant was John Grethed, who declared to be the son of Thomas Grethed, the son of William Grethed. The dispute was over control of a property at Scholecroft worth eight marks a year (£5 10s or about £3,600 today) containing a messuage with a hundred acres of arable land, twelve acres of meadow, ten acres of pasture and thirty acres of woodland with appurtenances.(10) The Grethed holdings, comprising 152 acres, were large enough to include the entire Bruntcliffe Moor and Birkbie Brow Wood, that is south of Howden Clough Road, west of the Bradford and Wakefield Road, east of Howley Beck and north of Scotchmans Lane. |
From an early 1700s map of Morley made for the 2nd Earl of Dartmouth (above), the field called 'Old Scholecroft' is depicted on Bruntcliffe Moor by the number one, and today's Scholecroft by the number two. Below, on a modern map of Bruntcliffe, the same approximate positions are indicated.
|
According to the defendant's testimony it was revealed that ancestor William Grethed took on the leasehold from “John Walker Chapleyn, William Mo[ley] and Rob[er]t Belhouse,” the previous occupants. When William died the property passed to his son Thomas and Joanna his wife and they passed it to the defendant John.(11) There's no doubt that the defendant won his case. The next verified occupant of Scholecroft was Thomas Grethead who died in 1551. Had the plaintiffs won, the property would have come into the hands of the Feltwells or Dukkybys or both.
It's tempting to conclude that the William Greathede who paid taxes in 1379, above, is the same William who was named in Feltwell v Grethed. This is possible, but based on the number of generations mentioned, it seems more likely that Scholecroft passed to the Gretheds during the reign of Henry VI (1422 to 1461). Scholecroft was not a freehold and must have been held by the Greatheeds under some long term tenancy agreement or by a copyhold lease renewed from generation to generation. The Greatheeds occupied Scholecroft until 1613.
Thomas Grethead of Scholecroft:
Thomas was almost certainly the son of the defendant John Grethed found in the Feltwell v Grethed litigation. Based upon the age of his son John, who was about ten at the time of Thomas' death, he was probably born around 1490. In his 1551 will it states that his wife's name was Elizabeth and his children were William, Anne, Agnes, Alice, Katheryn, John and Isabel. He also claimed to be from Batley, yet all his rates were paid to the lord of Morley.
In 1523, the assets of the principal property holders in Morley were assessed to determine the amount of a new annual subsidy to be paid to King Henry VIII which were used for his disagreements with the king of France. The property holders, the value of their goods and the amount of their tax were as follows: (12)
Goods Tax
Adam Harrop 4£ 2s
Thomas Grethed 4£ 2s
Robert Ellys 2£ 10p
William Thomson 2£ 10p
William Smith in his 1886 book "Morley: Ancient and Modern," commenting upon the above list, paints a bleak picture of Morley in the 1520s:
It's tempting to conclude that the William Greathede who paid taxes in 1379, above, is the same William who was named in Feltwell v Grethed. This is possible, but based on the number of generations mentioned, it seems more likely that Scholecroft passed to the Gretheds during the reign of Henry VI (1422 to 1461). Scholecroft was not a freehold and must have been held by the Greatheeds under some long term tenancy agreement or by a copyhold lease renewed from generation to generation. The Greatheeds occupied Scholecroft until 1613.
Thomas Grethead of Scholecroft:
Thomas was almost certainly the son of the defendant John Grethed found in the Feltwell v Grethed litigation. Based upon the age of his son John, who was about ten at the time of Thomas' death, he was probably born around 1490. In his 1551 will it states that his wife's name was Elizabeth and his children were William, Anne, Agnes, Alice, Katheryn, John and Isabel. He also claimed to be from Batley, yet all his rates were paid to the lord of Morley.
In 1523, the assets of the principal property holders in Morley were assessed to determine the amount of a new annual subsidy to be paid to King Henry VIII which were used for his disagreements with the king of France. The property holders, the value of their goods and the amount of their tax were as follows: (12)
Goods Tax
Adam Harrop 4£ 2s
Thomas Grethed 4£ 2s
Robert Ellys 2£ 10p
William Thomson 2£ 10p
William Smith in his 1886 book "Morley: Ancient and Modern," commenting upon the above list, paints a bleak picture of Morley in the 1520s:
“From this list we gather that Morley at this time contained only four persons of any consequence or position; and we can readily infer that the place could not boast of any group of dwellings worthy of the epithet of village or hamlet, but, scattered over an area of some two and a half miles, and rusticated by hedgerows and in narrow lanes, were a few farmers in their farmsteads, a few manufacturers in their home-steads, interspersed with a very few detached cottages, inhabited by people little better than serfs.”
Compare Morley in the 1520s to Morley in 1379 when the township had thirty four free tenants who paid taxes, apparently making the value of fourteenth century Morley greater. What industries could have produced this difference in income? In my opinion the local name Soothill indicates that there must have been an intensive enterprise in iron mining, smelting, lumber and charcoal. The name Scholecroft was derived from Old Norse meaning a small enclosure with a shed or log hut.(13) It’s easy to picture a village or hamlet coalescing near the field called Old Scholecroft for the purpose of exploiting the surrounding resources. When those resources were depleted, the population moved on, leaving Scholecroft a farmstead of 150 acres centred at today's Hillcrest Farm.
In the Lay Subsidies of 1545 for Morley,(14) there were only two payers. In the twenty two years that had elapsed between the 1523 and the 1545 subsidies, the valuation of Thomas Grethed's goods increased five fold, possibly as a result of the emergence of coal and the burgeoning textile industry:
Dame Katrina Burght …… value of her land was £30+
Thomas Grethed …………... value of his goods were £20 (15)
In Thomas' will, the beginning portion of which is presented below, he claims to be of Batley which is no surprise since Scholecroft was much closer to Batley than Morley. It's been suggested that the Greatheed family, presumably of Scholecroft, had a pew at the parish church of All Saints, Batley. This is supported by Thomas' will in which he states his desire to be buried in the “churche of Batley, in the midle allay.” Since his son John made the same request in his 1594 will, it's possible that the middle alley may have been the resting place of the Greatheeds since the church’s inception in the fifteenth century. In his will, he gave a third part of all his lands and goods to his wife Elizabeth, and though not implicit, I believe he left a third to his eldest son William and a third to his son John, a minor of around ten years of age. It's not specified what and where those lands mentioned were located but it's oblivious that the leasehold of Scholecroft was included. (16)
In the Lay Subsidies of 1545 for Morley,(14) there were only two payers. In the twenty two years that had elapsed between the 1523 and the 1545 subsidies, the valuation of Thomas Grethed's goods increased five fold, possibly as a result of the emergence of coal and the burgeoning textile industry:
Dame Katrina Burght …… value of her land was £30+
Thomas Grethed …………... value of his goods were £20 (15)
In Thomas' will, the beginning portion of which is presented below, he claims to be of Batley which is no surprise since Scholecroft was much closer to Batley than Morley. It's been suggested that the Greatheed family, presumably of Scholecroft, had a pew at the parish church of All Saints, Batley. This is supported by Thomas' will in which he states his desire to be buried in the “churche of Batley, in the midle allay.” Since his son John made the same request in his 1594 will, it's possible that the middle alley may have been the resting place of the Greatheeds since the church’s inception in the fifteenth century. In his will, he gave a third part of all his lands and goods to his wife Elizabeth, and though not implicit, I believe he left a third to his eldest son William and a third to his son John, a minor of around ten years of age. It's not specified what and where those lands mentioned were located but it's oblivious that the leasehold of Scholecroft was included. (16)
John Gretehed of Scholecroft:
After Thomas' death, there's little doubt that his younger son John eventually assumed the leasehold of Scholecroft, but what happened to William his older brother? Other than William's mention in Thomas' 1551 will, nothing else about him is known. He certainly died after his father's 1551 will, but how long after? Batley Church's death register began in 1559, and in no time during or after that date does William’s name appear, so most likely he died before 1559.
As proof that William had dropped out of the picture: in 1562, John Gretehed transferred to Robert Clayton and his son: Land in Pontefract and, “also the moiety of a burgage and a fourth part of a burgage in the same.”(17) And, in 1577 John sat in as a juror in Wakefield along with other prominent West Yorkshire men.(18) Finally, in 1588, another Lay Subsidy was tallied in Morley, of the six who paid the rate, John Greathead was at the top of the list.(19)
Sometime in the 1570s or early 80s, John Greathead, along with John Stubley, of Stubley, purchased from Sir John Saville, Gildersome's lord of the manor, a grant of land in Gildersome of unquantifiable size.(20) This is the earliest Greatheed connection with Gildersome. Out of that grant, in 1589, they resold some or all of the property to the freeholders of Gildersome and Morley, they were: “Richard Sperlynge, of Morley, Richard Hardcastle, Humfrey Reyner, Frauncis Reyner, William Bank, William Crowder, George Appleyard, Christofer Wood, John Kytson, Thomas Boeld, Anthony Skotte, Henry Crowder, Roger Stringer, William Broke and Thomas Roestone.” The property in the sale included fourteen subdivided fields, they were: four Harthill Closes, four Moor Closes, four West Moor Closes and two Carr Closes.(21)
John's purchase and sale of the above Gildersome property epitomizes a man of wealth, probably garnered over the years by his family. Yet in his last will and testament of 1595,(22) he didn't seem to have a lot to pass on or many to pass it to. He named Isabel, his wife, heir and executrix of the residue of his estate in which no properties were mentioned. Without a male heir, the long held lease of Scholecroft was terminated, but Isabel was permitted to live there until her death. John left property in Pontefract to Alice Bury, his sister, and Thomas her son, as well as a leasehold in Woodkirke. And, like his father, he requested to be buried at Batley Church in the middle alley. Among the witnesses to the will was William Birkby and George Baines. In 1598, George Baines married the widow Isabel, and William Birkby took over the leasehold of Scholecroft after Isabel’s death in 1613.(23)
After 1613 the leasehold of Scholecroft transferred to the Birkby family. The name endures today with Birkby Brow Wood. But the Greatheed's relationship with the Birkby family appears to go back at least until the early 16th century as it was written in Thomas Grethed's will of 1551 that Christopher Birkbye was his servant.(24) Since then and over the years until about 1600, their family names have appeared together in numerous records and documents suggesting a close if not a familial connection.
As proof that William had dropped out of the picture: in 1562, John Gretehed transferred to Robert Clayton and his son: Land in Pontefract and, “also the moiety of a burgage and a fourth part of a burgage in the same.”(17) And, in 1577 John sat in as a juror in Wakefield along with other prominent West Yorkshire men.(18) Finally, in 1588, another Lay Subsidy was tallied in Morley, of the six who paid the rate, John Greathead was at the top of the list.(19)
Sometime in the 1570s or early 80s, John Greathead, along with John Stubley, of Stubley, purchased from Sir John Saville, Gildersome's lord of the manor, a grant of land in Gildersome of unquantifiable size.(20) This is the earliest Greatheed connection with Gildersome. Out of that grant, in 1589, they resold some or all of the property to the freeholders of Gildersome and Morley, they were: “Richard Sperlynge, of Morley, Richard Hardcastle, Humfrey Reyner, Frauncis Reyner, William Bank, William Crowder, George Appleyard, Christofer Wood, John Kytson, Thomas Boeld, Anthony Skotte, Henry Crowder, Roger Stringer, William Broke and Thomas Roestone.” The property in the sale included fourteen subdivided fields, they were: four Harthill Closes, four Moor Closes, four West Moor Closes and two Carr Closes.(21)
John's purchase and sale of the above Gildersome property epitomizes a man of wealth, probably garnered over the years by his family. Yet in his last will and testament of 1595,(22) he didn't seem to have a lot to pass on or many to pass it to. He named Isabel, his wife, heir and executrix of the residue of his estate in which no properties were mentioned. Without a male heir, the long held lease of Scholecroft was terminated, but Isabel was permitted to live there until her death. John left property in Pontefract to Alice Bury, his sister, and Thomas her son, as well as a leasehold in Woodkirke. And, like his father, he requested to be buried at Batley Church in the middle alley. Among the witnesses to the will was William Birkby and George Baines. In 1598, George Baines married the widow Isabel, and William Birkby took over the leasehold of Scholecroft after Isabel’s death in 1613.(23)
After 1613 the leasehold of Scholecroft transferred to the Birkby family. The name endures today with Birkby Brow Wood. But the Greatheed's relationship with the Birkby family appears to go back at least until the early 16th century as it was written in Thomas Grethed's will of 1551 that Christopher Birkbye was his servant.(24) Since then and over the years until about 1600, their family names have appeared together in numerous records and documents suggesting a close if not a familial connection.
3. The Morley Town Greatheeds
Living in Morley around the same time that Thomas Grethed (abt. 1500-1551) was living at Scholecroft, was one Robert Gretehede (number 9 on the tree above). Robert may have been Thomas' brother or a cousin of some kind. Between 1522 to 1546, Robert appeared in several documents in which he was described as a rent payer,(25) woolman,(26) chapman(27) and witness to the will of William Barker of Morley.(28)
Nicholas Greatheed (tree #10), probably born about 1535, was apparently a child of Robert. He makes his first appearance in 1560 in the Batley Parish register when his daughter, Johan (#12) was buried. As mentioned previously, the Batley Church’s recording of births, marriages and deaths began in 1559, begging the question whether Nicholas had other children earlier. It also appears that Robert had married twice, his first wife’s identity being unknown. Nicholas married his second wife, Agnes Austwick, on the twenty seventh of February, 1563.
The following are the known children of Nicholas and his unknown spouse:
1. Johanna (Johan) daughter, birthdate unknown, died 04/21/1560, unknown mother.
2. Francis: son, baptized 22/10/1561, death unknown, unknown mother.
NOTE: from 1595 to 1605 there are missing pages in the Batley parish register.
The children of Nicholas and Agnes Austwick:
1. Richard: baptized 8/7/1564, marriage unknown. Richard's children were:
Robert: baptized 11/08/1594
Ellinger: baptized 21/10/1608
Sibyl: buried 03/08/1617
2. Agnes: baptized 16/2/1565, married William Burnill on 28/8/1593, death unknown.
3. John: baptized 28/11/1567, married Margaret Smith on 2/7/1594, burial 8/2/1620.
John's children were:
Robert: baptized 1/11/1594, died 2/4/1617.
Joseph: baptized 10/6/1617, fate unknown, presumably dead before 1620.
Christopher: buried 21/8/1617
Peter: buried 21/8/17
4. Thomas: baptized 04/15/70, married Ellen Oates in Leeds on the 8th of September 1601. Thomas
was a clothier. Regarding their children, I can only find seven boys born to the couple, If they had
other children it must have happened during a date containing the missing pages of the parish
register. Their boys were:
1. Peter: born about 1602. and died in Morley in1649, if married then no children.
2. Nicholas: born about 1604 and died in 1657. Nicholas was married to Isabel who died Jan 1654
at Hunslet. They had one known child named Samuel and possibly a daughter, Mary.
3. Thomas: baptized 02/02/1605, and died after 1664 in Gildersome. He may have married Rebecca
Milner.
4. Robert: baptized 08/09/1608, and probably died 1639. Any marriage is unknown.
5. Joseph: born about 1610 and was buried 15/10/1615.
6. Joshua: baptized 15/10/1615, and died 1685 in London. He married Susannah Crowther. He
became known later as the Major.
7. John: baptized 13/01/1622, and died 1647 in Morley.
Living in Morley around the same time that Thomas Grethed (abt. 1500-1551) was living at Scholecroft, was one Robert Gretehede (number 9 on the tree above). Robert may have been Thomas' brother or a cousin of some kind. Between 1522 to 1546, Robert appeared in several documents in which he was described as a rent payer,(25) woolman,(26) chapman(27) and witness to the will of William Barker of Morley.(28)
Nicholas Greatheed (tree #10), probably born about 1535, was apparently a child of Robert. He makes his first appearance in 1560 in the Batley Parish register when his daughter, Johan (#12) was buried. As mentioned previously, the Batley Church’s recording of births, marriages and deaths began in 1559, begging the question whether Nicholas had other children earlier. It also appears that Robert had married twice, his first wife’s identity being unknown. Nicholas married his second wife, Agnes Austwick, on the twenty seventh of February, 1563.
The following are the known children of Nicholas and his unknown spouse:
1. Johanna (Johan) daughter, birthdate unknown, died 04/21/1560, unknown mother.
2. Francis: son, baptized 22/10/1561, death unknown, unknown mother.
NOTE: from 1595 to 1605 there are missing pages in the Batley parish register.
The children of Nicholas and Agnes Austwick:
1. Richard: baptized 8/7/1564, marriage unknown. Richard's children were:
Robert: baptized 11/08/1594
Ellinger: baptized 21/10/1608
Sibyl: buried 03/08/1617
2. Agnes: baptized 16/2/1565, married William Burnill on 28/8/1593, death unknown.
3. John: baptized 28/11/1567, married Margaret Smith on 2/7/1594, burial 8/2/1620.
John's children were:
Robert: baptized 1/11/1594, died 2/4/1617.
Joseph: baptized 10/6/1617, fate unknown, presumably dead before 1620.
Christopher: buried 21/8/1617
Peter: buried 21/8/17
4. Thomas: baptized 04/15/70, married Ellen Oates in Leeds on the 8th of September 1601. Thomas
was a clothier. Regarding their children, I can only find seven boys born to the couple, If they had
other children it must have happened during a date containing the missing pages of the parish
register. Their boys were:
1. Peter: born about 1602. and died in Morley in1649, if married then no children.
2. Nicholas: born about 1604 and died in 1657. Nicholas was married to Isabel who died Jan 1654
at Hunslet. They had one known child named Samuel and possibly a daughter, Mary.
3. Thomas: baptized 02/02/1605, and died after 1664 in Gildersome. He may have married Rebecca
Milner.
4. Robert: baptized 08/09/1608, and probably died 1639. Any marriage is unknown.
5. Joseph: born about 1610 and was buried 15/10/1615.
6. Joshua: baptized 15/10/1615, and died 1685 in London. He married Susannah Crowther. He
became known later as the Major.
7. John: baptized 13/01/1622, and died 1647 in Morley.
Morley Hole:
(Right) The Greatheed family owned a freehold at Morley Hole. In his 1832 book "A History of Morley," Norrison Scatcherd mentioned several two hundred year old houses situated there, including the one on the right (from an early twentieth century photo). They have since disappeared.(29)
I believe that Nicholas (#10), and perhaps his father Robert (#9) lived and died at Morley Hole, though I can't prove it. What is certain is that Thomas (#17) and his wife Ellen lived there and all their children were born there. The Greatheeds lived there until 1649.
In 1585 Nicholas (#10) appeared as a leaseholder of lands in Beeston, Churwell and Morley.(30) He was also a clothier. When he died he was wealthy enough to leave a will, the contents of which I have yet to see.(31) His Morley property could have included the freehold of Morley Hole which eventually came into the possession of his youngest son, Thomas (#17).
In Michael Sheard's book, 'Records of the Parish of Batley', pg. 171 (1894), he gives an account of the freehold properties owned by the old Batley Grammar School, the rents from which were applied to the school's upkeep. One of those properties purchased by the school's trustees was in Morley and was owned by Thomas and Ellen Greathead, the parents of Joshua Greatheed. The sale was completed in two halves, the first in 1622 by Thomas to the Batley trustees. The second sale to the trustees in 1623, was made by Ellen and her eldest son Peter, Thomas having recently died. The next year, 1624, the Trustees leased the same property to Peter Greatheed for 21 years. A description of the transferred property from the lease is as follows: "two messuages, barns, buildings, orchards, gardens, lands, closes, meadows, feedings, pasture, woods, underwood, &c, in anywise belonging."
In 1636 the property was again leased to Peter for an additional 58 years. The terms of the lease were limited to Peter, his children and his grandchildren. Peter died in 1649, apparently childless, and as Sheard further states: "In 1650, all entitled to any interest under this lease, must have died or surrendered it, for in that year the trustees granted a lease of the estate to Abraham Dawson”
(Right) The Greatheed family owned a freehold at Morley Hole. In his 1832 book "A History of Morley," Norrison Scatcherd mentioned several two hundred year old houses situated there, including the one on the right (from an early twentieth century photo). They have since disappeared.(29)
I believe that Nicholas (#10), and perhaps his father Robert (#9) lived and died at Morley Hole, though I can't prove it. What is certain is that Thomas (#17) and his wife Ellen lived there and all their children were born there. The Greatheeds lived there until 1649.
In 1585 Nicholas (#10) appeared as a leaseholder of lands in Beeston, Churwell and Morley.(30) He was also a clothier. When he died he was wealthy enough to leave a will, the contents of which I have yet to see.(31) His Morley property could have included the freehold of Morley Hole which eventually came into the possession of his youngest son, Thomas (#17).
In Michael Sheard's book, 'Records of the Parish of Batley', pg. 171 (1894), he gives an account of the freehold properties owned by the old Batley Grammar School, the rents from which were applied to the school's upkeep. One of those properties purchased by the school's trustees was in Morley and was owned by Thomas and Ellen Greathead, the parents of Joshua Greatheed. The sale was completed in two halves, the first in 1622 by Thomas to the Batley trustees. The second sale to the trustees in 1623, was made by Ellen and her eldest son Peter, Thomas having recently died. The next year, 1624, the Trustees leased the same property to Peter Greatheed for 21 years. A description of the transferred property from the lease is as follows: "two messuages, barns, buildings, orchards, gardens, lands, closes, meadows, feedings, pasture, woods, underwood, &c, in anywise belonging."
In 1636 the property was again leased to Peter for an additional 58 years. The terms of the lease were limited to Peter, his children and his grandchildren. Peter died in 1649, apparently childless, and as Sheard further states: "In 1650, all entitled to any interest under this lease, must have died or surrendered it, for in that year the trustees granted a lease of the estate to Abraham Dawson”
Click on map to expand.
|
Sheard then includes a list in chronological order of the occupiers of the old Greatheed estate, beginning with Dawson in 1650 and ending with John Fox in 1799. Extant records covering the period, beginning with the early 18th century, confirm that Dawson and Fox were tenants at Morley Hole, a freehold, though no owner was listed.(32) Later, in 1827 and 1843, we discover that the Trustees of the Batley School are the owners of Morley Hole.(33) In the 1910, tax evaluation for West Yorkshire, the Batley Grammar School still retained some of its property at Morley Hole.
|
In a clipping from the 1843 map (above) that accompanies the Morley Tithe Apportionment's, Morley Hole dominates the centre. The four circled properties are shown as still being owned by the Batley Grammar School. Below, the 1843 Tithe Apportionments for Morley lists all the properties still held by the school. As verified in the list, numbers 7, 8, 13 and 14 are in Morley Hole and owned by the Batley School.
From the Parish of Leeds Marriage Records 1601
4. Life at Morley Hole 1623 to 1650:
Thomas Greatheed (#17) was a successful clothier. In 1622 he became ill and most likely was aware that he had but a short time to live. In order to provide for his family in his absence, he sold half of his Morley Hole estate to the Trustees of Batley Grammar School. Thomas died and was buried on the 5th of February 1622 at Batley. The next year, 1623, Ellen, his wife and Peter, her eldest son, sold the remaining half. Peter immediately leased back a portion of their former property and perhaps lived for a time off the proceeds from the sale.(34) If Thomas left a will, then Peter, the eldest (19 yo), was probably named a co-executor and principle heir, while each of the other brothers, all below the age of 18, were undoubtedly left money or property or both, to be claimed upon their majority.
The family appears to have had sufficient resources for their needs and more. Peter followed his father’s trade as a clothier in Morley. All the brothers received a good education, though where is not presently known. Except for brother Robert who, at the age of 17, secured a seat at Magdalen College, where he achieved a B.A. in 1627 (age 22) and matriculated with an M.A..(35) Unfortunately he died young at age of 27.(36) Brother Nicholas eventually moved from Morley to Holbeck and also became a well to do clothier. In May of 1644 he was commissioned as a troop captain in Lord Fairfax's regiment of horse.(37) Brother Joshua was described in his marriage banns (1637) as a clothier. He must have apprenticed with one of his brothers, either Peter or Nicholas.(38) Finally brother John, the youngest, resided in Morley with his brother Peter at Morley Hole. Little is known about John. He may have married but there's no definite proof, he died in 1647.
In 1635, the boys’ mother, Ellen Greatheed née Oates passed away,(39) leaving Peter, Thomas, Robert, Joshua and John residing together at Morley Hole.
Joshua Greatheed and Susannah Crowther (1620-1684) announced their intention to wed in the marriage banns of 1637,(40) but apparently there was an objection, perhaps due to Susannah's age of seventeen. The couple didn't finally wed until the 28th of May 1640. Did the newlyweds move in with the Greatheed clan at Morley Hole, or did Joshua relocate to Gildersome to be near the Susannah's family? Susannah's parents were Ralph Crowther (1585-1658) and Alice Crowther née Scott (b 1580), they married on 15 Oct 1617 at Batley parish church. Ralph's father was Henry Crowther who in 1589 had purchased land in Gildersome from John Greathead of Scholecroft. In those days, the Crowthers were a large Gildersome and Morley clan whose trades included mining, smithing, tanning and cloth making.(41)
At the time of the nationwide Protestation Oaths (1641 to 42) which were also administered in Batley Parish and included Morley and Gildersome, the list of oath takers recorded no male Greatheed or Greathead, 18 or over, as having taken the oath, though there were plenty of them about. It’s certain that the Greatheeds practiced one of the various dissenting doctrines popular in Yorkshire at the time and either refused to take the oath or made themselves scarce when it was administered.
During the Civil War, brothers Peter, Thomas, Nicholas and Joshua Greathead all joined the Parliamentary Army, were commissioned officers and served with distinction. In praise of Joshua Greatheed, Clements Markham, in his “Life of Thomas Fairfax,” wrote the following:
Thomas Greatheed (#17) was a successful clothier. In 1622 he became ill and most likely was aware that he had but a short time to live. In order to provide for his family in his absence, he sold half of his Morley Hole estate to the Trustees of Batley Grammar School. Thomas died and was buried on the 5th of February 1622 at Batley. The next year, 1623, Ellen, his wife and Peter, her eldest son, sold the remaining half. Peter immediately leased back a portion of their former property and perhaps lived for a time off the proceeds from the sale.(34) If Thomas left a will, then Peter, the eldest (19 yo), was probably named a co-executor and principle heir, while each of the other brothers, all below the age of 18, were undoubtedly left money or property or both, to be claimed upon their majority.
The family appears to have had sufficient resources for their needs and more. Peter followed his father’s trade as a clothier in Morley. All the brothers received a good education, though where is not presently known. Except for brother Robert who, at the age of 17, secured a seat at Magdalen College, where he achieved a B.A. in 1627 (age 22) and matriculated with an M.A..(35) Unfortunately he died young at age of 27.(36) Brother Nicholas eventually moved from Morley to Holbeck and also became a well to do clothier. In May of 1644 he was commissioned as a troop captain in Lord Fairfax's regiment of horse.(37) Brother Joshua was described in his marriage banns (1637) as a clothier. He must have apprenticed with one of his brothers, either Peter or Nicholas.(38) Finally brother John, the youngest, resided in Morley with his brother Peter at Morley Hole. Little is known about John. He may have married but there's no definite proof, he died in 1647.
In 1635, the boys’ mother, Ellen Greatheed née Oates passed away,(39) leaving Peter, Thomas, Robert, Joshua and John residing together at Morley Hole.
Joshua Greatheed and Susannah Crowther (1620-1684) announced their intention to wed in the marriage banns of 1637,(40) but apparently there was an objection, perhaps due to Susannah's age of seventeen. The couple didn't finally wed until the 28th of May 1640. Did the newlyweds move in with the Greatheed clan at Morley Hole, or did Joshua relocate to Gildersome to be near the Susannah's family? Susannah's parents were Ralph Crowther (1585-1658) and Alice Crowther née Scott (b 1580), they married on 15 Oct 1617 at Batley parish church. Ralph's father was Henry Crowther who in 1589 had purchased land in Gildersome from John Greathead of Scholecroft. In those days, the Crowthers were a large Gildersome and Morley clan whose trades included mining, smithing, tanning and cloth making.(41)
At the time of the nationwide Protestation Oaths (1641 to 42) which were also administered in Batley Parish and included Morley and Gildersome, the list of oath takers recorded no male Greatheed or Greathead, 18 or over, as having taken the oath, though there were plenty of them about. It’s certain that the Greatheeds practiced one of the various dissenting doctrines popular in Yorkshire at the time and either refused to take the oath or made themselves scarce when it was administered.
During the Civil War, brothers Peter, Thomas, Nicholas and Joshua Greathead all joined the Parliamentary Army, were commissioned officers and served with distinction. In praise of Joshua Greatheed, Clements Markham, in his “Life of Thomas Fairfax,” wrote the following:
“.... the young warriors who flocked to the standard of SirThomas Fairfax, and displayed their prowess on Adwalton Moor. One of these was Joshua Greathead, then aged twenty-eight, who behaved with extraordinary gallantry. Wherever the work was hottest on that fateful day, there was young Greathead's sword gleaming in the sunlight; and, when at last he was forced down Warren's Lane in the press of fugitives, he took away with him more than one honourable wound. His hat, pierced with two bullets, and with the brim literally cut into shreds by cavalry swords, was long preserved by his family.”
On the 7th of July 1643, one week after the Battle of Adwalton, Joshua and his brother Nicholas, presumably with their families, appeared at a double baptism at St. Peters in Leeds. Joshua was recorded in the church book as being "of Headrow" and was there to witness his son Joshua Junior's baptism. Nicholas was recorded as being "of Morley" with a son called Samuel.(42) On the 7th, Leeds was occupied by Royalist troops. Nicholas had not yet joined the Parliamentarian Army but Joshua had participated in the battle at Adwalton (just a mile away from Gildersome). Joshua, in order to avoid capture, must have slipped into Leeds with the baptism party disguised in civilian garb.
In 1643 Joshua was promoted to major of horse. In 1648 he was paid £499 in arrears and £120 in expenses and was probably mustered out of the Regular Army at the same time.(43) However, in 1650, he was commissioned as a major in the Yorkshire militia, a position he probably held until 1660, when many with republican leanings lost their government appointments.(44)
Peter Greatheed of Morley township served as:
“An army quartermaster, and later a sequestrator in Agbrigg and Morley wapentakes.” (45)
Nicholas Greatheed of Holbeck township served:
“In May of 1644 Nicholas was commissioned as a troop captain in Lord Fairtax's regiment of horse..… He served at the siege of York and at the battle of Marston Moor. Greathead relinquished his commission on 2 Dec. 1645, his troop passing to Adam Baynes. In 1648 he claimed a £944 3s in arrears and £693 10s in expenses.”(46)
Thomas Greatheed of Morley township served:
“From 17 May 1643 to 1 Jan. 1644 Thomas was a Quartermaster in George Gill's regiment of horse. By 20 Jan. 1644 he had been promoted captain of a troop in John Lambert's regiment of horse. in which he fought at the battle of Nantwich. In Feb. 1644 he returned with Lambert to the west riding. Greathead served with the regiment into June 1645, and probably well after. In 1648 he claimed arrears of £985 13s and £566 in expenses.”(47)
In 1650, during the Interregnum, a trust deed signed by Lord Thomas Savile of Howley Hall had been granted to lay impropriators (all dissenters) containing “.....a parcell of land called the Chappell yeard wherein the Chappell at Morley now standeth.” Among the eleven trustees who had signed the deed on behalf of the lay congregation were Thomas Greathead of Morley, his brother Joshua Greathead and John Smith both of Gildersome as well as Thomas Oates, of Morley, the Major's first cousin. Others signing the deed were: John Rayner, John Ellis, William Ward, John Crowther, Wm. Bancke, Robert Paulden, and William Burnell, all from the county of York.(48)
Peter Greatheed died in 1649. Having no direct heirs, the lease on his Morley Hole estate was terminated in 1650 and evidently not renewed. Whatever accumulated wealth he possessed must have passed on to his surviving brothers, Thomas, Joshua, and Nicholas. According to a deed made out in 1650, Nicholas was living in Holbeck, Thomas was living in Morley and Joshua was living in Gildersome having most likely moved there sometime in the 1640s.(49)
Sometime after the outbreak of hostilities between the Royalists and Parliament, Nicholas apparently purchased a commission with Fairfax in the parliamentary army. He provided equipment, horses and sixty men. Whether this was accomplished out of his own or borrowed funds is yet to be discovered.(50) In 1648, he asked Dame Mary Bolles of Heath Hall near Wakefield for the loan of £500. In return he signed a bond, putting up 50 acres of his property as security.(51) This loan was probably made to tide him over until the nearly £1700 in arrears owed to him by Parliament was forthcoming. I have good reason to suspect that Nicholas, along with many other officers from the North, were never fully reimbursed by Parliament for their service. Instead of repaying the loan’s full amount to Dame Mary, each year he was forced to pay its interest. This continued until 1653 when he defaulted.(52) Between 1652 and 1657, Nicholas appears to have been desperately in debt. As corroboration, in 1653 Nicolas was incarcerated in a King's Bench Prison, presumably over the Dame Mary Bolles loan.(53) In addition, residing in the National Archives at Kew are no less than eight other litigations involving Nicholas and money matters. In the Bolles v Greathead case (1654), the plaintiff's and defendant's statements are available but the court's ruling is missing,(54) in spite of that, I'm certain the court ruled in favour of Dame Mary, resulting in the forfeiture of Nicholas' fifty acres plus an unknown quantity in penalties. This appears to have been a severe blow in the sad decline of a brave former parliamentary officer. In 1657 Nicholas Greatheed passed away and his brother Joshua Greatheed was appointed his estate's administrator, as presumably Nicholas died intestate. As Nicholas' administrator,(55) the Major was sued by Mary Jackson of Leeds over £80 supposedly owed to her deceased husband by Nicholas. Again, the decision in the case is missing, however, this illuminating sentence was found in the defendants testimony: “....Nicholas Greathead being likewise lately dead very poore and possessed of very small or noe personall estate.”(56)
In 1643 Joshua was promoted to major of horse. In 1648 he was paid £499 in arrears and £120 in expenses and was probably mustered out of the Regular Army at the same time.(43) However, in 1650, he was commissioned as a major in the Yorkshire militia, a position he probably held until 1660, when many with republican leanings lost their government appointments.(44)
Peter Greatheed of Morley township served as:
“An army quartermaster, and later a sequestrator in Agbrigg and Morley wapentakes.” (45)
Nicholas Greatheed of Holbeck township served:
“In May of 1644 Nicholas was commissioned as a troop captain in Lord Fairtax's regiment of horse..… He served at the siege of York and at the battle of Marston Moor. Greathead relinquished his commission on 2 Dec. 1645, his troop passing to Adam Baynes. In 1648 he claimed a £944 3s in arrears and £693 10s in expenses.”(46)
Thomas Greatheed of Morley township served:
“From 17 May 1643 to 1 Jan. 1644 Thomas was a Quartermaster in George Gill's regiment of horse. By 20 Jan. 1644 he had been promoted captain of a troop in John Lambert's regiment of horse. in which he fought at the battle of Nantwich. In Feb. 1644 he returned with Lambert to the west riding. Greathead served with the regiment into June 1645, and probably well after. In 1648 he claimed arrears of £985 13s and £566 in expenses.”(47)
In 1650, during the Interregnum, a trust deed signed by Lord Thomas Savile of Howley Hall had been granted to lay impropriators (all dissenters) containing “.....a parcell of land called the Chappell yeard wherein the Chappell at Morley now standeth.” Among the eleven trustees who had signed the deed on behalf of the lay congregation were Thomas Greathead of Morley, his brother Joshua Greathead and John Smith both of Gildersome as well as Thomas Oates, of Morley, the Major's first cousin. Others signing the deed were: John Rayner, John Ellis, William Ward, John Crowther, Wm. Bancke, Robert Paulden, and William Burnell, all from the county of York.(48)
Peter Greatheed died in 1649. Having no direct heirs, the lease on his Morley Hole estate was terminated in 1650 and evidently not renewed. Whatever accumulated wealth he possessed must have passed on to his surviving brothers, Thomas, Joshua, and Nicholas. According to a deed made out in 1650, Nicholas was living in Holbeck, Thomas was living in Morley and Joshua was living in Gildersome having most likely moved there sometime in the 1640s.(49)
Sometime after the outbreak of hostilities between the Royalists and Parliament, Nicholas apparently purchased a commission with Fairfax in the parliamentary army. He provided equipment, horses and sixty men. Whether this was accomplished out of his own or borrowed funds is yet to be discovered.(50) In 1648, he asked Dame Mary Bolles of Heath Hall near Wakefield for the loan of £500. In return he signed a bond, putting up 50 acres of his property as security.(51) This loan was probably made to tide him over until the nearly £1700 in arrears owed to him by Parliament was forthcoming. I have good reason to suspect that Nicholas, along with many other officers from the North, were never fully reimbursed by Parliament for their service. Instead of repaying the loan’s full amount to Dame Mary, each year he was forced to pay its interest. This continued until 1653 when he defaulted.(52) Between 1652 and 1657, Nicholas appears to have been desperately in debt. As corroboration, in 1653 Nicolas was incarcerated in a King's Bench Prison, presumably over the Dame Mary Bolles loan.(53) In addition, residing in the National Archives at Kew are no less than eight other litigations involving Nicholas and money matters. In the Bolles v Greathead case (1654), the plaintiff's and defendant's statements are available but the court's ruling is missing,(54) in spite of that, I'm certain the court ruled in favour of Dame Mary, resulting in the forfeiture of Nicholas' fifty acres plus an unknown quantity in penalties. This appears to have been a severe blow in the sad decline of a brave former parliamentary officer. In 1657 Nicholas Greatheed passed away and his brother Joshua Greatheed was appointed his estate's administrator, as presumably Nicholas died intestate. As Nicholas' administrator,(55) the Major was sued by Mary Jackson of Leeds over £80 supposedly owed to her deceased husband by Nicholas. Again, the decision in the case is missing, however, this illuminating sentence was found in the defendants testimony: “....Nicholas Greathead being likewise lately dead very poore and possessed of very small or noe personall estate.”(56)
Joshua and Susannah Greatheed and their Children:
Joshua and Susannah had the following children. Except for Hannah and Henry who were certainly born in Gildersome, it's not clear whether the others were born in Gildersome or Morley. However, with Joshua away with the parliamentary army, Susannah probably had her children at her parents house in Gildersome, then called Newhouse.
Right: Situated in Gildersome on today's Church St., across from St. Peters, sat Newhouse, built by the Crowthers. It was gifted to the Greatheeds by Ralph Crowther, the Major's father in law. For two and a half centuries it was known as Major's Hall, and was pulled down around the turn of the twentieth century.
Joshua and Susannah had the following children. Except for Hannah and Henry who were certainly born in Gildersome, it's not clear whether the others were born in Gildersome or Morley. However, with Joshua away with the parliamentary army, Susannah probably had her children at her parents house in Gildersome, then called Newhouse.
Right: Situated in Gildersome on today's Church St., across from St. Peters, sat Newhouse, built by the Crowthers. It was gifted to the Greatheeds by Ralph Crowther, the Major's father in law. For two and a half centuries it was known as Major's Hall, and was pulled down around the turn of the twentieth century.
- Alice - b. about 1640, d. 1727. She married John Smith of Gildersome abt. 1658, they had at least 5 children.
- Joshua - b. about July 1643, d. 1665. He died unwed.
- Samuel - b. about 1644, d. 1721. he married Susannah Appleyard of Gildersome June 1682. They appear to have had no children.
- Hannah - Hannah's birth and death remain uncertain. What's certain is that she was born before 1655 when all of her siblings, except Henry were mentioned in a 1655 conveyance by her grandfather, Ralph Crowther. She died unmarried. She has often been mistaken for Hannah Wood nee Smith (1669-1758), her niece who married Nehemiah Wood.
- John - b. about 1645, d. about Jan 1710 in London. He married Jane Hill in 1670 in London and the couple probably had one boy and two girls both called Anne. He then married Margaret Boote in London in 1689. They had no children.
- Susannah - b. about 1652, d. 1741 in Gildersome, unmarried.
- Henry - b. about 1658, d. 1718 in Gildersome. he married Martha Fox (nee Kinge) in London 1689, she was born 1651 in London and died in Morley 1722. They had at least one child, Mary born 1691, who married Samuel Scatcherd.
5. The Major's Gildersome
During the long period between the beginning of the Iron Age in Yorkshire and the coming of the Normans, the iron rich deposits found in the ridges and vales between the Aire and Calder rivers no doubt caught the eye of all foreign occupiers as they came in successive waves. Gildersome was one of those upland areas with abundant and easy to reach iron ore. It sat, as it still does today, near the convergence of two ancient roads. There's no doubt that the Romans worked the valuable iron resources south of Leeds but there's no evidence of their presence in Gildersome. However, it goes without saying that, during the many historic eras prior to Domesday, there were periods of settlement in Gildersome, of varying degrees, they came and went, and with them came crude ironworking. What concerns us here is the post-1066 intensive ironworking that created the village of Gildersome.
It's not beyond speculation that the abundance of ironstone nodules (iron ore) in the area known in the past as Stoneygate Lane (a lane now called Spring View), resulted in a medieval settlement. There, in an enclosure in the woods, a group of people set up a crude furnace to smelt iron and made charcoal for its fuel. During the early Middle Ages, Gildersome had these resources in abundance.
This crude ironworking grew until about the middle of the twelfth century when boundaries were set and Gildersome became a township with a charter. By then the procurement of ironstone and its smelting had turned into a highly organized enterprise. It's well known that ironworking took place in the West Riding during the Middle Ages. Archaeological evidence and post Conquest documents reveal a thriving industry in the area. As far as Gildersome is concerned, however, the earliest written evidence we have (c.1560s) confirms that ironstone was being mined in Gildersome, but instead of smelting it near by, it was transported to the smithy at Farnley and to the more distant furnaces of Shipley.(57) This suggests that Gildersome’s supply of trees for charcoal was nearly, or completely exhausted. It also appears that, as early as the 16th century, shifting markets and new technologies affected the demand for ironstone while Gildersome’s economy was already in a process of transition toward coal mining and cloth manufacture.
After the decline of ironworking and before the ascendance of coal, Gildersome’s value as an agricultural township was below average. In the 1500’s, Gildersome's principal landholders, the Saville family in particular who held the Manor, began enclosing its common land. This was encouraged by acts Parliament which created legal property rights to land that was previously considered communal, resulting in an adverse effect on the poorer tenants as they had to adapt to the new economy or leave to seek employment elsewhere. Without its iron industry, Gildersome was of little value to the Saville family so they began to sell off large portions of the township’s newly enclosed fields to area yeomen and speculators. A good example of such a sale is the 1570’s Greatheed and Stubley purchase previously discussed above.(58) It’s certain that by the mid seventeenth century most of the field enclosing process was complete except for the occasional sub division. I believe that by 1711 the layout of most of Gildersome’s enclosed fields closely resembled those found on the 1890 O.S. Map of Gildersome.
Probably the most important influence to come out of the 1500’s in West Yorkshire was the approved distribution of the Bible written in English. For those who could read or be read to, it gave them a chance to evaluate the “Word of God” for themselves. This engendered a host of free thinking individuals who eventually coalesced into numerous sects known collectively as “Nonconformists,” a term used for all those Protestant Christian groups and individuals who refused to conform to the Church of England. A good example would be the Puritans. It’s most likely that at least half, if not more, of Gildersome’s population in 1620 were Nonconformists. Prior to 1650 they would have met together in one another’s homes throughout the area, and after that at the Old Church at Topcliffe or in the old Tithe Barn of St Mary’s in the Wood, Morley’s Old Chapel. During the Interregnum, these two meeting places were approved for worship by the nonconforming population.
By 1600 in Gildersome coal mining and the woollen cloth industry had surpassed ironworking, and agriculture to become Gildersome’s most profitable industries. Crude coal mines began to litter the land especially near or within the old iron workings, since iron ore and coal were often found together. The diggings were located primarily on Harthill, at the Old Stone Pits, the western edge of Dean Beck and in the southern parts of the township especially just above and "beyond the Street” (the Bradford and Wakefield Road). Gildersome's location, near the crossroads of the Street and the Leeds to Huddersfield road meant that it had a large and ready market for its coal, all within the radius of ten miles. Coal remained an important resource for Gildersome into the twentieth century.
In 1577, Barnard’s survey described Gildersome as a "hamlet having about twenty dwellings, where it was easy to settle and encroach on the wastes.”(59) As far as I've seen, this is the earliest description of Gildersome. By the time the 1666 Hearth Tax count was taken, Gildersome had grown to forty six structures, mostly dwellings and some workshops, each containing one hearth or more. Of course the poorer classes without a hearth were not included, most of whom were situated on the waste or living in rough hovels. The greatest concentration of buildings, which could be considered the town centre, was located around and near the Manor House, on Harthill, with farmsteads and houses scattered here and there along the roads. With population growth, the town centre was gradually shifting to occupy the area around the Green and the old town centre would later become known as Town End. Aside from its atypical quantity of coal and iron during the 1600s, Gildersome was probably similar to most other small villages, having the usual collection of classes and occupations which can be verified in surviving documents from that period. These included: gentleman, yeoman, clothier, husbandman, woollen worker, chapman, glover, salter, shoemaker, tanner, blacksmith and roper. Owing to its proximity to the burgeoning town of Leeds, it also attracted gentlemen who preferred the country life but had their business interests in town.
A survey plan of southwest Farnley made for Lord Cardigan in 1711,(60) also showed his meagre holdings in Gildersome. It revealed that of the 1,100 acres comprising Gildersome township, Cardigan only owned some waste along the roadways, probably containing 15 to 20 tenancies, and about 10 to 15 acres of its enclosed fields occupied by one tenant, Francis Walker. Freeholders held the remaining 95% of the township. Contrast that with adjacent Morley where, at the same time, freeholders only held approximately 10% of Morley's total acreage while Morley's Lord Dartmouth owned the balance. (61)
It's not beyond speculation that the abundance of ironstone nodules (iron ore) in the area known in the past as Stoneygate Lane (a lane now called Spring View), resulted in a medieval settlement. There, in an enclosure in the woods, a group of people set up a crude furnace to smelt iron and made charcoal for its fuel. During the early Middle Ages, Gildersome had these resources in abundance.
This crude ironworking grew until about the middle of the twelfth century when boundaries were set and Gildersome became a township with a charter. By then the procurement of ironstone and its smelting had turned into a highly organized enterprise. It's well known that ironworking took place in the West Riding during the Middle Ages. Archaeological evidence and post Conquest documents reveal a thriving industry in the area. As far as Gildersome is concerned, however, the earliest written evidence we have (c.1560s) confirms that ironstone was being mined in Gildersome, but instead of smelting it near by, it was transported to the smithy at Farnley and to the more distant furnaces of Shipley.(57) This suggests that Gildersome’s supply of trees for charcoal was nearly, or completely exhausted. It also appears that, as early as the 16th century, shifting markets and new technologies affected the demand for ironstone while Gildersome’s economy was already in a process of transition toward coal mining and cloth manufacture.
After the decline of ironworking and before the ascendance of coal, Gildersome’s value as an agricultural township was below average. In the 1500’s, Gildersome's principal landholders, the Saville family in particular who held the Manor, began enclosing its common land. This was encouraged by acts Parliament which created legal property rights to land that was previously considered communal, resulting in an adverse effect on the poorer tenants as they had to adapt to the new economy or leave to seek employment elsewhere. Without its iron industry, Gildersome was of little value to the Saville family so they began to sell off large portions of the township’s newly enclosed fields to area yeomen and speculators. A good example of such a sale is the 1570’s Greatheed and Stubley purchase previously discussed above.(58) It’s certain that by the mid seventeenth century most of the field enclosing process was complete except for the occasional sub division. I believe that by 1711 the layout of most of Gildersome’s enclosed fields closely resembled those found on the 1890 O.S. Map of Gildersome.
Probably the most important influence to come out of the 1500’s in West Yorkshire was the approved distribution of the Bible written in English. For those who could read or be read to, it gave them a chance to evaluate the “Word of God” for themselves. This engendered a host of free thinking individuals who eventually coalesced into numerous sects known collectively as “Nonconformists,” a term used for all those Protestant Christian groups and individuals who refused to conform to the Church of England. A good example would be the Puritans. It’s most likely that at least half, if not more, of Gildersome’s population in 1620 were Nonconformists. Prior to 1650 they would have met together in one another’s homes throughout the area, and after that at the Old Church at Topcliffe or in the old Tithe Barn of St Mary’s in the Wood, Morley’s Old Chapel. During the Interregnum, these two meeting places were approved for worship by the nonconforming population.
By 1600 in Gildersome coal mining and the woollen cloth industry had surpassed ironworking, and agriculture to become Gildersome’s most profitable industries. Crude coal mines began to litter the land especially near or within the old iron workings, since iron ore and coal were often found together. The diggings were located primarily on Harthill, at the Old Stone Pits, the western edge of Dean Beck and in the southern parts of the township especially just above and "beyond the Street” (the Bradford and Wakefield Road). Gildersome's location, near the crossroads of the Street and the Leeds to Huddersfield road meant that it had a large and ready market for its coal, all within the radius of ten miles. Coal remained an important resource for Gildersome into the twentieth century.
In 1577, Barnard’s survey described Gildersome as a "hamlet having about twenty dwellings, where it was easy to settle and encroach on the wastes.”(59) As far as I've seen, this is the earliest description of Gildersome. By the time the 1666 Hearth Tax count was taken, Gildersome had grown to forty six structures, mostly dwellings and some workshops, each containing one hearth or more. Of course the poorer classes without a hearth were not included, most of whom were situated on the waste or living in rough hovels. The greatest concentration of buildings, which could be considered the town centre, was located around and near the Manor House, on Harthill, with farmsteads and houses scattered here and there along the roads. With population growth, the town centre was gradually shifting to occupy the area around the Green and the old town centre would later become known as Town End. Aside from its atypical quantity of coal and iron during the 1600s, Gildersome was probably similar to most other small villages, having the usual collection of classes and occupations which can be verified in surviving documents from that period. These included: gentleman, yeoman, clothier, husbandman, woollen worker, chapman, glover, salter, shoemaker, tanner, blacksmith and roper. Owing to its proximity to the burgeoning town of Leeds, it also attracted gentlemen who preferred the country life but had their business interests in town.
A survey plan of southwest Farnley made for Lord Cardigan in 1711,(60) also showed his meagre holdings in Gildersome. It revealed that of the 1,100 acres comprising Gildersome township, Cardigan only owned some waste along the roadways, probably containing 15 to 20 tenancies, and about 10 to 15 acres of its enclosed fields occupied by one tenant, Francis Walker. Freeholders held the remaining 95% of the township. Contrast that with adjacent Morley where, at the same time, freeholders only held approximately 10% of Morley's total acreage while Morley's Lord Dartmouth owned the balance. (61)
6. The Major's Property in Gildersome
MAP 1, below, contains a rough approximation of the Major's holdings between the years 1640 and 1686 and is superimposed upon a modern map of Gildersome. Except for the Major’s 1640’s holdings (#s1 and 2 on the map) most of the land was the gift of his father in law, Ralph Crowther. It's helpful to remember that the map has been created by using surviving documents and records, so some guesswork is inevitable. There may also be lost documents and deeds that could add or detract from the map’s accuracy. Many of the field names remained the same as they were later called in the 1843 Tithe Apportionments but some of those fields may have been larger and had since been subdivided.
Key to Map 1:
The red star was the location of Newhouse, Greatheed’s Hall.
The yellow star was the site of a messuage later called Carr Hall.
The orange star was Lepton Place.
The yellow oval is the approximate area of the Queen's Tenement. More on that below.
The yellow dots are areas of surface and pit mining.
The Numbers:
1. The Major’s 1640s holdings, either gifted to, inherited or purchased by the Major.
2. The Great Ing, part of number 1 above and once the property of the ancient the Queens Tenement.
3. A rich mining area in Cockersdale called the Miln Closes. Acquisition unknown.
4. Andrew Hill to Andrew Beck. Crowther legacy. A rich mining area. See Map 3.
5. Below and above the Street. Crowther Legacy. Rich in coal.
6. Harthill, rich in iron ore and coal. Crowther Legacy.
7. The Bell Royds and John Hole, rich in coal. Crowther Legacy.
8. Most likely meeting place of the Farnley Wood Plotters, more on that later.
After the Major's marriage there is the question as to where the couple first went to live. Though the Major probably did reside in Gildersome in the 1640s, he makes his first appearance in surviving records in a lease dated 1650.(62) The document clearly states that, prior to 1650, the Major was not only the owner of the alluded to leased property but of others in the vicinity as well.
In that 1650s document the Major leased to Richard Lepton, "a Lith Close (land with a grain storehouse) called Hollings Close and the Sour Ing," The fields were found below Carr Hall on Map 1, above. The Major, at that time, was busy in the Yorkshire militia and probably had little time to tend to all his land, so Lepton’s generous yearly rent was, "one red rose in the time of roses and no other or more rent provided.” Though it was not stipulated in the lease, Lepton was expected to maintain the appurtenances and manure the fields. The deed also contained these interesting facts:
The red star was the location of Newhouse, Greatheed’s Hall.
The yellow star was the site of a messuage later called Carr Hall.
The orange star was Lepton Place.
The yellow oval is the approximate area of the Queen's Tenement. More on that below.
The yellow dots are areas of surface and pit mining.
The Numbers:
1. The Major’s 1640s holdings, either gifted to, inherited or purchased by the Major.
2. The Great Ing, part of number 1 above and once the property of the ancient the Queens Tenement.
3. A rich mining area in Cockersdale called the Miln Closes. Acquisition unknown.
4. Andrew Hill to Andrew Beck. Crowther legacy. A rich mining area. See Map 3.
5. Below and above the Street. Crowther Legacy. Rich in coal.
6. Harthill, rich in iron ore and coal. Crowther Legacy.
7. The Bell Royds and John Hole, rich in coal. Crowther Legacy.
8. Most likely meeting place of the Farnley Wood Plotters, more on that later.
After the Major's marriage there is the question as to where the couple first went to live. Though the Major probably did reside in Gildersome in the 1640s, he makes his first appearance in surviving records in a lease dated 1650.(62) The document clearly states that, prior to 1650, the Major was not only the owner of the alluded to leased property but of others in the vicinity as well.
In that 1650s document the Major leased to Richard Lepton, "a Lith Close (land with a grain storehouse) called Hollings Close and the Sour Ing," The fields were found below Carr Hall on Map 1, above. The Major, at that time, was busy in the Yorkshire militia and probably had little time to tend to all his land, so Lepton’s generous yearly rent was, "one red rose in the time of roses and no other or more rent provided.” Though it was not stipulated in the lease, Lepton was expected to maintain the appurtenances and manure the fields. The deed also contained these interesting facts:
"And also one sufficient way and passage for wayne carts and carriages and for no other uses, att all times of the year in on and through or in out and through the said South end of the same close of land called the SOUR in the access now there accustomed to and fro and between the said south end of the saide close and one layne called Stonygatelayne which said south end of the said close and the said way and passage the said Joshua Greathead hath souled unto the said Richard Lepton…..” (63)
“Stoneygatelayne,” was an ancient name left over from Gildersome’s ironworking days. It can be found on Map 2, below right, highlighted in yellow.
Richard Lepton was a yeoman and the Major’s neighbour. He lived near today's Manor Farm on Spring View, which back then was called Stoneygate Lane. The site may have been occupied for several centuries prior to the 1650s when it became known as Lepton Place, a name that endured until the turn of the 20th century.
Map 2 represents numbers 1 and 2 on the large Map 1. It depicts the extent of Major’s Farm, a name it possessed from the 17th century until the early 20th. Contained within the orange boundary, it’s shown in two sections divided by the blue dashed line below which is the Great Ing. I believe both portions were held by the major in or before 1640, either by purchase, inheritance or from his father in law, Ralph Crowther, perhaps as a dowry. The Major's Farm was described in a 1681 agreement with the same Richard Lepton as:
Richard Lepton was a yeoman and the Major’s neighbour. He lived near today's Manor Farm on Spring View, which back then was called Stoneygate Lane. The site may have been occupied for several centuries prior to the 1650s when it became known as Lepton Place, a name that endured until the turn of the 20th century.
Map 2 represents numbers 1 and 2 on the large Map 1. It depicts the extent of Major’s Farm, a name it possessed from the 17th century until the early 20th. Contained within the orange boundary, it’s shown in two sections divided by the blue dashed line below which is the Great Ing. I believe both portions were held by the major in or before 1640, either by purchase, inheritance or from his father in law, Ralph Crowther, perhaps as a dowry. The Major's Farm was described in a 1681 agreement with the same Richard Lepton as:
all that messuage ....also the following fields......SOUR ING GREAT ING the Upper Middle and nether BRACKENLEY The SPRING, Coats Close (of Herbert Royds) two closes called the CARR and the PIG HILL.(64) The messuage mentioned was Carr Hall. Surprisingly, most of the boundaries and field names were the same as they were found in the late 19th century and had not changed.
Below the Great Ing sat "Newhouse" along a lane to Tong and Farnley, now called Church St.. It was conveyed to Susannah Greatheed and her children in 1655 by her father Ralph Crowther.(65) According to the law at that time it became the possession of her husband. The Farm and most of the Greathead land later passed to the Scatcherd family of Morley in the early 1700’s, and remained in their family until the first half of the 20th century. |
|
The Major's Hall, by Andrew Bedford
The Crowther Legacy:
Ralph Crowther and Alice Crowther were the parents of Joshua's wife Susannah. By 1640 the Crowther’s owned a large chunk of Gildersome's acreage most of which has been estimated within the red lines of
Map 1 above.
In the 16th century, and possibly even in the 15th, a part of what was later to become Greatheed land, was a tract known as the Queen's Tenement to which a messuage and barn were included. The messuage was called the Queen's Cottage. I believe the cottage was situated on or near the future site of Major's Hall (see: Map 1 above, the yellow dashed oval). In 1597 the Queen's cottage was leased by Benjamin Crowther, but as the name suggests, the property belonged to the Crown. The proceeds from its rents were part of a Royal Endowment and were paid to support a Chantry Chapel in Leeds.(66) A chantry was a dedicated area or an altar within a parish church or cathedral, set aside or built especially for the performance of assigned rituals by the priest.(67) The endowment probably ended shortly after 1603 with the death of Elizabeth the first. The property then came into the hands of Thomas Walker who sold it to Henry Crowther, the grandfather of Susannah Greatheed née Crowther.
As late as the 16th century, members of the Crowther family, were delving near the surface of Gildersome for ironstone. This is verified by an account recorded circa 1557 at the Farnley Smithies, an ironworks situated along Farnley Beck.(68) By the mid 17th century the Crowthers still mined a large amount of acreage in Gildersome but had switched to mining the easily obtainable coal.
It was the Crowthers who built Newhouse in the 1580s.(69) It was situated on Church Street across from today's St. Peters Church, and was near to or on the site of the aforesaid old Queen's Cottage (see the red star on Map 1 above) At the time Newhouse was built and occupied, today's Church Street was nothing more than a country lane with few houses or farmsteads along its route. The lane ran from Morley to the east, to Tong and Farnley to the north and west to Drighlington. Sometime after that, it came into the hands of the Greatheeds and became known as Major's Hall. In 1666 the Hall was recorded as being occupied by the Major's eldest son, Joshua Jr. and in 1672, after Joshua Jr's death, the hall was occupied by his brother John. The Hall was described as having five hearths. The Major’s eldest daughter, Alice, married John
Smith lll, they dwelt in a house with three hearths (possibly Car Hall). (70)
In 1655, Ralph Crowther, in advance of his death, conveyed most, if not all, of his Gildersome property to his daughter Susan Greatheed and her children. Included in the conveyance was Newhouse. The introduction of that 1655 conveyance reads as follows:
Ralph Crowther and Alice Crowther were the parents of Joshua's wife Susannah. By 1640 the Crowther’s owned a large chunk of Gildersome's acreage most of which has been estimated within the red lines of
Map 1 above.
In the 16th century, and possibly even in the 15th, a part of what was later to become Greatheed land, was a tract known as the Queen's Tenement to which a messuage and barn were included. The messuage was called the Queen's Cottage. I believe the cottage was situated on or near the future site of Major's Hall (see: Map 1 above, the yellow dashed oval). In 1597 the Queen's cottage was leased by Benjamin Crowther, but as the name suggests, the property belonged to the Crown. The proceeds from its rents were part of a Royal Endowment and were paid to support a Chantry Chapel in Leeds.(66) A chantry was a dedicated area or an altar within a parish church or cathedral, set aside or built especially for the performance of assigned rituals by the priest.(67) The endowment probably ended shortly after 1603 with the death of Elizabeth the first. The property then came into the hands of Thomas Walker who sold it to Henry Crowther, the grandfather of Susannah Greatheed née Crowther.
As late as the 16th century, members of the Crowther family, were delving near the surface of Gildersome for ironstone. This is verified by an account recorded circa 1557 at the Farnley Smithies, an ironworks situated along Farnley Beck.(68) By the mid 17th century the Crowthers still mined a large amount of acreage in Gildersome but had switched to mining the easily obtainable coal.
It was the Crowthers who built Newhouse in the 1580s.(69) It was situated on Church Street across from today's St. Peters Church, and was near to or on the site of the aforesaid old Queen's Cottage (see the red star on Map 1 above) At the time Newhouse was built and occupied, today's Church Street was nothing more than a country lane with few houses or farmsteads along its route. The lane ran from Morley to the east, to Tong and Farnley to the north and west to Drighlington. Sometime after that, it came into the hands of the Greatheeds and became known as Major's Hall. In 1666 the Hall was recorded as being occupied by the Major's eldest son, Joshua Jr. and in 1672, after Joshua Jr's death, the hall was occupied by his brother John. The Hall was described as having five hearths. The Major’s eldest daughter, Alice, married John
Smith lll, they dwelt in a house with three hearths (possibly Car Hall). (70)
In 1655, Ralph Crowther, in advance of his death, conveyed most, if not all, of his Gildersome property to his daughter Susan Greatheed and her children. Included in the conveyance was Newhouse. The introduction of that 1655 conveyance reads as follows:
“TO ALL XPIAN (Christian) PEOPLE to whom this present writing Indented shall come: Raphe Crowther of Gildersome in the County of Yorke yeom sonne and heir of Henry Crowther late of the same deceased sendeth greeting in our lord on hailing: Know ye that the said Raphe Crowther for the fathers love and affection I have and beare towards Susan my daughter now wife of Joshua Greathead of Gildersome aforesaid in the said County Yorke and for the better maintenance and fray of living of her and her heirs after my decease and for the love and affection which I have and bear as well towards Alice Greathead, Hanna Greathead and Susan Greathead my grandchildren the three daughters of the said Joshua Greathead and for the augmentation of their persons AS towards Joshua Greathead, Samuel Greathead and John Greathead my grandchildren the three sonnes of the said Joshua Greathead (ed. son Henry had not yet been born) and for the better maintenance and advancement of them and their heirs and for divers other good causes and considerations.....”(71)
Ralph then describes the following Gildersome properties which will transfer ownership upon his death. Fortunately, most of the field names survived into the mid 19th century and provide a reasonable estimate of their location.
“....ALL THAT Messuage or Tennement called the Newhouse and all the house pasture barns buildings folds gardens orchards backsides and easements ...... now in the tenure or occupation of me the said Raphe Crowther AND ALSO one close or croft of land lying near or adjacent to the said messuage and also all the several closes of land herein after mentioned that is to say the Middlefield close the close called the close beyond the street the Westmoor close the little close called the little close by the laynside, the Moorfield close the close called John Hoyle the close called Bellroyd theretofore used in three closes and the close called Harthill.”(72)
The grant specified that after Ralph's death all the aforementioned property was to come into the possession of the Major's wife and children when they came of age. The grant also included property in Drighlington and Morley. Ralph Crowther died in 1658, his will contained no mention of any landed property, suggesting that he had disposed of most, or all, prior to his death.(73)
MAP 3. Number 4 on the Big Map above.
Greatheed and Crowther to Scott:
In 1656, the Major and his father-in-law, Ralph Crowther, leased to William Scott the fields called the Street Close, the West Field and Birk Close,(74) part of which which would later come to be called Andrew Hill.(75) How or why the Major and Crowther came to be partners in the lease is a mystery. The Scott family lived above Andrew Hill near the bend of Church Street and gave their name to today's Scott Green. The Andrew Hill property, especially at the low end, was rich in coal and iron ore and some of the old diggings can still be seen there today. In a 1738 deed Samuel Scatcherd the elder of Morley is named the property's owner, it "being his inheritance,”(76) proving that the Greatheed family owned these properties after Ralph Crowther's death
MAP 3, above right. In this clipping from the 1800 Enclosure Map of Gildersome, the three fields comprising the main properties of Andrew Hill are marked with red dots. In the 1843 Tithe Map, those same marked fields were called from left to right: Hillside or Brow, the Moor Field and the Overhouse Croft. The name Overhouse was derived from "oven house" that was once situated there in the 16th century, indicating a furnace and smelting activity.
In 1656, the Major and his father-in-law, Ralph Crowther, leased to William Scott the fields called the Street Close, the West Field and Birk Close,(74) part of which which would later come to be called Andrew Hill.(75) How or why the Major and Crowther came to be partners in the lease is a mystery. The Scott family lived above Andrew Hill near the bend of Church Street and gave their name to today's Scott Green. The Andrew Hill property, especially at the low end, was rich in coal and iron ore and some of the old diggings can still be seen there today. In a 1738 deed Samuel Scatcherd the elder of Morley is named the property's owner, it "being his inheritance,”(76) proving that the Greatheed family owned these properties after Ralph Crowther's death
MAP 3, above right. In this clipping from the 1800 Enclosure Map of Gildersome, the three fields comprising the main properties of Andrew Hill are marked with red dots. In the 1843 Tithe Map, those same marked fields were called from left to right: Hillside or Brow, the Moor Field and the Overhouse Croft. The name Overhouse was derived from "oven house" that was once situated there in the 16th century, indicating a furnace and smelting activity.
7. Morley's Old Chapel Protest
In 1658, Cromwell died, the Protectorate failed in 1659, and a year later Charles II returned to Britain and assumed the throne. With the reestablishment of the monarchy came hostility towards anyone associated with the Cromwellian and Republican regimes. This led to a nationwide removal of thousands of sitting church and state officials as well as retribution against many in Parliament and the former Roundhead army. Those who were allowed to keep their jobs, or in some cases their heads, were forced to take an oath of obedience to the king. The Major certainly lost his commission in the Yorkshire militia. Because of his decade long stint as a militia officer, he worked closely in law enforcement with the Sheriffs of York and highly placed judicial officials. It’s no surprise that he would still wish to remain within that sphere. However, neither the Royalists or the Major’s confederates from republican times would ever fully trust him if he openly took a government position under the new regime. It’s my opinion that soon after losing his militia rank, he either approached the Sheriff of York, or the Sheriff approached him, to discuss a clandestine role. This kind of work, requiring cunning and slightly dangerous, suited his nature, he could tend to his land and coal mines, while keeping his eyes and ears open and report any treasonous speech or activity in the region. As a bonus, it came with a salary and a connection to those in power.
It wasn’t too long thereafter that dissatisfaction with the new regime began to simmer, and then to boil. On the 6th of April 1663, little over six months before the incident known locally as the Farnley Wood Plot, an armed protest occurred in Morley at the church containing the local Presbyterian chapel. It's now known as the 'Morley Old Chapel Protest.' On that day up to 200 protesters occupied the chapel by “force of arms.” All the protesters seem to have been nonconformists of one bent or another and probably most were among the chapel's congregation. Shortly before the incident, the sitting minister, a dissenter, was compelled to 'conform' and swear an oath to the King as dictated in the newly enacted Act of Uniformity. This legislation forbade any form of religious service, ritual or ceremony, except as prescribed by the established church’s ‘Book of Common Prayer.’ The demonstrator’s main concern was that the new regime was apparently forcing all of England into one church with one form of worship. To those who had enjoyed years of religious freedom under the Republic, this was an abomination.
On the 28th day of April, a warrant was issued from the assizes in Leeds calling for the arrest of twenty two men, probably identified as the prime conspirators. They were:
In 1658, Cromwell died, the Protectorate failed in 1659, and a year later Charles II returned to Britain and assumed the throne. With the reestablishment of the monarchy came hostility towards anyone associated with the Cromwellian and Republican regimes. This led to a nationwide removal of thousands of sitting church and state officials as well as retribution against many in Parliament and the former Roundhead army. Those who were allowed to keep their jobs, or in some cases their heads, were forced to take an oath of obedience to the king. The Major certainly lost his commission in the Yorkshire militia. Because of his decade long stint as a militia officer, he worked closely in law enforcement with the Sheriffs of York and highly placed judicial officials. It’s no surprise that he would still wish to remain within that sphere. However, neither the Royalists or the Major’s confederates from republican times would ever fully trust him if he openly took a government position under the new regime. It’s my opinion that soon after losing his militia rank, he either approached the Sheriff of York, or the Sheriff approached him, to discuss a clandestine role. This kind of work, requiring cunning and slightly dangerous, suited his nature, he could tend to his land and coal mines, while keeping his eyes and ears open and report any treasonous speech or activity in the region. As a bonus, it came with a salary and a connection to those in power.
It wasn’t too long thereafter that dissatisfaction with the new regime began to simmer, and then to boil. On the 6th of April 1663, little over six months before the incident known locally as the Farnley Wood Plot, an armed protest occurred in Morley at the church containing the local Presbyterian chapel. It's now known as the 'Morley Old Chapel Protest.' On that day up to 200 protesters occupied the chapel by “force of arms.” All the protesters seem to have been nonconformists of one bent or another and probably most were among the chapel's congregation. Shortly before the incident, the sitting minister, a dissenter, was compelled to 'conform' and swear an oath to the King as dictated in the newly enacted Act of Uniformity. This legislation forbade any form of religious service, ritual or ceremony, except as prescribed by the established church’s ‘Book of Common Prayer.’ The demonstrator’s main concern was that the new regime was apparently forcing all of England into one church with one form of worship. To those who had enjoyed years of religious freedom under the Republic, this was an abomination.
On the 28th day of April, a warrant was issued from the assizes in Leeds calling for the arrest of twenty two men, probably identified as the prime conspirators. They were:
“Thomas Smallwood George Foster and Henry Brooks all of Topcliffe Joseph Roades of Woodkirk John (Silver?) and Henry Jefferson of Haigh Hall Thomas Oates Samuel Ward Robert Halliday and Abraham Dawson Thom Craister And Thomas Atkinson all of Morley John Smith Joshua Greathead John Dickinson Jeremy Boulton And Willm Scott all of Gildersome Samuel Hird Joseph Boamont Richard Brigg Nathaniel Booth and Michael Brigg all of Batley…..” (77)
Of those five Gildersome men named above (underlined), only William Scott was not on Sheriff Gower's payroll later in October.
The incident is best described by the following verdict issued at the July Quarter Session at Leeds
against a certain Mr. Robert Halliday, one of 22 men singled out for arrest in a warrant in April:
The incident is best described by the following verdict issued at the July Quarter Session at Leeds
against a certain Mr. Robert Halliday, one of 22 men singled out for arrest in a warrant in April:
Leeds the 16th day of July 1663
puts himself (before the jury), guilty
And that Robert Halliday, lately of Morley in the county of York, yeoman, with diverse other malefactors and disturbers of the peace of the Lord King, amounting to two hundred persons unknown to the aforesaid jury, on the fifth day of April in the fifteenth year of the reign of our Lord Charles the Second by the grace of God King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith etc., did by force of arms at Morley aforesaid, in the West Riding of the aforesaid county, riotously, tumultuously and illegally assemble and gather themselves for the disturbance of the peace of the said Lord King; and that the aforesaid Robert Halliday, together with the aforesaid other persons unknown to the aforesaid jury, being then and there assembled and then and there gathered, did with force of arms riotously, tumultuously and illegally then and there enter a certain chapel situated in Morley aforesaid in the West Riding in the county aforesaid called Morley Chappell, and then and there for the space of two hours on the same day remained in the aforesaid chapel, with force of arms, unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously and without any lawful authority, and then and there for the aforesaid time in the aforesaid chapel were engaged unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously, and made use of acts of religious worship and forms of prayer neither approved nor authorized or warranted to them by the laws of England, with the intention of disturbing the peace of the said Lord King, of putting fear into the government of the said Lord King, and of stirring up sedition in the nation and the subjects of the said Lord King, in contempt of the said Lord King, an evil example of all other offenders of this kind, and against the peace of the now said Lord King, his Crown and Dignity.” (78)
I assume that those named in the original warrant were singled out as the main organisers, although their names may have found their way on to the list simply through witness identification. Rev. Thomas Smallwood, who was very well known, was probably their religious leader. He had been previously indicted at York for having demonstrated at Halifax and for saying this about Charles' Queen Catherine, a Catholic: “the whore of Babylon is rising and setting up.”(79) For that remark, he lost his seat as Vicar of Batley. The reputations of Joshua Greathead and Thomas Oates were well known in West Yorkshire and their presence must have added a great deal of credibility to the protest and generated many attendants. So far as can be found, of the twenty two named in the warrant only eight faced trial. A Leeds court in July stated that, William Scott, Nathaniel Booth, Joseph Roades, Abraham Dawson & Thomas Atkinson all “took the Oath of obedyense in open Corte.” Also found in the court records for the month of July was Thomas Smallwood, George Foster, Samuel Ward, Richard Halliday, Joseph Roades, Thomas Atkinson and Abraham Dawson. Each had a separate trial in which they were found guilty but were released on a promise to return the next session, until then they were to keep the King’s Peace.(80) The remaining fourteen, about whom no court proceedings can be found, either remained at large or were brought to trial. All those who did have a hearing seem to have been dealt with very lightly, uncommonly so, given the severity of the charges. Is it possible that the sheriff and magistrates were purposefully light-handed at dispensing justice because their agents were among the Morley conspirators? It’s possible that they were awaiting the maturation of the rebel's planned rising with the hope of catching all the guilty in one large treasonous net.
In Yorkshire, during the Restoration, the Morley Chapel Protest may have been the the largest demonstration of its kind and certainly the most violent. It's extremely interesting that a treasonous act of such proportions appears to have been barely reported. Thus far its mention only can be found in the Quarter Session records and in no other contemporary document, published memoirs or later in the histories of West Yorkshire and the Chapel at Morley in particular. Perhaps the affair was officially suppressed or the memory of the event was drowned out by the uproar of the soon to fail rebellion.
Prior to the Protest, in 1650 during the Republican period, a trust deed signed by Lord Thomas Savile had been granted to lay impropriators (dissenters) containing....... “a parcell of land called the Chappell yeard wherein the Chappell at Morley now standeth." Among the eleven trustees who had signed the deed on behalf of the lay congregation were Thomas Oates, Joshua Greathead, and John Smith, who were later participants in the Chapel Protest and the Farnley Wood Plot. After the Plot, control of the Old Chapel passed into the hands of the Church of England and its use by a nonconforming congregation was forbidden.
Norrison Scatcherd, a Morley historian and direct descendant of Joshua Greathead, oversaw some restoration work to the old chapel in 1825. Upon stripping away the plaster from the walls the following was discovered, as reported by William Smith in his book, "Morley, Ancient and Modern:”
In Yorkshire, during the Restoration, the Morley Chapel Protest may have been the the largest demonstration of its kind and certainly the most violent. It's extremely interesting that a treasonous act of such proportions appears to have been barely reported. Thus far its mention only can be found in the Quarter Session records and in no other contemporary document, published memoirs or later in the histories of West Yorkshire and the Chapel at Morley in particular. Perhaps the affair was officially suppressed or the memory of the event was drowned out by the uproar of the soon to fail rebellion.
Prior to the Protest, in 1650 during the Republican period, a trust deed signed by Lord Thomas Savile had been granted to lay impropriators (dissenters) containing....... “a parcell of land called the Chappell yeard wherein the Chappell at Morley now standeth." Among the eleven trustees who had signed the deed on behalf of the lay congregation were Thomas Oates, Joshua Greathead, and John Smith, who were later participants in the Chapel Protest and the Farnley Wood Plot. After the Plot, control of the Old Chapel passed into the hands of the Church of England and its use by a nonconforming congregation was forbidden.
Norrison Scatcherd, a Morley historian and direct descendant of Joshua Greathead, oversaw some restoration work to the old chapel in 1825. Upon stripping away the plaster from the walls the following was discovered, as reported by William Smith in his book, "Morley, Ancient and Modern:”
"It was, however, soon after the times of the Commonwealth that its greatest improvement took place. Scatcherd says that this is accounted for by "the discovery made in 1825 of several ancient scrolls on the walls of the chapel, whose inscriptions indicate with unerring certainty the time when they were written." These inscriptions were as follows:
My son, fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change.
Blessed are the peace-makers for they shall be called the children of God.
Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them.
He hath showed thee, O man, what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice, to love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God.
Lord I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thine honor dwelleth. *
* (all was written in the Old English script of the day)
Near to the one we have first-named, was the Royal Coat of Arms, with the letters "C.R." on each side of the crown, and also above the lion's head, and the date 1664 underneath the whole. Near to the last-named text, was once the Lord's Prayer; and on the other side of the King's Arms it was discovered that there had formerly been the Apostles' Creed; and over the whole there had once been the Commandments. At that time it was common to affix upon walls, passages from Scripture calculated to keep up a feeling of loyalty, and to inculcate a spirit of submission to the restored dynasty........Scatcherd, in his History, gives it as his opinion that the inscriptions in the Old Chapel were levelled at Major Greathead, Captain Oates, and all those who had been privy to the Farnley Wood Plot in the year 1663, and also as a rebuke to the Republicans through out the land."
Scatcherd's assumption was made without knowledge of the Chapel Protest and he suggested that the angered response of the government in 1664 directed towards the Morley Chapel and its flock was the result of the Farnley Plot. Yet no other church in Yorkshire, or perhaps in all of England, possessed a congregation that resisted the Act of Uniformity more zealously. I contend that the Chapel Protest was the Church of England's prime motivation for the stern warning on the chapel walls and the sanctioning of the dissenting assembly.
After 1663, the only service read in the chapel was from the Book of Common Prayer and any practice that deviated from the book was prohibited. Now and again, for the next 24 years, a dissenting minister would successfully petition to perform a service on the chapel grounds but not within the chapel itself. In 1687 a second trust deed was signed, reaffirming the lay congregation's possession of the chapel and its grounds but were still forbidden the use both. Then, with the passage of the Toleration Act (1689), dissenters were permitted to worship freely in the Parsonage House, which was attached to the church, but still not in the church's consecrated chapel.
Two of the many signers of the '87 deed were Jeremy Boulton and John Dickinson of Gildersome. Both were participants in the Chapel Protest and later, at the Farnley Plot, both received favours from the Sheriff of York for services rendered.
There's no record of Joshua Greatheed, or his cousin Thomas Oates, being brought up for charges. Both were well known and could have been easily tracked down. It's possible that the Major had been detained and was offered the chance to turn on his mates. But I don't believe the remaining time before the Farnley plot was enough to vet his sincerity. As said previously, I believe that before and during the Chapel incident the Major was on the payroll of the Sheriff of York and that his name was included in the warrant to preserve his cover. Read on and make up your own mind!
After 1663, the only service read in the chapel was from the Book of Common Prayer and any practice that deviated from the book was prohibited. Now and again, for the next 24 years, a dissenting minister would successfully petition to perform a service on the chapel grounds but not within the chapel itself. In 1687 a second trust deed was signed, reaffirming the lay congregation's possession of the chapel and its grounds but were still forbidden the use both. Then, with the passage of the Toleration Act (1689), dissenters were permitted to worship freely in the Parsonage House, which was attached to the church, but still not in the church's consecrated chapel.
Two of the many signers of the '87 deed were Jeremy Boulton and John Dickinson of Gildersome. Both were participants in the Chapel Protest and later, at the Farnley Plot, both received favours from the Sheriff of York for services rendered.
There's no record of Joshua Greatheed, or his cousin Thomas Oates, being brought up for charges. Both were well known and could have been easily tracked down. It's possible that the Major had been detained and was offered the chance to turn on his mates. But I don't believe the remaining time before the Farnley plot was enough to vet his sincerity. As said previously, I believe that before and during the Chapel incident the Major was on the payroll of the Sheriff of York and that his name was included in the warrant to preserve his cover. Read on and make up your own mind!
8. The Farnley Wood Plot and its Aftermath: The Hearth Tax
Note: The Farnley Plot, its reasons and aftermath are too lengthy, complex and controversial for this article. Instead I intend to focus on Joshua Greatheed's betrayal and rewards. To read more about the Farnley Wood Plot, click on the references below:
The plot described in a bicentennial article from the Leeds Intelligencer, 1863.
Wikipedia
BBC Legacies
Kirklees Cousins: Farnley Wood Plot
For the most academic account, read Andrew Hopper’s:
The Farnley Wood Plot and the Memory of the Civil Wars in Yorkshire
Norrison Scatcherd (1780-1853), antiquarian and local historian, was a direct descendant of Joshua and Susannah Greatheed. He was born and raised in Morley and owned property there. In Gildersome he owned a lot of the original seventeenth century Greatheed land, it having been passed on to the Scatcherds through Mary Scatcherd née Greatheed, the Major's granddaughter. Scatcherd wrote 'The History of Morley’, published in 1830, in which, he claimed to be in posession of many documents, original and copies, handed down from the 17th century. He wrote the following about the Farnley Wood Plot:
Note: The Farnley Plot, its reasons and aftermath are too lengthy, complex and controversial for this article. Instead I intend to focus on Joshua Greatheed's betrayal and rewards. To read more about the Farnley Wood Plot, click on the references below:
The plot described in a bicentennial article from the Leeds Intelligencer, 1863.
Wikipedia
BBC Legacies
Kirklees Cousins: Farnley Wood Plot
For the most academic account, read Andrew Hopper’s:
The Farnley Wood Plot and the Memory of the Civil Wars in Yorkshire
Norrison Scatcherd (1780-1853), antiquarian and local historian, was a direct descendant of Joshua and Susannah Greatheed. He was born and raised in Morley and owned property there. In Gildersome he owned a lot of the original seventeenth century Greatheed land, it having been passed on to the Scatcherds through Mary Scatcherd née Greatheed, the Major's granddaughter. Scatcherd wrote 'The History of Morley’, published in 1830, in which, he claimed to be in posession of many documents, original and copies, handed down from the 17th century. He wrote the following about the Farnley Wood Plot:
“On the 12th of October,1663, 'says the memorandum of an ancestor of mine,' a little before midnight, the following conspirators did actually meet at a place called 'the Trench,' in Farnley Wood, viz: Captain Thomas Oates, Ralph Oates, his son, Joshua Cardmaker, alias Asquith, alias Sparling, Luke Lund, John Ellis, William Westerman, John Fossard (servant of Abraham Dawson, who lent him a horse), and William Tolson, all of Morley. John Nettleton and John Nettleton, jun., both of Dunningley, Joseph Crowther, Timothy Crowther, William Dickinson, Thomas Westerman,and Edward Webster, all of Gildersome. Robert Oldred, of Dewsbury, and Richard Oldred, commonly called the 'Devill of Dewsbury.' Israel Rhodes of Woodkirk, John Lacock of Bradford, Robert Scott of Alverthorpe, and John Holdsworth, of Churwell. Being all surprised at the smallness of their number, they made but a short stay, and, perceiving no more coming, Captain Oates desired them to return home, or shift themselves as they could.”
In early 1664 in the town of York, twenty one men were condemned to death for treason. Nine of those men were from the Farnley Wood muster and were condemned primarily on the testimony of Major Joshua Greatheed.(81) Yet ironically, the Major was one of their leaders and most, if not all, had joined because of his reputation. It was he who had persuaded them to rise, exaggerating the ranks of foot and horse ready to join the cause. Each man there at the "Trench" that night believed that civil war would erupt the very next day. But the Major wasn't there, where was he that night? He had been rounded up, three days earlier, in a preemptive sweep and incarcerated by the High Sheriff of York, as part of a group which included much of the plot's hierarchy throughout Yorkshire. Rumours concerning the Major's defection to the royalists' camp had been circulating and were quickly becoming widespread. Sir Thomas Gower, the High Sheriff, arrested the Major in an attempt to protect him, not only physically but with the futile hope of still preserving his cover.(82)
Two weeks before the Farnley meeting Gower wrote to civil servant Sir Joseph Williamson in London saying:
Two weeks before the Farnley meeting Gower wrote to civil servant Sir Joseph Williamson in London saying:
“Gentlemen in the West Riding of Yorkshire have too hotly apprehended some of the ill-affected, on information of Major Greathead, who has an allowance from the Secretary for his discoveries, but now his information is publicly discoursed of, and the benefit of it will be less; he is one of many, and was close enough till he found some of his secrets known, and he is in danger of being made prisoner.” (83)
A few days later Gower wrote the following to Secretary Bennet, the 1st Earl of Arlington, Keeper of the Privy Purse (Treasurer of the Royal Household) :
“The disaffected hold meetings, and profess to have a party in every county. Will use Greathead roughly, because they begin to suspect him.” (84)
What happened? Why did this respected fighter for Presbyterianism and the Republic change sides, and aggressively so, betraying his friends, family, and comrades? Of course we'll never know his motives, but they were probably the usual ones: the desire for money and power. To understand the depth of his collaboration with Sir Thomas Gower it's only necessary to see the rewards and the deference shown him by the King's own secretary. Even when he was actively defrauding the government, as shall be shown later, he was always treated lightly and with regard, as if he were the one man who saved the North from the rebellious plot.
The whole key to the Major's working relationship with Gower is the gifts and allowance he later received, which came right from the top, the Treasurer of the Royal Household. Gower would never have brought such a dissenter and republican to the attention of the King's secretary unless he was absolutely certain the Major could deliver. Therefore Greatheed must have been subjected to a rigorous evaluation before gaining the sheriff's trust. Of course that would have taken some time and suggests that the Major was Gower's agent early on, and had attended conspiratorial meetings across the whole of the North during the early days of the plot's formation. At these meetings plans were freely discussed and no doubt the Major made suggestions and gave false counsel, all with the purpose of enlisting and ensnaring his unsuspecting comrades. How long he engaged in this strategy is unknown but as long as the plot grew and thrived, it meant job security. This is confirmed in a Nov 7, 1663 letter which Gower wrote to Sir Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington, Secretary of State:
The whole key to the Major's working relationship with Gower is the gifts and allowance he later received, which came right from the top, the Treasurer of the Royal Household. Gower would never have brought such a dissenter and republican to the attention of the King's secretary unless he was absolutely certain the Major could deliver. Therefore Greatheed must have been subjected to a rigorous evaluation before gaining the sheriff's trust. Of course that would have taken some time and suggests that the Major was Gower's agent early on, and had attended conspiratorial meetings across the whole of the North during the early days of the plot's formation. At these meetings plans were freely discussed and no doubt the Major made suggestions and gave false counsel, all with the purpose of enlisting and ensnaring his unsuspecting comrades. How long he engaged in this strategy is unknown but as long as the plot grew and thrived, it meant job security. This is confirmed in a Nov 7, 1663 letter which Gower wrote to Sir Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington, Secretary of State:
(He) “Sends up Major Greathead, with thanks for the assurance that his faithful service will be rewarded; he will declare the whole design; he was thought so absolutely necessary to the military part that nothing could be done without him, and was therefore fully trusted ….." (85)
The next day, the 8th, Gower again wrote to Secretary Bennet saying:
“Major Greathead having been of great use, they gave him great hopes of reward, as well as indemnity; beg that consideration may be had of him, in order that others may be encouraged to do the same.” (86)
Enclosed in the above was a certificate, dated November 5th 1663, by Sir Thos. Gower and three other deputy lieutenants stating that:
“Greathead has effectually contributed to the discovery of the late plot, and thereby to its prevention... “ (87)
In December 21st of 1663 in York, where the rebels’ treason trials were still ongoing, an order went out from the Lord Treasurer at Whitehall, granting Greatheed a position collecting hearth tax revenue out of which he could expect a percentage of the returns. This office was a guaranteed income for life. As his region or “farm,” he was given West Yorkshire and the city of York. His responsibility was to oversee the deputy collectors who would work the parishes. The order stated:
“....to approve the petition of Joshua Greathead, for relief, and for a grant of the Collectorship of Excise in Yorkshire, that as the petitioner did good service in discovery of the late plot, he shall have an interest in the said collectorship when the present farm is expired.” (88)
On the 23rd of December the relief, i.e. remuneration, mentioned above was sent in this instruction from the State Papers of Charles II, issued by Whitehall:
“Warrant to pay Major Greathead £100 (approx. £10,500 today), as the King’s free gift, out of the £2000 for secret services.” (89)
Finally, as if the King's generosity toward this rustic yeoman from the North knew no bounds, on 15 May 1665 this interdepartmental memo was penned saying:
“Reference to the Lord Treasurer on the petition of Major Greathead to be one of the Farmers of Excise for Suffolk, the King wishing to gratify the petitioner, on account of his services in discovering the late intended rebellion in the North.” (90)
Greatheed began the collection of the hearth tax in Yorkshire in 1664. But by the beginning of 1666, those responsible for overseeing the regional tax collectors, called the Grand Farmers, discovered discrepancies in the Major's accounting. The assessments, mostly based upon several years of previous collections, did not tally with the actual returns. I'm not certain as to the initial alleged amount of the shortfall, but in one inquisition conducted in the town of York, the amount claimed had been reduced to £2400.(91) In March of 1666, the Major conducted his own investigation into the arrearage and compiled a lengthy report detailing the results which he submitted to the Grand Farmers. They were unsatisfied with the Major's accounting.(92) As a result, the next year he was ordered to cease collecting completely. During the years 1666 and 1668 a series of inquisitions were held in the city of York aimed at sorting out the deficiency. In July 1667, the Major wrote to Lord Arlington, thanking him for a reference on his petition to the Treasury Commissioners. He asked why he must be a perpetual prisoner, and complained that "all his estate will not pay the money ordered by their lordships."(93) in 1668 the Farmer's auditor, presumably acting upon orders from above wrote: "The account to be engrossed with the allowances now made in consideration of Greathead's services."(94) After those allowances were applied to the Major's account, the debt owed was further reduced to about £1330 (at least 350,000 pounds in today's money).(95) The only penalty imposed was the seizure of some of his unencumbered property. As near as I can tell, this amounted to the sixty acres comprising Major's Farm in Gildersome as well as an unknown amount of property in Leeds, Morley and Drighlington.
Apparently, in 1666, Greatheed had joined in partnership with William Batt, Alexander Butterworth and Edward Copley, who were also hearth tax collectors.(96) William Batt resided at Oakwell Hall, which was about a mile and a half from the Major's Hall in Gildersome. His son, also William Batt, was the famous ghost of Oakwell Hall having died in a duel in 1684. Alexander Butterworth, of Belfield near Rochdale, was High Sheriff of Lancashire (1675 & 1676). Copley, who possessed Batley Manor and resided at Batley Hall, had entered into a bond with the King for the sum of £1350, as security for Joshua Greathead, the Receiver of the Hearth Tax.(97) When the Major defaulted, Copley was called upon to honour the bond which he was financially unable to do. Copley's bond may have been the source of an equal reduction to the Major's balance owed. Copley had all his property seized and was ruined, to the great distress of his wife and children who inherited the debt after Copley's death in 1675. Fortunately, King James II., by deed dated 23 Mar., 1687, “reconveyed the manor and lands to Edward Copley, his son and successor, and he entered and enjoyed the premises by virtue thereof.” (98)
Apparently, in 1666, Greatheed had joined in partnership with William Batt, Alexander Butterworth and Edward Copley, who were also hearth tax collectors.(96) William Batt resided at Oakwell Hall, which was about a mile and a half from the Major's Hall in Gildersome. His son, also William Batt, was the famous ghost of Oakwell Hall having died in a duel in 1684. Alexander Butterworth, of Belfield near Rochdale, was High Sheriff of Lancashire (1675 & 1676). Copley, who possessed Batley Manor and resided at Batley Hall, had entered into a bond with the King for the sum of £1350, as security for Joshua Greathead, the Receiver of the Hearth Tax.(97) When the Major defaulted, Copley was called upon to honour the bond which he was financially unable to do. Copley's bond may have been the source of an equal reduction to the Major's balance owed. Copley had all his property seized and was ruined, to the great distress of his wife and children who inherited the debt after Copley's death in 1675. Fortunately, King James II., by deed dated 23 Mar., 1687, “reconveyed the manor and lands to Edward Copley, his son and successor, and he entered and enjoyed the premises by virtue thereof.” (98)
Lloyd vs Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed: (99)
In the name of the Grand Farmers, Richard Lloyd Esq,(100) was tasked with managing and collecting the debt owed by Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed (B,B,G.) which, when combined, amounted to four thousand five hundred pounds or more. Lloyd’s sworn statement, below, is the best example that reveals Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed's clear intention to brazenly defraud Lloyd, and indirectly through him the crown itself. I have little reason to doubt this assertion since it was a tactic the Major used numerous times. It also suggests that the trio, with Batt as its leader, purposefully conspired to misappropriate hearth tax money from the start.
In the late 1660’s the Crown had many of B.B.G.’s properties jointly or severally seized. The trio (B,B,G) claimed the value of those seized properties, in aggregate, amounted to the sum of one thousand pounds per year.
In November of 1673, a complaint against Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed was sent "To the Right honourable Sir Heneage Smith Knight and Barronett Lord Keep of the Greate Seale of England" by Richard Lloyd Esq. of Halloumi in Nottinghamshire. Lloyd declared that the three debtor's approached him, as manager of the debt, near the end of 1671 and confided that between the three of them that they possessed other lands and tenements worth six thousand pounds per year, furthermore they affirmed that those lands were "lush" and "absolutely free from encumbrances." They proposed that, in exchange for postponing their yearly payment against the hearth debt, they would pay Lloyd £6000 in one payment in a year's time, and in case of default, they offered a surety bond committing those aforementioned lands and tenements as collateral. Lloyd, in his document of complaint said, "your Orator (Lloyd) giving creditt to theire suggestions was prevailed with to accept of them the said security." So, on the 5th day of December of the same year, Lloyd and the trio met before "Sir John Vaughan Knt and Lord Chiefe Justice of his Majistie’s Cort of Common Pleas at Westminster" and all parties signed a surety or bond of "Recognizance" (obligation of record) in which the trio pledged to forfeit their properties if the obligation was not met.(101)
It's clear that Lloyd, eager to make an extra £1500, was hoodwinked. When the trio, not surprisingly, failed to pay at the appointed time, Lloyd began an inquiry into the said bonded lands and tenements. Lloyd's deposition tells it best:
In the name of the Grand Farmers, Richard Lloyd Esq,(100) was tasked with managing and collecting the debt owed by Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed (B,B,G.) which, when combined, amounted to four thousand five hundred pounds or more. Lloyd’s sworn statement, below, is the best example that reveals Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed's clear intention to brazenly defraud Lloyd, and indirectly through him the crown itself. I have little reason to doubt this assertion since it was a tactic the Major used numerous times. It also suggests that the trio, with Batt as its leader, purposefully conspired to misappropriate hearth tax money from the start.
In the late 1660’s the Crown had many of B.B.G.’s properties jointly or severally seized. The trio (B,B,G) claimed the value of those seized properties, in aggregate, amounted to the sum of one thousand pounds per year.
In November of 1673, a complaint against Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed was sent "To the Right honourable Sir Heneage Smith Knight and Barronett Lord Keep of the Greate Seale of England" by Richard Lloyd Esq. of Halloumi in Nottinghamshire. Lloyd declared that the three debtor's approached him, as manager of the debt, near the end of 1671 and confided that between the three of them that they possessed other lands and tenements worth six thousand pounds per year, furthermore they affirmed that those lands were "lush" and "absolutely free from encumbrances." They proposed that, in exchange for postponing their yearly payment against the hearth debt, they would pay Lloyd £6000 in one payment in a year's time, and in case of default, they offered a surety bond committing those aforementioned lands and tenements as collateral. Lloyd, in his document of complaint said, "your Orator (Lloyd) giving creditt to theire suggestions was prevailed with to accept of them the said security." So, on the 5th day of December of the same year, Lloyd and the trio met before "Sir John Vaughan Knt and Lord Chiefe Justice of his Majistie’s Cort of Common Pleas at Westminster" and all parties signed a surety or bond of "Recognizance" (obligation of record) in which the trio pledged to forfeit their properties if the obligation was not met.(101)
It's clear that Lloyd, eager to make an extra £1500, was hoodwinked. When the trio, not surprisingly, failed to pay at the appointed time, Lloyd began an inquiry into the said bonded lands and tenements. Lloyd's deposition tells it best:
“..... upon diligent search and inquire your Orator finds that it was a combinacon and Confederacye betweene them to deceive and defraud your Orator for that money of the said Manors Messuages Lands and Tenements whereof they some or one of them pretended to be siezed in fee* were really in fact the free Lands and inheritance of other men and the said Confederates ..... were no wayes estated or interested therein And in severall other Lands and Tenements whereto they had Tytle your Orator discovered and so the truth is that the same was estated or leased out for very long Termes of yeares and other parts thereof was and is settled in joynture** and some part Mortgaged and the Mortgages forfieted. .....And they some or one of them have since your Orators Recognizance acknowledged severall Statutes or Recognizances and caused them to be antedated*** on purpose that the same may take place and preceed your Orators said recognizance And your Orator hath likewise discovered..... the assurances whereby they hold the land are taken in either mens names or the same Messuages Land and Tenements are made over to other persons in trust for the said Confederates some or one of them and your Orator cannot discover in whome the Title att Law is nor can make certaine proofe of the trust And the said Confederates doe conceal and refuse to discover the same by all which meanes your Orator is wholy to bee defrauded of his said just debt…"(102)
*Property free of burdens, obligations, mortgages etc. **An estate secured to a prospective wife as a
marriage settlement in lieu of a dowery. ***Predated, probably a forgery.
Other than the Major’s betrayal of the 1663 rebel plot, Lloyd's testimony, above, is a most damning indictment of his unscrupulous character, and makes it clear that there was no deed so foul to which he wouldn't stoop. No doubt it was his base temperament which led him to serve the Sheriff of York and makes one wonder what other detestable acts were done when no one was looking. As was said earlier by a contemporary “....he was reported to be a cunning knaveish man it was a very dangerous thing to be in his company.” (103)
After analysing the official treatment of the Major, it's clear that his covert role in the 1663 risings was of a much longer duration than that of simply changing sides weeks or months prior to the 12th of October, as many have suggested. No other spy of Gower reaped the rewards and the liberal forgiveness as did he. He was never forced to settle the debt nor was he thrown into prison, even after the discovery of his tax arrearage. Did he squirrel away some or much of the missing tax revenue? It has never been proven. He did have a London goldsmith who acted as his banker, and it was said that he mixed his personal funds in the same account with the tax revenue.(104) As we shall see, he did receive an unknown amount of income from his coal mining ventures but not a penny of it ever went to pay the Crown. His children prospered and invested in properties, breweries, building schemes and perhaps a West Indies sugar plantation. From the beginning of his trouble with the hearth debt, his sons John and Samuel were implicated and ruled accountable. In the end it was his son John who discovered an error of £800 made by a Yorkshire tax collector who was apparently mathematically challenged.(105) The £800 was subtracted from the Major's debt. After his father's death in 1685, John was made executor of his father's estate. To settle the matter, he paid the remaining £500 and ultimately the seized land in Gildersome was returned to him and his
family. (106)
After analysing the official treatment of the Major, it's clear that his covert role in the 1663 risings was of a much longer duration than that of simply changing sides weeks or months prior to the 12th of October, as many have suggested. No other spy of Gower reaped the rewards and the liberal forgiveness as did he. He was never forced to settle the debt nor was he thrown into prison, even after the discovery of his tax arrearage. Did he squirrel away some or much of the missing tax revenue? It has never been proven. He did have a London goldsmith who acted as his banker, and it was said that he mixed his personal funds in the same account with the tax revenue.(104) As we shall see, he did receive an unknown amount of income from his coal mining ventures but not a penny of it ever went to pay the Crown. His children prospered and invested in properties, breweries, building schemes and perhaps a West Indies sugar plantation. From the beginning of his trouble with the hearth debt, his sons John and Samuel were implicated and ruled accountable. In the end it was his son John who discovered an error of £800 made by a Yorkshire tax collector who was apparently mathematically challenged.(105) The £800 was subtracted from the Major's debt. After his father's death in 1685, John was made executor of his father's estate. To settle the matter, he paid the remaining £500 and ultimately the seized land in Gildersome was returned to him and his
family. (106)
TRENCH GATE TODAY JUST OFF GELDERD RD.
9. Where was the meeting place in Farnley Wood?
A local historian from Morley in the 1970s, wrote about the Farnley Plot, presumably using collected material from local archives, included was this curious sentence: “The conspirators were to meet at the bottom of Rooms Lane in 'The Trench' of Farnley Wood”(107) I agree with that one hundred percent, here's why……
Norrison Scatcherd, a direct descendant of Major Joshua Greatheed, wrote in his 'History of Morley,' claiming that he was in possession of an ancestor's document which named the plot's meeting place as "the Trench in Farnley Wood." There's no reason to doubt his assertion as he possessed many documents and memorabilia from his family's past. Whatever the origin of the name 'Trench' may be, today's Trench Gate and Trench Lane are still in existence. Back then the site would have provided an excellent rendezvous location. Curiously, it bordered the Major’s Gildersome property.
Today it's common knowledge that the Farnley Wood plotters met somewhere in Farnley Wood where their activities would have been concealed in the trees. But does it make sense for the conspirators to have met in the centre of over two square miles of woodland with twists and turns which would have been hard to navigate in the dark? Instead, wouldn’t they have preferred to rendezvous in a remote but accessible location on the edge of the wood where, once finally assembled, they could easily pick up the Leeds road. At that time, Leeds had only one bridge spanning the Aire, at Briggate, to which the highroad from Leeds to Morley led.(108) The only other bridge close to Farnley Wood was near Kirkstall Abbey.
A local historian from Morley in the 1970s, wrote about the Farnley Plot, presumably using collected material from local archives, included was this curious sentence: “The conspirators were to meet at the bottom of Rooms Lane in 'The Trench' of Farnley Wood”(107) I agree with that one hundred percent, here's why……
Norrison Scatcherd, a direct descendant of Major Joshua Greatheed, wrote in his 'History of Morley,' claiming that he was in possession of an ancestor's document which named the plot's meeting place as "the Trench in Farnley Wood." There's no reason to doubt his assertion as he possessed many documents and memorabilia from his family's past. Whatever the origin of the name 'Trench' may be, today's Trench Gate and Trench Lane are still in existence. Back then the site would have provided an excellent rendezvous location. Curiously, it bordered the Major’s Gildersome property.
Today it's common knowledge that the Farnley Wood plotters met somewhere in Farnley Wood where their activities would have been concealed in the trees. But does it make sense for the conspirators to have met in the centre of over two square miles of woodland with twists and turns which would have been hard to navigate in the dark? Instead, wouldn’t they have preferred to rendezvous in a remote but accessible location on the edge of the wood where, once finally assembled, they could easily pick up the Leeds road. At that time, Leeds had only one bridge spanning the Aire, at Briggate, to which the highroad from Leeds to Morley led.(108) The only other bridge close to Farnley Wood was near Kirkstall Abbey.
|
Back then, Rooms Lane would have led directly onto Trench Lane through Trench Gate. To attest to its antiquity, the gate can be found on the 1800 enclosure map of Gildersome (Map 4) and Trench Lane was also depicted on a late 18th century area map (Map 5). Trench lane ran in an arc through Farnley township to Upper Moor Side. Today most of Trench Lane is called Wood Lane. It's entirely possible that the older name came from that fateful night in 1663 when it was said that the men there hastily constructed a trench. In 1663, the gate was close to the junction of four back country lanes; one to Gildersome and Drighlington, another to Farnley, a third to Morley via Rooms Lane and the most important of all was the lane to, the Leeds road via Cherwall. In all likelihood, at that time, the bottom of Rooms Lane may have been within Farnley Wood proper. This remote and secluded location would have been relatively simple to find by determined men who were familiar with the area, especially if they knew the Major. It was said that Greatheed chose the location of the rendezvous,(109) which was only about a mile's easy ride from his home in Gildersome. And, as previously stated, his own property abutted Trench Lane. From there it would have been less than four miles to the Aire's crossing at Briggate and into Leeds. Any other potential assembly point, for those wishing to maintain a low profile, would have been on the west side of Farnley Wood and offered a far more lengthy and circuitous route, both in coming and going.
In Maps 4 (1800) and 5 (1780), the Trench intersection is marked by a red circle. Rooms and Trench lanes were in existence in the 17th century and during the 16th century they were probably used to deliver iron ore to the Farnley Smithies. Harthill Lane probably goes back to the medieval period or earlier. Map 6 (1579) depicts a Farnley Wood not much larger than in the mid 19th century. It also shows the two bridges that span the Aire at Kirkstall and Leeds. |
1800 MAP OF GILDERSOME.
FROM AN LATE 1700S MAP
1579 Saxton Map
|
10. Greatheed as Mining Entrepreneur
As stated earlier, Gildersome and its neighbouring townships were rich with coal and iron ore, both on the surface and not far below. Greatheed struck a gold mine, metaphorically speaking, when his father in law passed on his coal rich properties to him and his family. There's little doubt that the Major would have gladly taken up the gentlemanly profession of mine owner. On Map 1 above, all the yellow shaded circles were areas of easily accessible coal. Near to Rooms Lane there was a productive coal workings called the Jon Hole, and below the Street was another called Johnny Hole. The Bellroyd Closes were most likely named for bell pits, a common excavation technique used when following a nearly level subsurface seam. In addition to Gildersome, he also owned or leased coal bearing properties in Morley and Drighlington. There's isn't much in the way of records to verify his mining operations except for what's presented below, which I believe makes the case very well.
A Farnley Wood Plot attendee in 1663, John Nettleton of Dunningley, in a statement made prior to his execution claimed he worked in Greathead's coal pit, though he didn't indicate its location. (110)
In a 1671 litigation, Favell vs. Greatheed,(111) presented before Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, Henry Favell of Altofts, on the one side versus Joshua Greatheed of Gildersome including Lord Francis Brudnell and Lady Francis Brudenell on the other. Favell was an attorney operating out of the town of York. He claimed that shortly before the death of James Savile, 2nd Earl of Sussex, he was "possessed of severall delves and mynes of coles and stone within the severall townes territoryes premisses liberties and manors of Morley Hedingley Burley Bramley Kirkstall and within the aforesaid Monastery of Kirkstall." He also declared that by an "Indenture of Lease" dated 21 April 1671, Savile, for the sum of two hundred pounds, appointed him "Executor Administrator" over the mineral rights and to dig for coal and ironstone in the aforementioned places. To sum up the terms, it gave Favell full power to search, dig, mine, hire labor, sell any coal and or stone, lease mines and collect rents in almost any property in the above stated manors in which Savile retained the mineral rights. It gave him a right to trespass practically anywhere as long as coal and ironstone were the objective. The duration of this grant was set at thirty two years and came with a yearly payment of "twenty pounds at the two feasts of St. Andrew the Apostle and St. John the Baptist." Shortly after the death of Saville, Favell entered into an agreement with Joshua Greatheed of Gildersome, that for the sum of one hundred fifty pounds, the Major would manage and work the mines and pits in the manors stated above. Greatheed withheld fifty pounds in case the venture proved unsuccessful. According to Favell, as time elapsed Greatheed ignored the terms of their deal and refused to pay the yearly sum of one hundred pounds as well as other operating costs which they had agreed to split fifty fifty. Eventually Greatheed refused to give any account of where and what was going on and refused to share the profits. To put it plainly, Greatheed took over all the mining operations and used hostile threats if Favell interfered. Favell claimed that Greatheed asserted that as the Lady Brudenell (née Savile) was the 2nd Earl of Sussex's sister and only heir, the rights to the mines in the lands recited above were now Brudenell property and that any prior agreements Favell had with her brother were now "voyd." Greathead further stated that the Brudenells had now entered into an agreement with him. Favell complained that he was owed the two hundred pounds from his original investment not to mention the value of the nonperformance bonds Greathead had sworn to at the start of their deliberations. He called the three, "confederates," and all but accused the Brudenells of fraud. He claimed to have all the papers and possibly wittinesses to prove his case. In the end he beseeched the court to compel the confederates to appear in court and answer the charges. Not knowing the defense's argument or the judgement in the case, I surmise that the judge ruled against Flavell. As we have learned earlier, Greatheed apparently would stoop to underhanded tricks such as forging documents and buying or intimidating witnesses. (112)
In an indenture made out in 1674 between the Major and his son John Greatheed of London, the Major leased to John 16 acres of land at Cockersdale in Adwalton called the Milne Royds, highlighted in yellow on Map 7. This was done for the consideration of one hundred and fifty pounds with the proviso that the Major would continue to collect the rents and any profits therefrom for the remainder of his life. The property came with mineral rights described as follows: “all Cole mines open or not open in all or any part to the said Closes with free liberty to digge for beneath search and sow for and gett the same with all rights and privileges whatsoever …..” (113)
As stated earlier, Gildersome and its neighbouring townships were rich with coal and iron ore, both on the surface and not far below. Greatheed struck a gold mine, metaphorically speaking, when his father in law passed on his coal rich properties to him and his family. There's little doubt that the Major would have gladly taken up the gentlemanly profession of mine owner. On Map 1 above, all the yellow shaded circles were areas of easily accessible coal. Near to Rooms Lane there was a productive coal workings called the Jon Hole, and below the Street was another called Johnny Hole. The Bellroyd Closes were most likely named for bell pits, a common excavation technique used when following a nearly level subsurface seam. In addition to Gildersome, he also owned or leased coal bearing properties in Morley and Drighlington. There's isn't much in the way of records to verify his mining operations except for what's presented below, which I believe makes the case very well.
A Farnley Wood Plot attendee in 1663, John Nettleton of Dunningley, in a statement made prior to his execution claimed he worked in Greathead's coal pit, though he didn't indicate its location. (110)
In a 1671 litigation, Favell vs. Greatheed,(111) presented before Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, Henry Favell of Altofts, on the one side versus Joshua Greatheed of Gildersome including Lord Francis Brudnell and Lady Francis Brudenell on the other. Favell was an attorney operating out of the town of York. He claimed that shortly before the death of James Savile, 2nd Earl of Sussex, he was "possessed of severall delves and mynes of coles and stone within the severall townes territoryes premisses liberties and manors of Morley Hedingley Burley Bramley Kirkstall and within the aforesaid Monastery of Kirkstall." He also declared that by an "Indenture of Lease" dated 21 April 1671, Savile, for the sum of two hundred pounds, appointed him "Executor Administrator" over the mineral rights and to dig for coal and ironstone in the aforementioned places. To sum up the terms, it gave Favell full power to search, dig, mine, hire labor, sell any coal and or stone, lease mines and collect rents in almost any property in the above stated manors in which Savile retained the mineral rights. It gave him a right to trespass practically anywhere as long as coal and ironstone were the objective. The duration of this grant was set at thirty two years and came with a yearly payment of "twenty pounds at the two feasts of St. Andrew the Apostle and St. John the Baptist." Shortly after the death of Saville, Favell entered into an agreement with Joshua Greatheed of Gildersome, that for the sum of one hundred fifty pounds, the Major would manage and work the mines and pits in the manors stated above. Greatheed withheld fifty pounds in case the venture proved unsuccessful. According to Favell, as time elapsed Greatheed ignored the terms of their deal and refused to pay the yearly sum of one hundred pounds as well as other operating costs which they had agreed to split fifty fifty. Eventually Greatheed refused to give any account of where and what was going on and refused to share the profits. To put it plainly, Greatheed took over all the mining operations and used hostile threats if Favell interfered. Favell claimed that Greatheed asserted that as the Lady Brudenell (née Savile) was the 2nd Earl of Sussex's sister and only heir, the rights to the mines in the lands recited above were now Brudenell property and that any prior agreements Favell had with her brother were now "voyd." Greathead further stated that the Brudenells had now entered into an agreement with him. Favell complained that he was owed the two hundred pounds from his original investment not to mention the value of the nonperformance bonds Greathead had sworn to at the start of their deliberations. He called the three, "confederates," and all but accused the Brudenells of fraud. He claimed to have all the papers and possibly wittinesses to prove his case. In the end he beseeched the court to compel the confederates to appear in court and answer the charges. Not knowing the defense's argument or the judgement in the case, I surmise that the judge ruled against Flavell. As we have learned earlier, Greatheed apparently would stoop to underhanded tricks such as forging documents and buying or intimidating witnesses. (112)
In an indenture made out in 1674 between the Major and his son John Greatheed of London, the Major leased to John 16 acres of land at Cockersdale in Adwalton called the Milne Royds, highlighted in yellow on Map 7. This was done for the consideration of one hundred and fifty pounds with the proviso that the Major would continue to collect the rents and any profits therefrom for the remainder of his life. The property came with mineral rights described as follows: “all Cole mines open or not open in all or any part to the said Closes with free liberty to digge for beneath search and sow for and gett the same with all rights and privileges whatsoever …..” (113)
11. Some of the Major's Litigations:
Aside from the lawsuits presented in the other chapters of this paper, here below are a few more. All the Major’s various litigations are too numerous for presentation in tis work:
In 1644 Major Joshua Greatheed, commissary for the Bradford garrison was sued for four cattle taken, he maintained, for the garrison's use. (114)
1654 Mitley v. Greathead:
In December of 1654 one William Mitley, yeoman of Leeds, filed suit to the Lords of the Great Seal of England complaining that Joshua Greatheed, of Gildersome gentleman, had borrowed from him thirteen pounds in November of 1653, with the promise to repay him fourteen pounds eight shillings with the greatest alacrity. This he failed to do. After waiting a year Mitley took his grievance to court. He claimed that Greatheed gave him a signed note that spelled out the terms of the agreement. Greatheed pleaded he had never received any such money and never signed an agreement and that there were no witnesses. Mitley claimed Greatheed was trying to "defraude and deceive" and called upon the judges to compel him to pay, including damages.(115)
Dickinson v. Greathead:
Though the Major is not directly involved in the following argument, it demonstrates his willingness to involve his children in his high-handed scheming.
In May 1677 a litigation was made before Hennage Finch Lord High Chancellor between Samuel Greatheed of Gildersome defendant and John Dickinson of Gildersome, salter, with John Smith of Gildersome, gentleman, as the plaintiffs. The following is the plea of Samuel Greatheed: In May of 1673, Joshua Greatheed borrowed 100 pounds from one Peter Mason of Leeds cloth dresser, and when the payment was due, Greatheed entreated Smith and Dickinson to put up a bond of surety for 200 pounds, which they did, and the Major only paid the interest. Some time passed and Dickinson and Smith approached the Major's son, Samuel and threatened to have Mason call in his money if Samuel didn't take out a further bond of 400 pounds surety to cover the previous 200 pound bond, which Samuel did. Three years passed with the Major paying the interest every year. Yet before May of 1677, an agreed interest payment date, Dickinson declared the Major in default and that Samuel must forfeit the said 400 pounds. When Samuel refused, Dickinson had him arrested. Samuel claimed that the date for the interest payment had not arrived and that Peter Mason was quite content in this yearly arrangement with the Major, therefore no one was in default, Samuel claimed that Dickinson was greedy for a property he owned and hoped to get it for little consideration. Unfortunately I don't have the court's answer.(116)
1684 Lepton v. Greatheed and Smith:
The following is a synthesis put together using several 1684 court documents. The earliest two submitted to the assizes at Pontefract in July, consisted of a complainant's and defendant's arguments. A further two documents, also a complainant's and a defendant's, are from November and were probably presented to the Court of Common Pleas in London. There was a decision in the London case but the document was in Latin and extremely deteriorated and therefore of little use.(117)
In the year 1681, Richard Lepton lived at the base of Harthill near to where Manor Farm resides today. His properties were adjacent on the north and west to the Major's, and to the south to the property of John Smith and the Reyner's. At that time, Lepton farmed several fields that had belonged to the Major since 1650, described above. In November of 1681, the Major and Smith, according to Lepton, needed some ready cash and they approached Lepton for a loan of two hundred fifty pounds (approx. £28,500 today), which was freely given. A little later they requested a further fifty pounds, which was granted bringing the total debt owed to Lepton up to three hundred pounds. The duration of the loan was to be one year. At the same time the Major signed a document of surety, in the event of default, which comprised a lease for one thousand years and encompassing the entirety of Major's Farm, being more or less sixty acres (see Map 2 above). The Major claimed that the property was free and clear from any encumbrances. At the end of one year, when the loan with interest (18 pounds) was to be settled, the borrowers, without a word, paid nothing. According to Lepton he let the matter drop, giving no trouble only kind reminders. But, at the deadline of the second year he implored the debtors to settle and, so said he, getting….(118)
"nothing from them but excuses and delays And ...... did afterwards civilly intreat the said J.G.& J.S.to deliver
up possession of the said premises to your orator (Lepton) accordingly as they had also covenanted but they
utterly refused." (119)
It was then that, to his astonishment, Lepton learned from the Major that the land which had been named as collateral had been seized by the Crown and was held until the Major settled his Hearth Tax debt of about £1,300, a fact the Major failed to reveal when the loan was arranged. Lepton further claimed that the pair bullied, threatened and charged him with trespass on numerous occasions. By the third year his entreaties, cajoling and threatening did nothing but hit a brick wall, so in July of 1684 he hired a lawyer and took his case to the assizes at Pontefract. This yielded no result one way or the other. He had submitted a document of complaint to the court but Greathead and Smith's defense document was very polished, four times the length and full of half truths and obfuscations. In the end it was probably the Major's notoriety which tipped the court in his favour. Undaunted Lepton, having no success at York, took his case to London where it was directed to: "the right honourable Francis Lord North Barron of Guilford Lord keeper of the great Seal of England (12 day of November 1684)," and submitted a complaint document which, for the most part, has been summarised above.(120)
As to the testimony of the Major and Smith, the defendants, their case was at best shaky. At Pontefract the pair said that Smith was the borrower but it was in small increments over the years. Lepton made rude and incessant dictates demanding that the loan be settled, the Major intervened on behalf of his son in law, and pledged his sixty acres as collateral. When the pair, having money problems, were unable to settle the debt, Lepton called for the land to be turned over instead. Curiously, that was when the Major discovered that some of his land had been seized but still didn't know the extent or which properties, if any, applied to the collateral. At London, the pair took a somewhat different tack. They agreed that they owed the money plus interest and that the properties set aside as collateral had been seized, and that only by reimbursing the Crown could the properties be turned over to Lepton, an outcome which seemed most unlikely. They then pleaded for a little more time in which to pay Lepton and that the properties be kept out of the settlement. In a lengthy ramble, Greatheed dwelt upon his three closes of land already occupied by Lepton and how Lepton has defaulted on his rent, three pounds per annum, and how often Lepton's cows trespassed upon Greatheed land.
Then, the Major carried on with this astounding revelation: that Lepton, armed with an arrest warrant….
Aside from the lawsuits presented in the other chapters of this paper, here below are a few more. All the Major’s various litigations are too numerous for presentation in tis work:
In 1644 Major Joshua Greatheed, commissary for the Bradford garrison was sued for four cattle taken, he maintained, for the garrison's use. (114)
1654 Mitley v. Greathead:
In December of 1654 one William Mitley, yeoman of Leeds, filed suit to the Lords of the Great Seal of England complaining that Joshua Greatheed, of Gildersome gentleman, had borrowed from him thirteen pounds in November of 1653, with the promise to repay him fourteen pounds eight shillings with the greatest alacrity. This he failed to do. After waiting a year Mitley took his grievance to court. He claimed that Greatheed gave him a signed note that spelled out the terms of the agreement. Greatheed pleaded he had never received any such money and never signed an agreement and that there were no witnesses. Mitley claimed Greatheed was trying to "defraude and deceive" and called upon the judges to compel him to pay, including damages.(115)
Dickinson v. Greathead:
Though the Major is not directly involved in the following argument, it demonstrates his willingness to involve his children in his high-handed scheming.
In May 1677 a litigation was made before Hennage Finch Lord High Chancellor between Samuel Greatheed of Gildersome defendant and John Dickinson of Gildersome, salter, with John Smith of Gildersome, gentleman, as the plaintiffs. The following is the plea of Samuel Greatheed: In May of 1673, Joshua Greatheed borrowed 100 pounds from one Peter Mason of Leeds cloth dresser, and when the payment was due, Greatheed entreated Smith and Dickinson to put up a bond of surety for 200 pounds, which they did, and the Major only paid the interest. Some time passed and Dickinson and Smith approached the Major's son, Samuel and threatened to have Mason call in his money if Samuel didn't take out a further bond of 400 pounds surety to cover the previous 200 pound bond, which Samuel did. Three years passed with the Major paying the interest every year. Yet before May of 1677, an agreed interest payment date, Dickinson declared the Major in default and that Samuel must forfeit the said 400 pounds. When Samuel refused, Dickinson had him arrested. Samuel claimed that the date for the interest payment had not arrived and that Peter Mason was quite content in this yearly arrangement with the Major, therefore no one was in default, Samuel claimed that Dickinson was greedy for a property he owned and hoped to get it for little consideration. Unfortunately I don't have the court's answer.(116)
1684 Lepton v. Greatheed and Smith:
The following is a synthesis put together using several 1684 court documents. The earliest two submitted to the assizes at Pontefract in July, consisted of a complainant's and defendant's arguments. A further two documents, also a complainant's and a defendant's, are from November and were probably presented to the Court of Common Pleas in London. There was a decision in the London case but the document was in Latin and extremely deteriorated and therefore of little use.(117)
In the year 1681, Richard Lepton lived at the base of Harthill near to where Manor Farm resides today. His properties were adjacent on the north and west to the Major's, and to the south to the property of John Smith and the Reyner's. At that time, Lepton farmed several fields that had belonged to the Major since 1650, described above. In November of 1681, the Major and Smith, according to Lepton, needed some ready cash and they approached Lepton for a loan of two hundred fifty pounds (approx. £28,500 today), which was freely given. A little later they requested a further fifty pounds, which was granted bringing the total debt owed to Lepton up to three hundred pounds. The duration of the loan was to be one year. At the same time the Major signed a document of surety, in the event of default, which comprised a lease for one thousand years and encompassing the entirety of Major's Farm, being more or less sixty acres (see Map 2 above). The Major claimed that the property was free and clear from any encumbrances. At the end of one year, when the loan with interest (18 pounds) was to be settled, the borrowers, without a word, paid nothing. According to Lepton he let the matter drop, giving no trouble only kind reminders. But, at the deadline of the second year he implored the debtors to settle and, so said he, getting….(118)
"nothing from them but excuses and delays And ...... did afterwards civilly intreat the said J.G.& J.S.to deliver
up possession of the said premises to your orator (Lepton) accordingly as they had also covenanted but they
utterly refused." (119)
It was then that, to his astonishment, Lepton learned from the Major that the land which had been named as collateral had been seized by the Crown and was held until the Major settled his Hearth Tax debt of about £1,300, a fact the Major failed to reveal when the loan was arranged. Lepton further claimed that the pair bullied, threatened and charged him with trespass on numerous occasions. By the third year his entreaties, cajoling and threatening did nothing but hit a brick wall, so in July of 1684 he hired a lawyer and took his case to the assizes at Pontefract. This yielded no result one way or the other. He had submitted a document of complaint to the court but Greathead and Smith's defense document was very polished, four times the length and full of half truths and obfuscations. In the end it was probably the Major's notoriety which tipped the court in his favour. Undaunted Lepton, having no success at York, took his case to London where it was directed to: "the right honourable Francis Lord North Barron of Guilford Lord keeper of the great Seal of England (12 day of November 1684)," and submitted a complaint document which, for the most part, has been summarised above.(120)
As to the testimony of the Major and Smith, the defendants, their case was at best shaky. At Pontefract the pair said that Smith was the borrower but it was in small increments over the years. Lepton made rude and incessant dictates demanding that the loan be settled, the Major intervened on behalf of his son in law, and pledged his sixty acres as collateral. When the pair, having money problems, were unable to settle the debt, Lepton called for the land to be turned over instead. Curiously, that was when the Major discovered that some of his land had been seized but still didn't know the extent or which properties, if any, applied to the collateral. At London, the pair took a somewhat different tack. They agreed that they owed the money plus interest and that the properties set aside as collateral had been seized, and that only by reimbursing the Crown could the properties be turned over to Lepton, an outcome which seemed most unlikely. They then pleaded for a little more time in which to pay Lepton and that the properties be kept out of the settlement. In a lengthy ramble, Greatheed dwelt upon his three closes of land already occupied by Lepton and how Lepton has defaulted on his rent, three pounds per annum, and how often Lepton's cows trespassed upon Greatheed land.
Then, the Major carried on with this astounding revelation: that Lepton, armed with an arrest warrant….
“on the first day of September last past about ten of the clock at night with two or three more loose and idle fellows did come to this defendants house and did force open the doors thereof in a most violent and tumultuous manner. And did not only assault this defendant and force him from his said house and keep him prisoner for eleven weeks or thereabouts but did also violently assault and beat Susannah his wife in so much that she hath ever since and still doth languish and is in great danger to lose her life…." (121)
The court responded to this allegation saying that the occurrence was not a civil matter and beyond the purview of the court. Further, if the incident indeed be true, it may be used as a tool to barter a compromise between the plaintiff and the defendants. I will elaborate on this incident in the next section, below. Unfortunately, most of the court's judgement is illegible. Greatheed used the same tricks on Lepton that he used with Richard Lloyd in Lloyd vs Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed, above. I'm certain that the Major was counting on the support of the Crown to deliver him from this obligation, for how could he pay his tax debt while in prison. But, in this instance the sitting government did not intercede. Early in 1685, Greatheed and Smith were incarcerated as debtors into the King's Bench prison at Fleet Street London.
12. The Fall of the Major
In the years prior to the Major's death he was, as usual, beset with financial difficulties and court appearances, for instance.....
1681 was the year he and Smith borrowed the £300 pounds from Lepton. (122)
In July of of the same year he was ordered to appear at the Leeds assizes to give testimony against one Edward Freeman for seditious speech. (123)
On the 20th day of November of the same year, the Major was arrested by order of a warrant from Godfrey Copley, then sheriff of York. The arrest was brought on by the suit of a William Harwood, the facts of the case are unknown. The so called arresting agent was John Rawson who: unlawfully and unjustly and falsely imprisoned the same Joshua Greathead then and there by the space of four hours, whereas in truth and in fact the aforesaid John Rawson did not take the oath, mentioned in the statute of the 27th year of Elizabeth ...... for receiving all bailiffs before they concerned themselves in the execution of any writs or processes.....(124)
1682 saw the Major and his son John involved in a long, drawn out suit against Toby Humphreys, a sub collector of the hearth tax for the city of York. The litigation was, once again, over a portion of the 1666 tax arrearage and whether Greathead or Humphreys was the responsible party. Unfortunately for the Major, the case dragged on beyond his death in 1685. His son John persevered and, in the end, £800 was ruled Humphreys' burden. As a consequence of that, the same amount, £800 was subtracted from the Major's obligation, bringing the remaining total down to £500. (125)
1681 was the year he and Smith borrowed the £300 pounds from Lepton. (122)
In July of of the same year he was ordered to appear at the Leeds assizes to give testimony against one Edward Freeman for seditious speech. (123)
On the 20th day of November of the same year, the Major was arrested by order of a warrant from Godfrey Copley, then sheriff of York. The arrest was brought on by the suit of a William Harwood, the facts of the case are unknown. The so called arresting agent was John Rawson who: unlawfully and unjustly and falsely imprisoned the same Joshua Greathead then and there by the space of four hours, whereas in truth and in fact the aforesaid John Rawson did not take the oath, mentioned in the statute of the 27th year of Elizabeth ...... for receiving all bailiffs before they concerned themselves in the execution of any writs or processes.....(124)
1682 saw the Major and his son John involved in a long, drawn out suit against Toby Humphreys, a sub collector of the hearth tax for the city of York. The litigation was, once again, over a portion of the 1666 tax arrearage and whether Greathead or Humphreys was the responsible party. Unfortunately for the Major, the case dragged on beyond his death in 1685. His son John persevered and, in the end, £800 was ruled Humphreys' burden. As a consequence of that, the same amount, £800 was subtracted from the Major's obligation, bringing the remaining total down to £500. (125)
As mentioned, 1684 was the year that the Major was arrested twice over the Lepton affair, in July and in September. But, it was the arrest of September 1st which had the most dire consequences for the Major and his wife, Susannah. There are three versions of the incident: the Major's account in his defendant's statement above, and two Quarter Session rulings, the first being made at Wakefield on 9 October 1684 and the second issued on 14 October 1684 at Barnsley. Though all three reports agree in substance, the Major's and the 9th of October's version blame Richard Lepton and the arresting bailiffs, while the 14 October ruling claims that it was the house occupants who attacked the bailiffs. (126)
All accounts agree that on the first day of September 1684 Richard Lepton, Thomas Holgate deputy bailiff and subordinates arrived in Gildersome. Armed with a warrant, they had come to arrest Major Joshua Greatheed at his residence on Church St (Major's Hall). It was dark when they approached the house around ten in the evening when most likely all of its inhabitants were in bed asleep. Inside was the Major and his wife Susannah, and their daughters Hannah and Susannah. Also, within or occupying an attached building, were Thomas Crowther yeoman and Mary the wife of Samuel Crowther yeoman; who were in all probability relations. Also inside was Jane, the wife of Thomas Naylor yeoman, she was the daughter of John Smith senior and Jane Reyner and was described as "old" in the indictment. Jane was accompanied by Elizabeth Naylor, spinster, probably her daughter. Last of all was Elizabeth Cheshire, spinster, perhaps a domestic. Though there may have been others present no others were named in the charges.
The following is from the October 9th indictment: (127)
All accounts agree that on the first day of September 1684 Richard Lepton, Thomas Holgate deputy bailiff and subordinates arrived in Gildersome. Armed with a warrant, they had come to arrest Major Joshua Greatheed at his residence on Church St (Major's Hall). It was dark when they approached the house around ten in the evening when most likely all of its inhabitants were in bed asleep. Inside was the Major and his wife Susannah, and their daughters Hannah and Susannah. Also, within or occupying an attached building, were Thomas Crowther yeoman and Mary the wife of Samuel Crowther yeoman; who were in all probability relations. Also inside was Jane, the wife of Thomas Naylor yeoman, she was the daughter of John Smith senior and Jane Reyner and was described as "old" in the indictment. Jane was accompanied by Elizabeth Naylor, spinster, probably her daughter. Last of all was Elizabeth Cheshire, spinster, perhaps a domestic. Though there may have been others present no others were named in the charges.
The following is from the October 9th indictment: (127)
And that Richard Lepton, late of Gildersome in the county of Yorkshire, labourer, Thomas Holgate, late of Barnsley in the aforesaid county, labourer, and William Simpson, late of Monck Bretton in the aforesaid county, labourer, and Mary Ellison, late of Gildersome in the aforesaid county, spinster, on the first day of September....., by force and arms, etc, at Gildersome, aforesaid, in the West Riding of the aforesaid county, unlawfully, unjustly and violently broke and entered into the dwelling house of a certain Joshua Greathead, situated and being there, in the night of the same day. And then and there they made an assault and affray on and upon Susanna, wife of the aforesaid Joshua Greathead, being then and there in the peace of God and of the said lord king. And they beat, wounded, maimed and mistreated the same Susanna then and there in such a way that she was in very great despair of her life, and committed other outrages, to the heavy damage of the same wife of Joshua, Susanna Greathead, and against the peace of the said lord now king, his crown and dignity, etc.
In the indictment above, the housebreakers/bailiffs, including Richard Lepton were all fined one shilling each.
However, in the October 14th indictment, the following occurred after Lepton and the bailiffs forced entry into the house:
However, in the October 14th indictment, the following occurred after Lepton and the bailiffs forced entry into the house:
..... an assault on and upon a certain Thomas Holgate, being then deputy bailiff of William Simpson, gentleman, chief bailiff of the honour of Pontefract, being in the peace of God and of the said now lord king and in the execution of his aforesaid office then and there, and they beat, wounded and mistreated the same Thomas then and there, in such a way that he was very greatly in despair of his life, and they inflicted other outrages on the same Thomas then and there against the peace of the said now lord king, his crown and dignity, etc.
It's clear from all accounts that a scuffle broke out between both parties. In the Major's and the October 9th account Susannah was severely beaten. Susannah, sixty four years of age at the time, died sometime in mid October, as it was noted in the October 14 indictment that she was since "deceased", leaving little room for doubt regarding the cause of her death. Evidently, the Major must have been unaware of his wife's passing when his defence document was written in London. According to the Major, in his written testimony submitted on November 12th, he was beaten then bundled up and shipped to London and remained a prisoner of the court for at least eleven weeks. After his November hearing his situation is unknown. He may have remained in custody, or possibly was released on his own recognisance but ordered to remain in London.
On the 3rd of January, 1685, Alice Smith, the Major's daughter wrote to her husband John Smith who was the Major's fellow defendant in the Lepton case. Her letter was addressed to the Foxx Inne in Greys Inne Layne, London, presumably he had been summoned to London but not arrested. Had the Major been out on bond, it's possible that he and his son-in-law shared a room. (128) At the time of writing she believed her father and husband were still awaiting a verdict in the Lepton case. She was responding to a letter from her husband who requested she send him some money, to which she agreed. Also that he still had hopes of returning to Gildersome. She then entreats him to allow her to go to London so as be with him. She goes on to say that Lepton's wife threatened her saying ...she will have the land in spite of your teeth.... (an old phrase of defiance). Alice quotes a Mr. Usher, possibly George Usher a friend from Drighlington, saying: it was best to pay the money and not have their house broken up.... I believe that Alice reveals in her letter that it was the intention of the Leptons to be awarded the bonded properties, i.e. Major's Farm, rather than settle on any money. Of course the property belonged to the Crown so their wish never came true.(129)
Early in 1685, the Major and his son in law, Smith, were sentenced to incarceration in the King's Bench prison in Fleet Street for refusing to pay the £300 plus interest and damages to Lepton, as well as all court fees. Why didn't the pair pay the adjudicated amount? Certainly both families could have scraped together the necessary funds. It seems that it never was paid. The Major died at the age of 70 in prison on the 15th of August 1685. Smith remained in Fleet prison and at some unknown time was moved to Rothwell gaol in West Yorkshire where he died in 1689. (130)
(left), Greatheed's burial entry at the bottom, from
the records of Fleet Street Prison, 15 August 1685)
Between 1667 and 1690, the Major's son John had been involved with his father's debt to the Crown as he was named as a codefendant along with his brother Samuel. Unfortunately for Joshua, the state cancelled the debt the next year and the Major's seized property was released to John in 1689. This included the 60 acres in Gildersome (Major's Farm), 15 to 20 acres in Leeds and an unknown amount of property in Morley and Drighlington. (131) The Leptons never gained possession of the Major's farm and there's no record of them ever having been paid the amount they believed was their due. It appears that in the early 1700s the family removed to Hunslett but owned property in Gildersome until the 1750s. (132)
Early in 1685, the Major and his son in law, Smith, were sentenced to incarceration in the King's Bench prison in Fleet Street for refusing to pay the £300 plus interest and damages to Lepton, as well as all court fees. Why didn't the pair pay the adjudicated amount? Certainly both families could have scraped together the necessary funds. It seems that it never was paid. The Major died at the age of 70 in prison on the 15th of August 1685. Smith remained in Fleet prison and at some unknown time was moved to Rothwell gaol in West Yorkshire where he died in 1689. (130)
(left), Greatheed's burial entry at the bottom, from
the records of Fleet Street Prison, 15 August 1685)
Between 1667 and 1690, the Major's son John had been involved with his father's debt to the Crown as he was named as a codefendant along with his brother Samuel. Unfortunately for Joshua, the state cancelled the debt the next year and the Major's seized property was released to John in 1689. This included the 60 acres in Gildersome (Major's Farm), 15 to 20 acres in Leeds and an unknown amount of property in Morley and Drighlington. (131) The Leptons never gained possession of the Major's farm and there's no record of them ever having been paid the amount they believed was their due. It appears that in the early 1700s the family removed to Hunslett but owned property in Gildersome until the 1750s. (132)
Sources and Notes:
1] The Publications of the Thoresby Society, Volume XV, 1909, The Farnley Wood Plot by S. J. Chadwick, Pages 122-126.
2] The Registers of Topcliffe and Morley by William Smith F.C.A.S. 1888.
3] Wikipedia at….. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Grosseteste.
4] Testamenta Leodiensia: Wills of Leeds. Pontefract, Wakefield, Otley, and District. 1539 to 1553, Volume 19 Pg 328.
5] Genuki.org.uk Subsidy Roll (Poll Tax) for 1379 for the Yorkshire parish of Batley.
6] Search of Gretheude/Grethevede documents from Medieval and Early Modern England from the National Archives in London
digitized and displayed through The O’Quinn Library of the University of Houston Law Center. http://aalt.law.uh.edu.
7] West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council, Wakefield, 1981: West Yorkshire: an Archaeological Survey to A.D. 1500, Map
Volume.
8] Yorkshire inquisitions of the reigns of Henry III. and Edward I by Great Britain. Court of Chancery; Brown, William, 1854-1924.
Pg 103
9] The National Archives, Kew. C 1/135/70 Short title: Feltwell v Grethed. 1486-1493, or 1504-1515.
10] Ibid.
11] Ibid.
12] The History and Antiquities of Morley, in the West Riding of the County of York by William Smith. Pg 7.
13] Armitage Goodall, 1914 'Place Names of South-West Yorkshire.’
14] Testamenta Leodiensia: Wills of Leeds. Pontefract, Wakefield, Otley, and District. 1539 to 1553, Volume 19, Pg 291.
15] Ibid.
16] Ibid.
17] Yorkshire Fines: 1562', Feet of Fines of the Tudor Period a[Yorks]: Part 1, 1486-1571, (Leeds, 1887), pp. 257-273 British History
Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/feet-of-fines-yorks/vol1/pp257-273
18] Records of the Parish of Batley in the County of York. Michael Sheard.
19] Thoresby Society V15 pg 141.
20] Yorkshire Deeds Vol.1, 1909, Cambridge University Press. Page 72.
21] Ibid.
22] Records of the Parish of Batley in the County of York. Michael Sheard. Pg 350.
23] Records of the Parish of Batley in the County of York. Michael Sheard.
24] Testamenta Leodiensia: Wills of Leeds. Pontefract, Wakefield, Otley, and District. 1539 to 1553, Volume 19, Pg 291.
25] Yorkshire Feet of Fines from 1545-1558.
26] University of Houston Law Center. http://aalt.law.uh.edu. Henry VIII, 1530: CP40no1064
27] University of Houston Law Center. http://aalt.law.uh.edu. Henry VIII, 1525: CP40no1046.
28] Thoresby Society Miscellanea, Vol. XI, Part 1, 1900. Page 294.
29] Courtesy of the Morley Public Library.
30] 'Yorkshire Fines: 1585', in Feet of Fines of the Tudor Period [Yorks]: Part 3, 1583-94, ed. Francis Collins( Leeds, 1889), British
History Online.
31] YAS Record Series Vol. 22: Index of wills in the York Registry, 1585 to 1594.
32] Earl of Dartmouth’s early 1800 plan of Morley. West Yorkshire Archiives, Leeds. Also www.morleystory.online/1716-plan.html .
33] The Morley Tax Assessments for the years 1781 and 1827 and the 1843 Tithe Apportionments for Morley.
34] Records of the Parish of Batley in the County of York. Michael Sheard.
35] British History Online, Alumni Oxonienses 1500-1714. Originally published by University of Oxford, Oxford, 1891. Gilpin-
Greenhaugh.
36] Record Series, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Wills in the York Registry.
37] British History Online, Surnames beginning 'G'', in The Cromwell Association Online Directory of Parliamentarian Army Officers,
ed. Stephen K Roberts (2017).
38] Paver's Marriage Licences Vol 1 1630-1644, pg 103. Findmypast.
39] West Yorkshire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1512-1812, Ancestry.com.
40] Bishop's Transcripts Halifax 1627-1706. findmypast.com.
41] G.D. Newton (2016) Farnley Smithies, Leeds: An Elizabethan Iron Works and its Sources of Ironstone and Charcoal, Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal.
42] West Yorkshire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1512-1812, Ancestry.com.
43] British History Online. Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 5, 1646-1648. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery
Office, London, 1802.
44] Andrew Hopper, 'Yorkshire parliamentarians', 103-4; CSPD, 1650, 506.
45] British History Online, Surnames beginning 'G' in The Cromwell Association Online Directory of Parliamentarian Army Officers, ed.
Stephen K Roberts (2017).
46] Ibid.
47] Ibid.
48] A History of Morley. Norrison Scatcherd. 1837.
49] West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds, WYL323/358. Bond between Thomas Greathead of Morley, gentleman to Nicholas
Greathead of Holbecks and Joshua Greathead of Gildersome, 1650.
50] British History Online, Surnames beginning 'G'', in The Cromwell Association Online Directory of Parliamentarian Army Officer,
ed. Stephen K Roberts (2017).
51] The National Archives. Greathead v. Bolles. C 10/118/47.
52] Ibid.
53] Andrew Hopper. Social mobility during the English Revolution: the case of Adam Eyre pg 37, 38.
54] The National Archives. Greathead v. Bolles. C 10/118/47.
55] A Catalogue of the Inquisitions Post Mortem for the County of York, for the Reigns of James I. and Charles I., in the Courts of
Chancery and of Wards and Liveries, Presented by John Sykes Volume 1 By Great Britain. Court of Chancery, John Sykes · 1885 -
Pg 180.
56] The National Archives. Greathead v. Bolles. C 10/118/47.
57] G.D. Newton (2016) Farnley Smithies, Leeds: An Elizabethan Iron Works and its Sources of Ironstone and Charcoal, Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal.
58] Yorkshire Deeds Vol 1, Cambridge University Press.
59] G.D. Newton (2016) Farnley Smithies, Leeds: An Elizabethan Iron Works and its Sources of Ironstone and Charcoal, Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal.
60] 1711 Cardigan Map, Nottingham Archive Serv. Drawn by Gildersome's own Joseph Dickinson.
61] Early 18th Century Survey Plan of Morley, Lord Dartmouth. https://www.morleystory.online/1716-plan.html.
62] West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Indenture. 1650 Greathead to Lepton. WYL323/181.
63] Ibid.
64] The National Archives, Lepton v. Greathead. Litigation. 1684. C 10/150/69, C 10/149/45 & C 10/522/13.
65] West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Conveyance, Crowther to Greathead. 1655, WYL323/180.
66] The National Archives. Walker v. Wilbore. 41 Elizabeth. DL 4/42/47 & DL 4/41/14.
67] Wikipedia.
68] G.D. Newton (2016) Farnley Smithies, Leeds: An Elizabethan Iron Works and its Sources of Ironstone and Charcoal, Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal.
69] West Yorkshire Archive Service, Milmes Coates 173/18, 1568.
70] The 1666 and 1672 Hearth Tax returns for Gildersome.
71] West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Conveyance, Crowther to Greathead. 1655, WYL323/180.
72] Ibid.
73] Ibid.
74] West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Lease, 1656. WYL323/183.
75] The 1845 Tithe Map of Gildersome.
76] Wakefield Registry of Deeds. Indenture. Smith to Scatcherd. LL 358 479.
77] West Yorkshire Archive Service: Yorkshire, England, Quarter Session Records, 1637-1914, 1663-1665, Wakefield, Indictment, 16
July 1663 and Arrest Warrant, 28 April 1663. (Ancestry. com).
78] Ibid.
79] Records of the Parish of Batley in the County of York. Michael Sheard. Pg 145.
80] West Yorkshire Archive Service: Yorkshire, England, Quarter Session Records, 1637-1914, 1663-1665.
81] The Farnley Wood Plot and the Memory of the Civil War in Yorkshire. Andrew Hopper. Cambridge University Press.
82] Ibid.
83] Charles II - volume 80: September 1663', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1663-4, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green
(London, 1862), pp. 263-284.
84] Ibid.
85] Charles II - volume 83: November 1-16, 1663', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1663-4, ed. Mary Anne Everett
Green (London, 1862), pp. 324-342.
86] Ibid.
87] Ibid.
88] Charles II - volume 84: November 17-30, 1663', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1663-4, ed. Mary Anne Everett
Green (London, 1862), pp. 342-359. (Ent. Book 13, p. 384) .
89] Ibid.
90] Charles II - volume 121: May 10-22, 1665', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1664-5, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green
(London, 1863), pp. 358-379 [Ent. Book 18, p. 162].
91] The National Archives. County: West Riding of Yorkshire; North Riding of Yorkshire; and York City. 1666. E 179/210/394.
92] Letters of Patent from King. Re. collection of Hearth Tax in West Riding by Joshua Greathead of Gildersome. Yorkshire
Archaeological and Historical Society, DD4/22/288.
93] Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles II, Volume 7. pg 1667.
94]Calendar of Treasury Books, Preserved in the Public Record Office 1667-1668. pg 424.
95] National Archives Currency Converter.
96] Entry Book: April 1685, 21-30', in Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 8, 1685-1689, ed. William A Shaw (London, 1923), pp.
135-159. British History Online.
97] Ibid.
98] Ibid.
99] Ibid.
100] The National Archives. Lloyd v. Batt. 1673. C 10/479/78.
101] Ibid.
102] Ibid.
103] The Publications of the Thoresby Society, Volume XV, 1909, The Farnley Wood Plot by S. J. Chadwick, Pages 122-126.
104] Special Series List & Index Society. Simon R. Neal, Stuart Jenks. 2008.....Greatheed's banker was John Colville.
105] The National Archives. Toby Humphreys, William Wilkinson, "and others." E 134/36&37Chas2/Hil21 and E 134/1Jas2/East20
(1685-1686).
106] Entry Book: December 1681, 17-31', in Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 7, 1681-1685, ed. William A Shaw (London, 1916),
pg. 333-353. British History Online.
107] James Daniel, "The Farnley Wood Plot of 12th, October, 1663," Page 1. Local historian. Copy from Morley Community Archives,
Morley, West Yorkshire.. Special thanks to Clive McManus.
108] South Leeds Life, The Old Bridge, https://southleedslife.com/old-leeds-bridge/
109] The Farnley Wood Plot and the Memory of the Civil War in Yorkshire. Andrew Hopper. Cambridge University Press . Pg. 297.
110] Ibid.
111] The National Archives. Favell v Greathead. Litigation. C 10/475/99.
112] Ibid.
113] Leeds, West Yorkshire Archive Service, Ratification of a Lease. Greathead to Greathead. 1674. WYL323/185.
114] SP 24/50 (Sutcliff vs. Greathead,Greathead, petition of Joshua December 21, 1647). Cf. SP26/34 (Bower98. Belwood, petition of
Jeremy Bower, April 21, 1648).
115] The National Archives. Mitley v Greathead. Litigation. C 10/467/198.
116] The National Archives. Dickinson v Greathead. Money Matters. C 10/481/52.
117] The National Archives. Lepton v Greathead. Litigation. C 10/150/69.....C 10/522/13.....C 10/149/45.
118] Ibid.
119] Ibid.
120] Ibid.
121] Ibid.
122] Ibid.
123] Ancestry.com, West Yorkshire Quarter Sessions.
124] Ibid.
125] The National Archives. Toby Humphreys, William Wilkinson, "and others." v. Sir Robt. Sawyer, Knt. (Attorney-General), Joshua
Greathead, "and others." 1684-1686, E 134/36&37Chas2/Hil21 ..... E 134/1Jas2/East20
126] Ancestry.com. West Yorkshire Quarter Sessions. Translated from Latin.
127] Ibid.
128] Leeds Library, Yorkshire Archaeological and Historical Society Collection. Letter from Alice Smith. MD363/111/FC.
129] Ibid.
130] History of Gildersome and the Booth Family. Philip Henry Booth. page 14
131] The National Archives. Greathead, John: Fields in Gildersome. 1690-1691. E 367/3523.
132] Various Lepton Deeds from. the West Yorkshire Archive Service.
1] The Publications of the Thoresby Society, Volume XV, 1909, The Farnley Wood Plot by S. J. Chadwick, Pages 122-126.
2] The Registers of Topcliffe and Morley by William Smith F.C.A.S. 1888.
3] Wikipedia at….. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Grosseteste.
4] Testamenta Leodiensia: Wills of Leeds. Pontefract, Wakefield, Otley, and District. 1539 to 1553, Volume 19 Pg 328.
5] Genuki.org.uk Subsidy Roll (Poll Tax) for 1379 for the Yorkshire parish of Batley.
6] Search of Gretheude/Grethevede documents from Medieval and Early Modern England from the National Archives in London
digitized and displayed through The O’Quinn Library of the University of Houston Law Center. http://aalt.law.uh.edu.
7] West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council, Wakefield, 1981: West Yorkshire: an Archaeological Survey to A.D. 1500, Map
Volume.
8] Yorkshire inquisitions of the reigns of Henry III. and Edward I by Great Britain. Court of Chancery; Brown, William, 1854-1924.
Pg 103
9] The National Archives, Kew. C 1/135/70 Short title: Feltwell v Grethed. 1486-1493, or 1504-1515.
10] Ibid.
11] Ibid.
12] The History and Antiquities of Morley, in the West Riding of the County of York by William Smith. Pg 7.
13] Armitage Goodall, 1914 'Place Names of South-West Yorkshire.’
14] Testamenta Leodiensia: Wills of Leeds. Pontefract, Wakefield, Otley, and District. 1539 to 1553, Volume 19, Pg 291.
15] Ibid.
16] Ibid.
17] Yorkshire Fines: 1562', Feet of Fines of the Tudor Period a[Yorks]: Part 1, 1486-1571, (Leeds, 1887), pp. 257-273 British History
Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/feet-of-fines-yorks/vol1/pp257-273
18] Records of the Parish of Batley in the County of York. Michael Sheard.
19] Thoresby Society V15 pg 141.
20] Yorkshire Deeds Vol.1, 1909, Cambridge University Press. Page 72.
21] Ibid.
22] Records of the Parish of Batley in the County of York. Michael Sheard. Pg 350.
23] Records of the Parish of Batley in the County of York. Michael Sheard.
24] Testamenta Leodiensia: Wills of Leeds. Pontefract, Wakefield, Otley, and District. 1539 to 1553, Volume 19, Pg 291.
25] Yorkshire Feet of Fines from 1545-1558.
26] University of Houston Law Center. http://aalt.law.uh.edu. Henry VIII, 1530: CP40no1064
27] University of Houston Law Center. http://aalt.law.uh.edu. Henry VIII, 1525: CP40no1046.
28] Thoresby Society Miscellanea, Vol. XI, Part 1, 1900. Page 294.
29] Courtesy of the Morley Public Library.
30] 'Yorkshire Fines: 1585', in Feet of Fines of the Tudor Period [Yorks]: Part 3, 1583-94, ed. Francis Collins( Leeds, 1889), British
History Online.
31] YAS Record Series Vol. 22: Index of wills in the York Registry, 1585 to 1594.
32] Earl of Dartmouth’s early 1800 plan of Morley. West Yorkshire Archiives, Leeds. Also www.morleystory.online/1716-plan.html .
33] The Morley Tax Assessments for the years 1781 and 1827 and the 1843 Tithe Apportionments for Morley.
34] Records of the Parish of Batley in the County of York. Michael Sheard.
35] British History Online, Alumni Oxonienses 1500-1714. Originally published by University of Oxford, Oxford, 1891. Gilpin-
Greenhaugh.
36] Record Series, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Wills in the York Registry.
37] British History Online, Surnames beginning 'G'', in The Cromwell Association Online Directory of Parliamentarian Army Officers,
ed. Stephen K Roberts (2017).
38] Paver's Marriage Licences Vol 1 1630-1644, pg 103. Findmypast.
39] West Yorkshire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1512-1812, Ancestry.com.
40] Bishop's Transcripts Halifax 1627-1706. findmypast.com.
41] G.D. Newton (2016) Farnley Smithies, Leeds: An Elizabethan Iron Works and its Sources of Ironstone and Charcoal, Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal.
42] West Yorkshire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1512-1812, Ancestry.com.
43] British History Online. Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 5, 1646-1648. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery
Office, London, 1802.
44] Andrew Hopper, 'Yorkshire parliamentarians', 103-4; CSPD, 1650, 506.
45] British History Online, Surnames beginning 'G' in The Cromwell Association Online Directory of Parliamentarian Army Officers, ed.
Stephen K Roberts (2017).
46] Ibid.
47] Ibid.
48] A History of Morley. Norrison Scatcherd. 1837.
49] West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds, WYL323/358. Bond between Thomas Greathead of Morley, gentleman to Nicholas
Greathead of Holbecks and Joshua Greathead of Gildersome, 1650.
50] British History Online, Surnames beginning 'G'', in The Cromwell Association Online Directory of Parliamentarian Army Officer,
ed. Stephen K Roberts (2017).
51] The National Archives. Greathead v. Bolles. C 10/118/47.
52] Ibid.
53] Andrew Hopper. Social mobility during the English Revolution: the case of Adam Eyre pg 37, 38.
54] The National Archives. Greathead v. Bolles. C 10/118/47.
55] A Catalogue of the Inquisitions Post Mortem for the County of York, for the Reigns of James I. and Charles I., in the Courts of
Chancery and of Wards and Liveries, Presented by John Sykes Volume 1 By Great Britain. Court of Chancery, John Sykes · 1885 -
Pg 180.
56] The National Archives. Greathead v. Bolles. C 10/118/47.
57] G.D. Newton (2016) Farnley Smithies, Leeds: An Elizabethan Iron Works and its Sources of Ironstone and Charcoal, Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal.
58] Yorkshire Deeds Vol 1, Cambridge University Press.
59] G.D. Newton (2016) Farnley Smithies, Leeds: An Elizabethan Iron Works and its Sources of Ironstone and Charcoal, Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal.
60] 1711 Cardigan Map, Nottingham Archive Serv. Drawn by Gildersome's own Joseph Dickinson.
61] Early 18th Century Survey Plan of Morley, Lord Dartmouth. https://www.morleystory.online/1716-plan.html.
62] West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Indenture. 1650 Greathead to Lepton. WYL323/181.
63] Ibid.
64] The National Archives, Lepton v. Greathead. Litigation. 1684. C 10/150/69, C 10/149/45 & C 10/522/13.
65] West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Conveyance, Crowther to Greathead. 1655, WYL323/180.
66] The National Archives. Walker v. Wilbore. 41 Elizabeth. DL 4/42/47 & DL 4/41/14.
67] Wikipedia.
68] G.D. Newton (2016) Farnley Smithies, Leeds: An Elizabethan Iron Works and its Sources of Ironstone and Charcoal, Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal.
69] West Yorkshire Archive Service, Milmes Coates 173/18, 1568.
70] The 1666 and 1672 Hearth Tax returns for Gildersome.
71] West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Conveyance, Crowther to Greathead. 1655, WYL323/180.
72] Ibid.
73] Ibid.
74] West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Lease, 1656. WYL323/183.
75] The 1845 Tithe Map of Gildersome.
76] Wakefield Registry of Deeds. Indenture. Smith to Scatcherd. LL 358 479.
77] West Yorkshire Archive Service: Yorkshire, England, Quarter Session Records, 1637-1914, 1663-1665, Wakefield, Indictment, 16
July 1663 and Arrest Warrant, 28 April 1663. (Ancestry. com).
78] Ibid.
79] Records of the Parish of Batley in the County of York. Michael Sheard. Pg 145.
80] West Yorkshire Archive Service: Yorkshire, England, Quarter Session Records, 1637-1914, 1663-1665.
81] The Farnley Wood Plot and the Memory of the Civil War in Yorkshire. Andrew Hopper. Cambridge University Press.
82] Ibid.
83] Charles II - volume 80: September 1663', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1663-4, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green
(London, 1862), pp. 263-284.
84] Ibid.
85] Charles II - volume 83: November 1-16, 1663', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1663-4, ed. Mary Anne Everett
Green (London, 1862), pp. 324-342.
86] Ibid.
87] Ibid.
88] Charles II - volume 84: November 17-30, 1663', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1663-4, ed. Mary Anne Everett
Green (London, 1862), pp. 342-359. (Ent. Book 13, p. 384) .
89] Ibid.
90] Charles II - volume 121: May 10-22, 1665', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1664-5, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green
(London, 1863), pp. 358-379 [Ent. Book 18, p. 162].
91] The National Archives. County: West Riding of Yorkshire; North Riding of Yorkshire; and York City. 1666. E 179/210/394.
92] Letters of Patent from King. Re. collection of Hearth Tax in West Riding by Joshua Greathead of Gildersome. Yorkshire
Archaeological and Historical Society, DD4/22/288.
93] Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles II, Volume 7. pg 1667.
94]Calendar of Treasury Books, Preserved in the Public Record Office 1667-1668. pg 424.
95] National Archives Currency Converter.
96] Entry Book: April 1685, 21-30', in Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 8, 1685-1689, ed. William A Shaw (London, 1923), pp.
135-159. British History Online.
97] Ibid.
98] Ibid.
99] Ibid.
100] The National Archives. Lloyd v. Batt. 1673. C 10/479/78.
101] Ibid.
102] Ibid.
103] The Publications of the Thoresby Society, Volume XV, 1909, The Farnley Wood Plot by S. J. Chadwick, Pages 122-126.
104] Special Series List & Index Society. Simon R. Neal, Stuart Jenks. 2008.....Greatheed's banker was John Colville.
105] The National Archives. Toby Humphreys, William Wilkinson, "and others." E 134/36&37Chas2/Hil21 and E 134/1Jas2/East20
(1685-1686).
106] Entry Book: December 1681, 17-31', in Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 7, 1681-1685, ed. William A Shaw (London, 1916),
pg. 333-353. British History Online.
107] James Daniel, "The Farnley Wood Plot of 12th, October, 1663," Page 1. Local historian. Copy from Morley Community Archives,
Morley, West Yorkshire.. Special thanks to Clive McManus.
108] South Leeds Life, The Old Bridge, https://southleedslife.com/old-leeds-bridge/
109] The Farnley Wood Plot and the Memory of the Civil War in Yorkshire. Andrew Hopper. Cambridge University Press . Pg. 297.
110] Ibid.
111] The National Archives. Favell v Greathead. Litigation. C 10/475/99.
112] Ibid.
113] Leeds, West Yorkshire Archive Service, Ratification of a Lease. Greathead to Greathead. 1674. WYL323/185.
114] SP 24/50 (Sutcliff vs. Greathead,Greathead, petition of Joshua December 21, 1647). Cf. SP26/34 (Bower98. Belwood, petition of
Jeremy Bower, April 21, 1648).
115] The National Archives. Mitley v Greathead. Litigation. C 10/467/198.
116] The National Archives. Dickinson v Greathead. Money Matters. C 10/481/52.
117] The National Archives. Lepton v Greathead. Litigation. C 10/150/69.....C 10/522/13.....C 10/149/45.
118] Ibid.
119] Ibid.
120] Ibid.
121] Ibid.
122] Ibid.
123] Ancestry.com, West Yorkshire Quarter Sessions.
124] Ibid.
125] The National Archives. Toby Humphreys, William Wilkinson, "and others." v. Sir Robt. Sawyer, Knt. (Attorney-General), Joshua
Greathead, "and others." 1684-1686, E 134/36&37Chas2/Hil21 ..... E 134/1Jas2/East20
126] Ancestry.com. West Yorkshire Quarter Sessions. Translated from Latin.
127] Ibid.
128] Leeds Library, Yorkshire Archaeological and Historical Society Collection. Letter from Alice Smith. MD363/111/FC.
129] Ibid.
130] History of Gildersome and the Booth Family. Philip Henry Booth. page 14
131] The National Archives. Greathead, John: Fields in Gildersome. 1690-1691. E 367/3523.
132] Various Lepton Deeds from. the West Yorkshire Archive Service.
