|
⬆︎ Use pull down menus above to navigate the site.
|
|
Joshua Greatheed of Gildersome © Charles Soderlund 12/23
|
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, whose 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...
The following is a list of contents, choose one or bypass the list and start reading. |
Introduction
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 was 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. This 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. (2)
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, to his Yorkshire comrades-in-arms and fellow Presbyterians he was vilified as the traitor responsible for the execution and imprisonment of many West Yorkshire men. After the Plot, he applied to the King, and was granted, a position as collector of the Hearth Tax in Yorkshire. His first assignment, 1666, as collector, failed 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, consequently engendering numerous lawsuits. It was one of these lawsuits (1684), filed by a close neighbour in Gildersome, which eventually brought Greatheed down. He was incarcerated in Fleet Street's debtors prison in London 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 on St Christopher's Island 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, that Joshua Greatheed, 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). Left, is an example from a 1670s deed signed by Joshua Greatheed as witness to the signing, it reads: "Sealed and delivered in the presence of us, // Joshua Greatheed - Franncis Rodes, her T mark - Josias Brooke." (3) This same spelling accompanies a few archival documents as well as birth, marriage and death records pertaining to Joshua's ancestors and descendants; in most he has been misnamed. 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 used the Greatheed spelling, making it a great research tool when tracing the family's line. Note: I may call Joshua Greatheed "the Major" instead or use Greathead as interchangeable with Greatheed, especially when quoting documents.
|
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."
The Early Greatheeds of Morley and Gildersome
The Greatheed family had a long occupation in Batley parish and Morley especially. In a 1379 Poll Tax list for Morley, one William Greathede was wealthy enough to be included (4). The Greatheed name, in its various forms, appears now and then in Batley parish records from the 1500s and 1600s, but gaps in those records make a connection to the ancestral line of Thomas Greatheed, the Major's father, impossible. Though many Greatheeds lived in Batley parish prior to the 17th century it's not known if any had lived in Gildersome. The earliest Greatheed connection with Gildersome comes from the second half of the 16th century when Sir John Saville, Gildersome's manorial lord, disposed of most of his property held in demesne in that same manor. Sometime in the 1570s or 1580s, one John Greathead, along with John Stubley, of Stubley, received from Saville a grant of land in Gildersome of unquantifiable size. John Greathead along with his wife Isobel resided at Scholecroft, Morley, which is known, today, as Hillcrest Farm off Scotchman's Lane. Out of that grant, in 1589, they resold to the freeholders of Gildersome, a portion of that property which included fourteen subdivided fields: four Harthill Closes, four Moor Closes, four West Moor Closes and two Carr Closes. Among the purchasers was one Henry Crowther, his son became the father-in-law of the Major (5). When the said John Greathead died in 1595, his last will and Testament left property in Pontefract to his grandson, Thomas Bury, and money for the "poore in Gildersome," as well as the poor in Morley, Churwell and Batley. He named Isabel, his wife, heir and executrix to the residue of his estate in which no properties were mentioned, but certainly must have included Scholecroft. Since he bequeathed money to the poor in Gildersome, it's a good guess that he owned some property there at the time of his death (6). Thus far, the earliest record placing a Greatheed definitively in Gildersome is the death record of John Greatheed the younger brother of the Major who died in 1647(7). Most likely he lived with his brother, Joshua and family at Carr Hall. This property may have been a portion that Isobel Greathead inherited and passed down for the family's use. The next Greatheed to occupy Gildersome, as found in the surviving records, was Joshua Greatheed, the Major himself.
The Greatheed family had a long occupation in Batley parish and Morley especially. In a 1379 Poll Tax list for Morley, one William Greathede was wealthy enough to be included (4). The Greatheed name, in its various forms, appears now and then in Batley parish records from the 1500s and 1600s, but gaps in those records make a connection to the ancestral line of Thomas Greatheed, the Major's father, impossible. Though many Greatheeds lived in Batley parish prior to the 17th century it's not known if any had lived in Gildersome. The earliest Greatheed connection with Gildersome comes from the second half of the 16th century when Sir John Saville, Gildersome's manorial lord, disposed of most of his property held in demesne in that same manor. Sometime in the 1570s or 1580s, one John Greathead, along with John Stubley, of Stubley, received from Saville a grant of land in Gildersome of unquantifiable size. John Greathead along with his wife Isobel resided at Scholecroft, Morley, which is known, today, as Hillcrest Farm off Scotchman's Lane. Out of that grant, in 1589, they resold to the freeholders of Gildersome, a portion of that property which included fourteen subdivided fields: four Harthill Closes, four Moor Closes, four West Moor Closes and two Carr Closes. Among the purchasers was one Henry Crowther, his son became the father-in-law of the Major (5). When the said John Greathead died in 1595, his last will and Testament left property in Pontefract to his grandson, Thomas Bury, and money for the "poore in Gildersome," as well as the poor in Morley, Churwell and Batley. He named Isabel, his wife, heir and executrix to the residue of his estate in which no properties were mentioned, but certainly must have included Scholecroft. Since he bequeathed money to the poor in Gildersome, it's a good guess that he owned some property there at the time of his death (6). Thus far, the earliest record placing a Greatheed definitively in Gildersome is the death record of John Greatheed the younger brother of the Major who died in 1647(7). Most likely he lived with his brother, Joshua and family at Carr Hall. This property may have been a portion that Isobel Greathead inherited and passed down for the family's use. The next Greatheed to occupy Gildersome, as found in the surviving records, was Joshua Greatheed, the Major himself.
|
The Major's Parents and Siblings
From the Parish of Leeds Marriage Records
As mentioned previously, the Major's family tree begins with his parents,Thomas Greatheed (c1575-1622), and Ellen Greatheed nee Oates (c1579-16??), (see above). They were married in Leeds on the 8th of September 1601. Thomas was a clothier. Regarding their children, I can find only six boys born to the couple, they may have had other children but if they did, they remain unknown. Their boys were: (8)
The family owned an estate in Morley, which was centred at Morley Hole (read the Morley Hole study to the right). Prior to his death in 1622, Thomas sold half of his estate to the Trustees of the Batley Grammar School. Thomas, died and was buried on the 5th of February 1622 at Batley (10). The next year, 1623, Ellen, his wife and Peter, the 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 (11). What life was like for the Greathead children and their mother after Thomas' death, we can only imagine. 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 maturity.
The family appears not to have been lacking in resources. Peter became a clothier in Morley, following in his father's footsteps. After the Morley Hole sale, the family had enough money to secure brother Thomas, at the age of 17, a seat at Magdalen College, where he achieved a B.A. in 1627 (age 22) and matriculated from Magdalen Hall with an M.A. (12). In fact all the brothers received a good education, though where is not presently known. Brother Robert died young at age 27 (13). Brother Nicholas eventually removed from Morley to Holbeck and engaged in the woollen trade. In May of 1644 he was "commissioned as a troop captain in Lord Fairfax's regiment of horse, having raised and financed his officers and 60 troopers." (14) Brother Joshua was described in his marriage banns (1637) as a clothier, so he must have apprenticed somewhere, perhaps with one of his brothers, either Peter or Nicholas (15). Finally brother John, the youngest, may have resided in Morley but died in Gildersome. Thus far little is known about John, He may have married but there's no definite proof. In the Protestation Oaths (1641 to 42) administered in Batley Parish which 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. What's probable was 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, bothers 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. About 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 "of Morley" with a son called Samuel. What's of most interest though, is that Joshua must have been stationed in Headrow, Leeds, perhaps convalescing or manning the defences, or both. (16)
In 1643 Joshua was promoted major of horse. In 1648 the Major was paid £499 in arrears and £120 in expenses and was probably mustered out of the Regular Army at the same time (17). 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. (18) Peter Greatheed of Morley township served as:
An army quartermaster, and later a sequestrator in Agbrigg and Morley wapentakes. (19) |
Vertical Divider
|
The case for Morley Hole
Did the Greatheed family reside in Morley Hole? In Norrison Scatcherd's book, "A History of Morley?" he mentions several seventeenth century houses there, including the one above in an early twentieth century photo. All those houses have since disappeared.
In Michael Sheard's book, Records of the Parish of Batley, pg. 171 (1894), he gives an account of the properties owned by the old Batley Grammar School whose rents were applied to the school's maintenance. One of the properties purchased by the school's trustees was in Morley and owned by Thomas and Ellen Greatheed, the parents of Joshua Greatheed. The sale was accomplished in two halves, the first in 1622 by Thomas to the Batley trustees. The second sale to the trustees, 1623, was by Ellen and her eldest son Peter, Thomas having died the previous year. 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 without any progeny, 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." Sheard then includes a list, in chronological order, of the occupiers of the old Greathead estate, beginning with Dawson in 1659 and ending with John Fox in 1799. Below, excerpts from local records follow the trail of owners and occupiers up to 1910: Using the early 1700s Dartmouth Plan of Morley (www.morleystory.online/1716-plan.html) one can find a William Fox and a John Dawson occupying Morley Hole, a freehold. The Morley Tax Assessments (below) for the years 1781 and 1827 record John Fox as the occupier of the Batley School properties. (Click to Expand) 
Above, from the 1781 (top) and 1827 Morley Tax Assessments
Below, the 1843 Tithe Apportionments for Morley list all the properties still held by the school. No's. 7, 8, 13 and 14 are in Morley Hole.
Click to Expand
In the 1843 map (below) that accompanies the Morley Tithe Apportionment's, Morley Hole dominates the centre. The four circled properties were still owned by the Batley Grammar School.
Click on map to expand.
The portion of the 1850s OS map below, shows the location of the other three closes as described in the Tithe Apportionments. Given the wide distribution of the remaining school properties, one wonders whether the estate was originally larger and had been subdivided and sold. 
Click on map to expand.
In 1910, The Batley Grammar School still retained its Morley Properties.
|
Nicholas Greatheed of Holbeck township served:
In May of 1644 Nicholas was commissioned as a troop captain in Lord Fairtax's regiment of horse, having raised and financed his officers and 60 troopers. 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. (20)
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. (21)
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. (22)
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 removed there sometime in the 1640s.
At the beginning of the 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 done out of his own funds or from borrowing is yet to be discovered (23). 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 (24). 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, was never fully reimbursed by Parliament for their service. Instead of repaying the full amount to Dame Mary, he was forced to pay its interest each year. This continued until 1653 when he defaulted (25). Between 1652 and 1657, Nicholas appears to have been desperately in debt. As corroboration, in 1653 Nicolas was in the King's Bench Prison, presumably over the Dame Mary Bolles loan (26). 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 (27), 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 (28), as presumably Nicholas died intestate. As Nicholas' administrator, the Major was sued by Mary Jackson of Leeds over £80 pounds 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. (29)
At the beginning of the 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 done out of his own funds or from borrowing is yet to be discovered (23). 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 (24). 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, was never fully reimbursed by Parliament for their service. Instead of repaying the full amount to Dame Mary, he was forced to pay its interest each year. This continued until 1653 when he defaulted (25). Between 1652 and 1657, Nicholas appears to have been desperately in debt. As corroboration, in 1653 Nicolas was in the King's Bench Prison, presumably over the Dame Mary Bolles loan (26). 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 (27), 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 (28), as presumably Nicholas died intestate. As Nicholas' administrator, the Major was sued by Mary Jackson of Leeds over £80 pounds 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. (29)
Joshua Greatheed, his Wife and Children
Joshua Greathead married Susan Crowther (1620-1684) on the 28th of May 1640 (30), however they first announced their intention to wed in the marriage banns of 1637 (31). It would be interesting to find out the reason for the three year delay, perhaps it was negotiating a dowery. Whatever the reason, the couple were wed at the Batley parish church. Susannah's parents, Ralph Crowther (1585-1658) and Alice Crowther nee Scott (b 1580) were married on 15 Oct 1617 at Batley parish church (32). Ralph's father was Henry Crowther, mentioned in the 1580s Greatheed and Stubley sale above. In those days, the Crowthers were a large Gildersome and Morley clan whose trades included mining, smithing, tanning and cloth making.
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. (33)
Joshua Greathead married Susan Crowther (1620-1684) on the 28th of May 1640 (30), however they first announced their intention to wed in the marriage banns of 1637 (31). It would be interesting to find out the reason for the three year delay, perhaps it was negotiating a dowery. Whatever the reason, the couple were wed at the Batley parish church. Susannah's parents, Ralph Crowther (1585-1658) and Alice Crowther nee Scott (b 1580) were married on 15 Oct 1617 at Batley parish church (32). Ralph's father was Henry Crowther, mentioned in the 1580s Greatheed and Stubley sale above. In those days, the Crowthers were a large Gildersome and Morley clan whose trades included mining, smithing, tanning and cloth making.
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. (33)
- 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. (34)
The Major's Gildersome
The earliest description of Gildersome came from Barnard’s survey of 1577 which reported that it was a "hamlet having about twenty dwellings, where it was easy to settle and encroach on the wastes? (35) Prior to that, a rich abundance of iron ore combined with an extensive supply of woodland supported a thriving iron mining and smelting economy. This eventually stripped the land of most of its trees (36) and left in its wake great swaths of tree stumps and superficial damage from scarring, pitting and spoiling. During the sixteenth century, where once there was common land, the enclosure laws had separated field from field, and tenants had to pay for the privilege to use them. It was then that Gildersome's principle landholders, at the top being the Saville family who held the Manor, began a sell off of large tracts of the manor's exhausted fields to local yeomen and tradesmen. A good example of such a transaction is the Greatheed and Stubley purchase previously discussed above (37). By 1711, a survey plan of southwest Farnley made for Lord Cardigan, its manorial lord, also included his lands in Gildersome. It revealed that he owned some waste in Gildersome, probably containing 10 to 20 cottages, and owned only about 10 to 15 acres of its enclosed fields occupied by one tenant, freeholders owning the remaining 98% of the township. Contrast that with adjacent Morley where, at the same time, freeholders owned approximately 10% to 15% of Morley's total acreage and Morley's Lord Dartmouth owned the rest (38).
By1600 coal had become a highly sought after commodity and since Gildersome was awash in it, coal mining eclipsed iron mining, the woollen industry and farming becoming its most profitable industry. Crude coal mines began to litter the land especially near or within the old iron workings, such as Harthill, the western edge of Dean Beck and in the southern parts of the township mainly just above and "beyond the Street" (39) (the Bradford 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.
Gradually the old stumps left behind by the charcoalers were pulled and much of the land was cleared and by the time the 1666 Hearth Tax count was taken, Gildersome had grown to forty six houses, each containing one hearth or more. Of course this did not include the poorer classes living on the waste and those living rough. The greatest concentration of buildings, which could be considered the centre of town, was located around and near the Manor House, on Harthill, with farmsteads and houses radiating from the centre, many along today's Church and Town Streets. 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 tradesmen including the following, all found within surviving documents from that period: yeomen farmer, clothier, glover, salter, shoe maker, tanner, blacksmith and roper. Due 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.
Greatheed 's original holdings in Gildersome:
There still remains the question of whether the Greatheeds possessed ancestral land in Gildersome which could have been part of the 16th century Greatheed Stubley purchase. If not, it must have been acquired during the 1640s and could have been either purchased by a Greatheed or been part of a dowry from Ralph Crowther. The land in question was located in the northern half of Major's Farm, bordering on Farnley Wood and contained a farmstead located at present day Carr Hall. On Map 1 of Gildersome, below, the said property is located within the blue oval. Though the Major probably did reside there in the 1640s, he makes his first appearance in the surviving records in a deed dated1650 (40), which also happens to be the same year that he was promoted to Major in the Yorkshire militia. In that deed Greatheed leases to Richard Lepton, a yeoman and Gildersome neighbor, "a Lith close (land with a grain storehouse) called Hollings Close and the Sour Ing," (number 1 on Map 1, below). The Major, at that time, was clearly in a generous mood because the yearly rent was, "one red rose in the time of roses (if the sum be used) and no other or more rent provided." Though no rent was applied, Lepton was expected to maintain the appurtenances and manure the fields. The deed further states:
The earliest description of Gildersome came from Barnard’s survey of 1577 which reported that it was a "hamlet having about twenty dwellings, where it was easy to settle and encroach on the wastes? (35) Prior to that, a rich abundance of iron ore combined with an extensive supply of woodland supported a thriving iron mining and smelting economy. This eventually stripped the land of most of its trees (36) and left in its wake great swaths of tree stumps and superficial damage from scarring, pitting and spoiling. During the sixteenth century, where once there was common land, the enclosure laws had separated field from field, and tenants had to pay for the privilege to use them. It was then that Gildersome's principle landholders, at the top being the Saville family who held the Manor, began a sell off of large tracts of the manor's exhausted fields to local yeomen and tradesmen. A good example of such a transaction is the Greatheed and Stubley purchase previously discussed above (37). By 1711, a survey plan of southwest Farnley made for Lord Cardigan, its manorial lord, also included his lands in Gildersome. It revealed that he owned some waste in Gildersome, probably containing 10 to 20 cottages, and owned only about 10 to 15 acres of its enclosed fields occupied by one tenant, freeholders owning the remaining 98% of the township. Contrast that with adjacent Morley where, at the same time, freeholders owned approximately 10% to 15% of Morley's total acreage and Morley's Lord Dartmouth owned the rest (38).
By1600 coal had become a highly sought after commodity and since Gildersome was awash in it, coal mining eclipsed iron mining, the woollen industry and farming becoming its most profitable industry. Crude coal mines began to litter the land especially near or within the old iron workings, such as Harthill, the western edge of Dean Beck and in the southern parts of the township mainly just above and "beyond the Street" (39) (the Bradford 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.
Gradually the old stumps left behind by the charcoalers were pulled and much of the land was cleared and by the time the 1666 Hearth Tax count was taken, Gildersome had grown to forty six houses, each containing one hearth or more. Of course this did not include the poorer classes living on the waste and those living rough. The greatest concentration of buildings, which could be considered the centre of town, was located around and near the Manor House, on Harthill, with farmsteads and houses radiating from the centre, many along today's Church and Town Streets. 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 tradesmen including the following, all found within surviving documents from that period: yeomen farmer, clothier, glover, salter, shoe maker, tanner, blacksmith and roper. Due 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.
Greatheed 's original holdings in Gildersome:
There still remains the question of whether the Greatheeds possessed ancestral land in Gildersome which could have been part of the 16th century Greatheed Stubley purchase. If not, it must have been acquired during the 1640s and could have been either purchased by a Greatheed or been part of a dowry from Ralph Crowther. The land in question was located in the northern half of Major's Farm, bordering on Farnley Wood and contained a farmstead located at present day Carr Hall. On Map 1 of Gildersome, below, the said property is located within the blue oval. Though the Major probably did reside there in the 1640s, he makes his first appearance in the surviving records in a deed dated1650 (40), which also happens to be the same year that he was promoted to Major in the Yorkshire militia. In that deed Greatheed leases to Richard Lepton, a yeoman and Gildersome neighbor, "a Lith close (land with a grain storehouse) called Hollings Close and the Sour Ing," (number 1 on Map 1, below). The Major, at that time, was clearly in a generous mood because the yearly rent was, "one red rose in the time of roses (if the sum be used) and no other or more rent provided." Though no rent was applied, Lepton was expected to maintain the appurtenances and manure the fields. The deed further states:
"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 (a) 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....."(41)
(Click on map to expand)
Richard Lepton lived near the present day site of Manor Farm, off today's Spring View which back then was called Stoneygate Lane. The site may have been occupied for several hundreds of years prior to the 1650s when it became known as Lepton Place. The name endured until the turn of the 20th century .
(Map 1, below) Superimposed upon a modern map of Gildersome is a rough approximation of the Major's holdings between the years 1650 and 1686. It's helpful to remember that the map has been created using surviving documents and records, so some guesswork is inevitable. Many of the field names remained the same as they were found to be called in the 1843 Tithe Apportionments, but some of those fields may have been larger and had since been subdivided. The property within the blue oval was held by the Greatheeds prior to the 1650s. The rest of the properties, highlighted and bordered in yellow, came as either a marriage dowry or gift from Ralph Crowther to his daughter Susannah and her Greatheed grandchildren. The map also shows to whom the land passed after the Greatheed line in Gildersome had ended, i.e. the Smiths through Alice Smith nee Greatheed and the Scatcherds through Mary Greatheed, Henry's daughter, who married Samuel Scatcherd. Also noted are some of the other property owners and the general locations of their holdings.
Key to the Map:
The blue oval marks the earliest Greatheed land. The red star is the location of Major's Hall. The dashed yellow oval is the approximate area of the Queen's Tenement. The area within the red oval represents Lumb Bottom and the Stone Pitts.
1. Lepton's Lease.
2. Major's Spring.
3. Carr Hall.
4. Jon Hole.
5. Bell Royds.
6. Layne side, Langleys, and Johnny Hole.
7. The Street, Bradford to Wakefield Road.
8. West and Birk Fields.
9. Later Andrew Hill Farm.
10. The Queen's Tenement .
11.Harthill, numerous owners and tenants.
12. Morley Hole, the Major's birthplace.
The area within the red oval represents Lumb Bottom and the Stone Pitts, fertile iron and coal beds.
(Map 1, below) Superimposed upon a modern map of Gildersome is a rough approximation of the Major's holdings between the years 1650 and 1686. It's helpful to remember that the map has been created using surviving documents and records, so some guesswork is inevitable. Many of the field names remained the same as they were found to be called in the 1843 Tithe Apportionments, but some of those fields may have been larger and had since been subdivided. The property within the blue oval was held by the Greatheeds prior to the 1650s. The rest of the properties, highlighted and bordered in yellow, came as either a marriage dowry or gift from Ralph Crowther to his daughter Susannah and her Greatheed grandchildren. The map also shows to whom the land passed after the Greatheed line in Gildersome had ended, i.e. the Smiths through Alice Smith nee Greatheed and the Scatcherds through Mary Greatheed, Henry's daughter, who married Samuel Scatcherd. Also noted are some of the other property owners and the general locations of their holdings.
Key to the Map:
The blue oval marks the earliest Greatheed land. The red star is the location of Major's Hall. The dashed yellow oval is the approximate area of the Queen's Tenement. The area within the red oval represents Lumb Bottom and the Stone Pitts.
1. Lepton's Lease.
2. Major's Spring.
3. Carr Hall.
4. Jon Hole.
5. Bell Royds.
6. Layne side, Langleys, and Johnny Hole.
7. The Street, Bradford to Wakefield Road.
8. West and Birk Fields.
9. Later Andrew Hill Farm.
10. The Queen's Tenement .
11.Harthill, numerous owners and tenants.
12. Morley Hole, the Major's birthplace.
The area within the red oval represents Lumb Bottom and the Stone Pitts, fertile iron and coal beds.
The Crowther Legacy
In the 16th century, the southern portion of Major's Farm, down to Church Street and beyond (number 10 on Map 1, above) was part of what was known as the Queen's Tenement (42) to which a messuage and barn was included. The messuage was called the Queen's Cottage, which I believe was situated on or near to the future site of the Major's Hall (see: Map 1 below, the yellow 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 Middleton (43). The endowment probably ended shortly after 1603 with the death of Elizabeth the first. The property then came into the hands of Thomas Walker (44) who sold it to Thomas Wentworth and Henry Batt (45) who sold it to Henry Crowther, the grandfather of Susannah Greatheed nee Crowther.
In the mid to late 16th century, members of the Crowther family, among others, were delving near the surface of Gildersome for ironstone. This is verified by an account recorded circa 1567at the Farnley Smithies, an ironworks situated along Farnley Beck (46). By the mid 17th century the Crowthers occupied and mined a large amount of acreage in Gildersome containing easily obtainable coal beds (coal had become the more desirable commodity). While at work they also collected ironstone as a fringe benefit, since the two were often found together. The probable extent of the Gildersome property belonging to Ralph Crowther can be seen in the Map 1 above (with the exception within the blue oval, the remainder of those areas highlighted and bordered in yellow). In 1655, Ralph Crowther, in advance of his death, endowed most, if not all, of his Gildersome property to his daughter Susan Greatheed and her children (47). The introduction of that grant reads as follows:
In the 16th century, the southern portion of Major's Farm, down to Church Street and beyond (number 10 on Map 1, above) was part of what was known as the Queen's Tenement (42) to which a messuage and barn was included. The messuage was called the Queen's Cottage, which I believe was situated on or near to the future site of the Major's Hall (see: Map 1 below, the yellow 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 Middleton (43). The endowment probably ended shortly after 1603 with the death of Elizabeth the first. The property then came into the hands of Thomas Walker (44) who sold it to Thomas Wentworth and Henry Batt (45) who sold it to Henry Crowther, the grandfather of Susannah Greatheed nee Crowther.
In the mid to late 16th century, members of the Crowther family, among others, were delving near the surface of Gildersome for ironstone. This is verified by an account recorded circa 1567at the Farnley Smithies, an ironworks situated along Farnley Beck (46). By the mid 17th century the Crowthers occupied and mined a large amount of acreage in Gildersome containing easily obtainable coal beds (coal had become the more desirable commodity). While at work they also collected ironstone as a fringe benefit, since the two were often found together. The probable extent of the Gildersome property belonging to Ralph Crowther can be seen in the Map 1 above (with the exception within the blue oval, the remainder of those areas highlighted and bordered in yellow). In 1655, Ralph Crowther, in advance of his death, endowed most, if not all, of his Gildersome property to his daughter Susan Greatheed and her children (47). The introduction of that grant 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..... (48)
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. (49)
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. Grandson Henry was not included since he was born after Ralph died. Ralph Crowther died in 1658, and in his will is no mention of any landed property, indicating that he had disposed of most or all prior to his death. (50)
As mentioned previously, it's most likely that, when the Major removed to Gildersome, it was originally into Carr Hall with its associated land, mostly stretching west to Major Wood. The fields below that, down to Church Street, were owned by the Crowthers. It was they who built Newhouse which passed to the Greatheed grandchildren in 1658. Newhouse later became known as Major's Hall even though it passed to his wife and children. It was situated on Church Street across from today's St. Peters Church, and was near to or on the site of the old Queen's Cottage.
(Left) Major's Hall by Andrew Bedford.
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 in the east and to Farnley, Tong and Drighlington in the north and west. 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. It was described as having five hearths. John Smith the Elder's house had six hearths and was once called by Norrison Scatcherd the grandest house in Gildersome, it occupied the site of the later Halstead House. Smith's son, also called John, married the Major's eldest daughter Alice, and they dwelt in a house with three hearths (possibly Carr Hall). (51)
(Left) Major's Hall by Andrew Bedford.
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 in the east and to Farnley, Tong and Drighlington in the north and west. 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. It was described as having five hearths. John Smith the Elder's house had six hearths and was once called by Norrison Scatcherd the grandest house in Gildersome, it occupied the site of the later Halstead House. Smith's son, also called John, married the Major's eldest daughter Alice, and they dwelt in a house with three hearths (possibly Carr Hall). (51)
Numbers 8 and 9 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 (52) the Street Close, the West Field and Birk Close, part of which which would later come to be called Andrew Hill (53). 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" (54), proving that the Greatheed family owned these properties after Ralph Crowther's death.
In the 1800 Enclosure Map of Gildersome (map 2 above) 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 the 1800 Enclosure Map of Gildersome (map 2 above) 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.
click on map to expand
In 1681 an agreement made between the same Richard Lepton, mentioned above, and the Major with his son-in-law John Smith, involved the following properties which comprise what for centuries was known as the Major's Farm:
all that messuage or tenement and all the folds closes barns buildings, gardens orchards, outbuildings, folds easements and hereditaments whatsoever to the said 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. (55)
Map 3: Entered on to this portion of an 1850's O.S map of Gildersome, right, the field names from the Tithe map and Apportionments of the same period have been filled in by yours truly. Major's Farm is approximately delineated within the red dashed lines. If you click on the map, to see an enlarged version,you will find that the field names are exactly the same as they were in 1681, with the exception of the Great Ing which has been divided into smaller parcels, each called Ing (the yellow shading). Carr Hall, the above said messuage, is located in the upper red circle and the lower red circle is the Major's Hall. Lepton Place, still called that in the 1850s, is shown within the orange circle, and the lane running from there to Carr Hall was called Stoneygate Lane. The entire farm consisted of sixty acres more or less. It passed from the Greatheeds to the Scatcherds and remained in their possession until the beginning of the 20th century.
all that messuage or tenement and all the folds closes barns buildings, gardens orchards, outbuildings, folds easements and hereditaments whatsoever to the said 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. (55)
Map 3: Entered on to this portion of an 1850's O.S map of Gildersome, right, the field names from the Tithe map and Apportionments of the same period have been filled in by yours truly. Major's Farm is approximately delineated within the red dashed lines. If you click on the map, to see an enlarged version,you will find that the field names are exactly the same as they were in 1681, with the exception of the Great Ing which has been divided into smaller parcels, each called Ing (the yellow shading). Carr Hall, the above said messuage, is located in the upper red circle and the lower red circle is the Major's Hall. Lepton Place, still called that in the 1850s, is shown within the orange circle, and the lane running from there to Carr Hall was called Stoneygate Lane. The entire farm consisted of sixty acres more or less. It passed from the Greatheeds to the Scatcherds and remained in their possession until the beginning of the 20th century.
Morley's Old Chapel Protest
On the 6th of April 1663, little over six months before the rising 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 episcopacy’s ‘Book of Common Prayer.’ The demonstrators' 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. Twenty two men were soon identified as the prime conspirators and an arrest warrant was issued for their detention. Joshua Greatheed was included in the warrant as well as several other well known Gildersome men: John Smith, John Dickinson, Jeremy Boulton and William Scott. Of those five Gildersome men named, only William Scott was not on Sheriff Gower's payroll later in October. (56)
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:
On the 6th of April 1663, little over six months before the rising 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 episcopacy’s ‘Book of Common Prayer.’ The demonstrators' 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. Twenty two men were soon identified as the prime conspirators and an arrest warrant was issued for their detention. Joshua Greatheed was included in the warrant as well as several other well known Gildersome men: John Smith, John Dickinson, Jeremy Boulton and William Scott. Of those five Gildersome men named, only William Scott was not on Sheriff Gower's payroll later in October. (56)
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. (57)
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 the 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.”(58) 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. 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.' I also found the same month that 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 (59). 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? I believe they were awaiting the maturation of the rebel's planned rising with the hope of catching all the guilty in one large treasonous net.
There's no record of Joshua Greatheed or his cousin Thomas Oates being brought up for charges. I believe that before and during the Chapel incident the Major was on the payroll for the Sheriff of York. Read on and make up your own mind!
There's no record of Joshua Greatheed or his cousin Thomas Oates being brought up for charges. I believe that before and during the Chapel incident the Major was on the payroll for the Sheriff of York. Read on and make up your own mind!
After the Farnley Wood Plot: 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 and the Morley Old Chapel Protest, click on the references below:
Wikipedia The Farnley Wood Plot BBC Legacies The Old Chapel Morley Protest Greathead's Roll in the Plot 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
Wikipedia The Farnley Wood Plot BBC Legacies The Old Chapel Morley Protest Greathead's Roll in the Plot 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 most of the original seventeenth century Greatheed land, it having been passed on to the Scatcherds through Mary Scatcherd nee Greatheed, the Major's granddaughter. Norrison wrote 'The History of Morley' published in 1830 with a second edition published in 1874, about 19 years after his death. In it, he claimed to have 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 (60). 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. (61)
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. (62)
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. (63)
“The disaffected hold meetings, and profess to have a party in every county. Will use Greathead roughly,
because they begin to suspect him. (63)
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, probably the usual: 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 aforementioned allowance he received, which came right from the top, from 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, as Gower's agent, 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:
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 ..... (64)
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. (65)
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... (66)
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. As his 'farm,' he was given West Yorkshire and the city of York and his responsibility was to oversee the deputy collectors who would work the parishes. This office was a guaranteed income for life.
....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. (67)
On the 23rd of December the relief 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.
The whole key to the Major's working relationship with Gower is the aforementioned allowance he received, which came right from the top, from 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, as Gower's agent, 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:
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 ..... (64)
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. (65)
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... (66)
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. As his 'farm,' he was given West Yorkshire and the city of York and his responsibility was to oversee the deputy collectors who would work the parishes. This office was a guaranteed income for life.
....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. (67)
On the 23rd of December the relief 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.
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. (69)
Greatheed began the collection of the hearth tax in Yorkshire in 1664. But by the beginning of 1666, those responsible for overseeing the tax collectors on the ground, called the Grand Farmers, discovered discrepancies in the Major's account. 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 (70). 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 who were unsatisfied with the Major's accounting (71). 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 his shortage. 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." (72) 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."(73) 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). 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 (74). 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 apparently 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 (75). 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. (76)
The sworn statement of Richard Lloyd Esq. (77), 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.
Lloyd vs Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed: (78)
In November of 1673, a complaint 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, who was a Grand Receiver of the of revenue and Sheriff of Nottingham. In the name of the Grand Farmers, Lloyd was tasked with managing and collecting the debt owed by Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed which together amounted to four thousand five hundred pounds or upwards. To compensate for the loss the Crown had many of their properties jointly or severally seized. The trio's (Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed) claimed value of those seized properties, in aggregate, amounted to the sum of one thousand pounds per year. Lloyd declared that the three debtor's approached him near the end of 1671 and confided that between the three of them 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. (79)
It's clear that Lloyd, eager to make an extra £1500, was hoodwinked. When the trio failed to pay at the appointed time, no surprise there, Lloyd began an inquiry into the said bonded lands and tenements. Lloyd's deposition tells it best:
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. (69)
Greatheed began the collection of the hearth tax in Yorkshire in 1664. But by the beginning of 1666, those responsible for overseeing the tax collectors on the ground, called the Grand Farmers, discovered discrepancies in the Major's account. 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 (70). 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 who were unsatisfied with the Major's accounting (71). 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 his shortage. 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." (72) 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."(73) 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). 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 (74). 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 apparently 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 (75). 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. (76)
The sworn statement of Richard Lloyd Esq. (77), 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.
Lloyd vs Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed: (78)
In November of 1673, a complaint 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, who was a Grand Receiver of the of revenue and Sheriff of Nottingham. In the name of the Grand Farmers, Lloyd was tasked with managing and collecting the debt owed by Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed which together amounted to four thousand five hundred pounds or upwards. To compensate for the loss the Crown had many of their properties jointly or severally seized. The trio's (Batt, Butterworth and Greatheed) claimed value of those seized properties, in aggregate, amounted to the sum of one thousand pounds per year. Lloyd declared that the three debtor's approached him near the end of 1671 and confided that between the three of them 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. (79)
It's clear that Lloyd, eager to make an extra £1500, was hoodwinked. When the trio failed to pay at the appointed time, no surprise there, 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... (80)
*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 betrayal of the 1663 rebel plot, Lloyd's testimony above, is a most damning indictment
of the Major's 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. (81)
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 a few weeks or so 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. Even after the discovery of his tax arrearage he was never forced to settle the debt nor was he thrown into prison. Did he squirrel away some or much of the missing tax revenue? It never has 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 (82). 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 (83). 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. (84)
of the Major's 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. (81)
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 a few weeks or so 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. Even after the discovery of his tax arrearage he was never forced to settle the debt nor was he thrown into prison. Did he squirrel away some or much of the missing tax revenue? It never has 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 (82). 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 (83). 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. (84)
TRENCH GATE TODAY JUST OFF GELDERD RD.
Where was the meeting place in Farnley Wood?
A local historian from Morley in the 1970s, wrote about the Farnley Plot, and presumably using collected material from the Morley Archives, wrote this curious sentence: The conspirators were to meet at the bottom of Rooms Lane in 'The Trench' of Farnley Wood...(85) I agree with that one hundred percent, here's why......
Today it's common knowledge that the Farnley Wood plotters met somewhere in Farnley Wood where their activities would have been concealed by 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 be hard to navigate in the dark. Instead, they would have preferred to rendezvous in a remote but accessible location on the edge of the wood where, once finally assembled, they could dash off to Leeds and secure the town. At that time, Leeds had only one bridge spanning the Aire, at Briggate, to which the highroad from Gildersome and Morley led. (86) The only other bridge close to Farnley Wood was near Kirkstall Abbey.
Scatcherd, in his 'History of Morley,' inferred 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 was in possession of a lot of 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 stil in existence and is the only place in the area that meets all the conditions of remoteness and easy accessibility, both in coming and going.
A local historian from Morley in the 1970s, wrote about the Farnley Plot, and presumably using collected material from the Morley Archives, wrote this curious sentence: The conspirators were to meet at the bottom of Rooms Lane in 'The Trench' of Farnley Wood...(85) I agree with that one hundred percent, here's why......
Today it's common knowledge that the Farnley Wood plotters met somewhere in Farnley Wood where their activities would have been concealed by 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 be hard to navigate in the dark. Instead, they would have preferred to rendezvous in a remote but accessible location on the edge of the wood where, once finally assembled, they could dash off to Leeds and secure the town. At that time, Leeds had only one bridge spanning the Aire, at Briggate, to which the highroad from Gildersome and Morley led. (86) The only other bridge close to Farnley Wood was near Kirkstall Abbey.
Scatcherd, in his 'History of Morley,' inferred 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 was in possession of a lot of 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 stil in existence and is the only place in the area that meets all the conditions of remoteness and easy accessibility, both in coming and going.
|
Back then, the bottom of Rooms Lane would have been quite close to today's Trench Gate along Gelderd Road, which bars entry to Trench Lane, see the photo above. 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 name of the lane 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 Churwell, where one could pick up the highroad to Leeds. In all likelihood, at that time, the area surrounding the junction may have been within the periphery of Farnley Wood. This remote and secluded location would have been relatively simple to find by determined men who were familiar with the area, even at night. It was said that Greatheed chose the location of the rendezvous (87), which was only about a mile's easy ride from his home in Gildersome. In a not so strange coincidence, 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 circuitous route, both in coming and going.
In Maps 4and 5, 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 late 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
|
Greatheed as Mining Entrepreneur
As stated earlier, Gildersome and its neighbouring townships were overflowing 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 (Ralph Crowther) 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 highlighted areas bounded in yellow, except Major's Farm, were areas of potentially 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 this assertion except what's presented here, 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 (88) .
In a 1671 litigation, Favell vs. Greatheed (89), presented before Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, Henry Favell of Altofts gentleman of the one side versus Joshua Greatheed gentleman of Gildersome including Lord Francis Brudnell and Lady Francis Brudenell of the other. Favell was an attorney operating out of the town of York. He claimed that shortly before the death ofJames 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 was 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 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 Geatheed asserted that as the Lady Brudenell (nee 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 defence'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. (90)
Contained 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 (Mill) Royds. 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 properties came with mineral rights as 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 ..... (91)
As stated earlier, Gildersome and its neighbouring townships were overflowing 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 (Ralph Crowther) 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 highlighted areas bounded in yellow, except Major's Farm, were areas of potentially 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 this assertion except what's presented here, 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 (88) .
In a 1671 litigation, Favell vs. Greatheed (89), presented before Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, Henry Favell of Altofts gentleman of the one side versus Joshua Greatheed gentleman of Gildersome including Lord Francis Brudnell and Lady Francis Brudenell of the other. Favell was an attorney operating out of the town of York. He claimed that shortly before the death ofJames 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 was 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 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 Geatheed asserted that as the Lady Brudenell (nee 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 defence'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. (90)
Contained 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 (Mill) Royds. 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 properties came with mineral rights as 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 ..... (91)
Some of the Major's Litigations
There are many litigations in which the Major is the defendant and as they are too numerous, below is a representative sample.
In 1644 Major Joshua Greatheed, commissary for the Bradford garrison was sued for four cattle taken, he maintained, for the garrison's use. (92)
There are many litigations in which the Major is the defendant and as they are too numerous, below is a representative sample.
In 1644 Major Joshua Greatheed, commissary for the Bradford garrison was sued for four cattle taken, he maintained, for the garrison's use. (92)
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 promisee to repay unto 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. (93)
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 promisee to repay unto 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. (93)
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 financial 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. (94)
Though the Major is not directly involved in the following argument, it demonstrates his willingness to involve his children in his high-handed financial 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. (94)
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 a 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 it was in Latin, extremely deteriorated and therefore not of much use. (95)
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 by the property of John Smith and the Reyner's. At that time, Lepton had farmed several fields belonging to the Major since 1650 which were 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 at 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 3 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 "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." It was then that Lepton, to his astonishment, 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 defence 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.
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 this defendants wife in so much that she hath ever since and still doth languish and is in great danger to lose her life.... 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 in Fleet Street London.
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 a 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 it was in Latin, extremely deteriorated and therefore not of much use. (95)
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 by the property of John Smith and the Reyner's. At that time, Lepton had farmed several fields belonging to the Major since 1650 which were 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 at 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 3 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 "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." It was then that Lepton, to his astonishment, 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 defence 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.
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 this defendants wife in so much that she hath ever since and still doth languish and is in great danger to lose her life.... 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 in Fleet Street London.
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. (96)
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. (97)
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.....(98)
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. (99)
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. (96)
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. (97)
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.....(98)
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. (99)
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. (100)
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:
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:
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 one from October 14th, the following occurred after Lepton and the bailiffs forced entry into the house:
However, in the one from October 14th, 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. (101) 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.(102)
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. (103)
(left), Greatheed's burial entry at the bottom, from
the records of Fleet Street Prison, 15 August 1685) (104)
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. (105) 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.
Coming soon..... The children of Joshua and Susannah Greatheed.
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. (103)
(left), Greatheed's burial entry at the bottom, from
the records of Fleet Street Prison, 15 August 1685) (104)
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. (105) 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.
Coming soon..... The children of Joshua and Susannah Greatheed.
Sources:
- The Publications of the Thoresby Society, Volume XV, 1909, The Farnley Wood Plot by S. J. Chadwick, Pages 122-126.
- ibid.
- My apologies but I lost the notes referring to the deed from which the signature came.
- Genuki.org.uk Subsidy Roll (Poll Tax) for 1379 for the Yorkshire parish of Batley.
- Yorkshire Deeds Vol 1, Pg. 72-73. Cambridge University Press.
- Will of John Greathead 1595. Records of the Parish of Batley in the County of York: Historical ...By Michael Sheard. Pg 350.
- Record Series, Volume 35, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Wills in the York Registry. Pg 164.
- Either Ancestry. com or FindmyPast.com, Birth, Marriages and Deaths.
- ibid.
- ibid.
- Michael Sheard, Records of the Parish of Batley, pg. 171 (1894),
- British History Online, Alumni Oxonienses 1500-1714. Originally published by University of Oxford, Oxford, 1891. Gilpin-Greenhaugh.
- Either Ancestry. com or FindmyPast.com, Birth, Marriages and Deaths.
- British History Online, Surnames beginning 'G'', in The Cromwell Association Online Directory of Parliamentarian Army Officers , ed. Stephen K Roberts (2017).
- Paver's Marriage Licences Vol 1 1630-1644, pg 103. Findmypast.
- West Yorkshire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1512-1812, Ancestry.com.
- British History Online. Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 5, 1646-1648. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1802.
- Andrew Hopper, 'Yorkshire parliamentarians', 103-4; CSPD, 1650, 506.
- British History Online, Surnames beginning 'G'', in The Cromwell Association Online Directory of Parliamentarian Army Officers , ed. Stephen K Roberts (2017).
- ibid.
- ibid.
- A History of Morley. Norrison Scatcherd. 1837
- British History Online, Surnames beginning 'G'', in The Cromwell Association Online Directory of Parliamentarian Army Officers , ed. Stephen K Roberts (2017).
- The National Archives. Greathead v. Bolles. C 10/118/47
- ibid.
- Andrew Hopper. Social mobility during the English Revolution: the case of Adam Eyre pg 37, 38.
- The National Archives. Greathead v. Bolles. C 10/118/47
- 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.
- The National Archives. Greathead v. Jackson. C 5/405/63.
- Findmypast, Marriage records.
- Paver's Marriage Licences Vol 1 1630-1644, pg 103. Findmypast.
- Ancestry. com, Birth, Marriages and Deaths.
- West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Conveyance, Crowther to Greathead. 1655. WYL323/180.
- Either Ancestry. com or FindmyPast.com, Birth, Marriages and Deaths.
- G.D. Newton (2016) Farnley Smithies, Leeds: An Elizabethan Iron Works and its Sources of Ironstone and Charcoal, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal.
- ibid.
- Yorkshire Deeds Vol 1, Cambridge University Press.
- Early 18th Century Survey Plan of Morley, Lord Dartmouth. https://www.morleystory.online/1716-plan.html.
- West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Conveyance, Crowther to Greathead. 1655, WYL323/180.
- West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Indenture. 1650 Greathead to Lepton. WYL323/181.
- ibid.
- The National Archives. Walker v. Wilbore. 41 Elizabeth. DL 4/42/47 & DL 4/41/14.
- A Chantry Chapel was a building on private land or a dedicated area or altar within a parish church or cathedral, set aside or built especially for the performance of assigned rituals by the priest. (Wikipedia)
- The National Archives. Walker v. Wilbore. 41 Elizabeth. DL 4/42/47 & DL 4/41/14.
- West Yorkshire Archive Service, Conveyance, Crowther to Crowther, 1568 , WYL323/173.
- G.D. Newton (2016) Farnley Smithies, Leeds: An Elizabethan Iron Works and its Sources of Ironstone and Charcoal, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal.
- West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Conveyance, Crowther to Greathead. 1655, WYL323/180.
- ibid.
- ibid.
- The National Archives, Will of Ralph Crowther. PROB 11/288/431.
- The 1666 and 1672 Hearth Tax returns for Gildersome.
- West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds. Lease, 1656. WYL323/183.
- The 1852 O.S. Map of Gildersome.
- Wakefield Registry of Deeds. Indenture. Smith to Scatcherd. LL 358 479.
- The National Archives, Lepton v. Greathead. Litigation. 1684. C 10/150/69, C 10/149/45 & C 10/522/13.
- 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).
- ibid.
- Records of the Parish of Batley in the County of York. Michael Sheard. Pg 145.
- West Yorkshire Archive Service: Yorkshire, England, Quarter Session Records, 1637-1914, 1663-1665.
- The Farnley Wood Plot and the Memory of the Civil War in Yorkshire. Andrew Hopper. Cambridge University Press .
- ibid.
- 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.
- ibid.
- 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.
- ibid.
- ibid.
- 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).
- Charles II - volume 86: December 19-31, 1663', in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1663-4, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1862), pp. 379-398. Dec. 23, 1663.
- 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].
- The National Archives. County: West Riding of Yorkshire; North Riding of Yorkshire; and York City. 1666. E 179/210/394.
- 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.
- Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles II, Volume 7. pg 1667.
- Calendar of Treasury Books, Preserved in the Public Record Office 1667-1668. pg 424.
- 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.
- ibid.
- ibid.
- The National Archives. Lloyd v. Batt. 1673. C 10/479/78.
- ibid.
- ibid.
- ibid.
- The Publications of the Thoresby Society, Volume XV, 1909, The Farnley Wood Plot by S. J. Chadwick, Pages 122-126.
- Special Series List & Index Society. Simon R. Neal, Stuart Jenks. 2008.....Greatheed's banker was John Colville.
- The National Archives. Toby Humphreys, William Wilkinson, "and others." E 134/36&37Chas2/Hil21 and E 134/1Jas2/East20 (1685-1686).
- 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.
- 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.
- South Leeds Life, The Old Bridge, https://southleedslife.com/old-leeds-bridge/
- The Farnley Wood Plot and the Memory of the Civil War in Yorkshire. Andrew Hopper. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 297.
- ibid.
- The National Archives. Favell v Greathead. Litigation. C 10/475/99.
- Ibid.
- Leeds, West Yorkshire Archive Service, Ratification of a Lease. Greathead to Greathead. 1674. WYL323/185.
- SP 24/50(Sutcliff vs. Greathead,Greathead, petition of Joshua December21, 1647). Cf. SP26/34(Bower98. Belwood,petition of Jeremy Bower, April 21, 1648).
- The National Archives. Mitley v Greathead. Litigation. C 10/467/198.
- The National Archives. Dickinson v Greathead. Money Matters. C 10/481/52.
- The National Archives. Lepton v Greathead. Litigation. C 10/150/69.....C 10/522/13.....C 10/149/45.
- ibid.
- Ancestry.com, West Yorkshire Quarter Sessions.
- ibid.
- 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
- Ancestry.com. West Yorkshire Quarter Sessions. Translated from Latin.
- Leeds Library, Yorkshire Archaeological and Historical Society Collection. Letter from Alice Smith. MD363/111/FC.
- ibid.
- History of Gildersome and the Booth Family. Philip Henry Booth. page 14
- Ancestry.com. Birth, Marriage, Death collections.
- The National Archives. Greathead, John: Fields in Gildersome. 1690-1691. E 367/3523.
