Category Archives: Coghill

1879 Family of Coghill

The Family of Coghill


James Henry Coghill, 1879

(transcribed and annotated by Julian D S Lyon, 2001)

The Family of Coghill, 1377 to 1879: with some sketches of their maternal ancestors, the Slingsbys, of Scriven Hall, 1135 to 1879

First published by CAMBRIDGE and Printed at the Riverside Press 1879


Could I have foreseen the difficulties to be encountered, the large outlay of money, and the amount of labor to be expended upon this work, it would probably never have been undertaken by me. But now that it is finished I cannot say that I regret the impulse which first prompted me to engage in it.

When I first entered upon this work it was with no thought of extending my researches beyond the limits of our own country, and with but little hope of tracing the family very far back here. I was fortunate, however, at the beginning, in having the assistance and cooperation of a gentleman (A. R. Micou, Esq., of Tappahannock, Virginia) whose qualifications and position enabled him to render me valuable aid. To his patient and thorough examination of the old and musty records of Essex County, in that State, I am indebted for many links of the family chain; these, and others which came to me through family records and members now living, were, by carefully examining and comparing the different records, put each in its place, and properly connected, forming, when finished, an unbroken chain from 1664 to 1879.

Encouraged by success, I determined to extend my inquiries beyond the seas. This new field was hardly entered, when so many obstacles presented themselves that I was more than once on the point of abandoning the work in despair. I was held to it, however, by the encouragement and assistance given by friends, and, I may add, strangers also, for many kind letters and much valuable information were from persons with whom I had not the pleasure of a personal acquaintance. It is a most pleasant duty to mention and thank them here, as well for their uniform kindness in answering my numerous letters, as for the assistance I received from them.

I am under special obligations to Sir John Jocelyn Coghill, Bart., of Belvedere House, Drumcondra, in the County of Dublin, and Glen Barrahane, Castle Townsend, in the County of Cork, Ireland, for the pedigree of the eldest branch of the family, which was invaluable as a basis of further research, and also for other useful information.

I am hardly less indebted to Henry Hucks Gibbs, Esq., of Aldenham House, County of Hertford, and of St. Dunstans, Regents Park, London, former Governor of the Bank of England (who is the present representative of the principal estates of the Coghills of Hertfordshire, and the representative of the family of Hucks, through whom these estates descended to him), for records from the family papers now in his possession, and for revising and correcting the pedigree of the junior branch of the family, and also for photographs of the old family portraits of John Coghill, and Sir Thomas, his son, from which their pictures in this book were made.

My thanks are also due to Henry Coghill, Esq., of Brampton Tree House, Newcastle, Staffordshire, England, for much of the information relating to the Scottish branch, a part of which is from a manuscript “History of the County of Caithness,” not yet published, which the author permitted him to use. Other information, referring to the same branch, was given me by Miss Jane Coghill, of Castletown, in the County of Caithness, Scotland, and John Coghill, senior magistrate of Thurso. Miss Martha Coghill, of Ivy House Farm, West Uxbridge, County of Middlesex, and Mr. Anthony Coghill, her uncle, of Notting Hill, London, gave information relating to the unconnected branch.

To my valued friend, Capt. Charles H. Townsend, of New Haven, Connecticut (a cousin of my wife), I am under obligations for copies of records from York, Knaresborough, London, and other places which he visited at no little personal inconvenience, to obtain for me.

I have had the services of professional gentlemen in examining records in each of the countries, and take special pleasure in expressing my thanks to Joseph L. Chester, LL. D., of London, member of the council of the Historical Society of Great Britain, for valuable information, and also for suggestions and advice which were of great service to me.

With the exception of two or three books which had to be obtained from England, most of those consulted were found in the Astor Library of this city.

It may be necessary, in our country, where there is a feeling of real or assumed prejudice against all concern about family descent, to offer an apology for printing a pedigree. I cannot better communicate to my numerous relatives the reasons for so doing, than by the following extracts from Burke’s “Family Vicissitudes:” –

“I am well aware that to many the genealogical tree appears to be little better than a barren trunk, producing no fruits, or none of any value. Such, however, is not my conviction. If it be a natural and laudable feeling for the living to glory in the fame of their dead ancestors – if such recollections seem as a spur to the good, and a check to evil in ourselves – genealogy is a valuable and important science.  Can anyone for a moment doubt the influence, the beneficial influence exercised upon most minds by the noble pride of lineage? If I have not exaggerated – as I trust I have not – the uses to be drawn from genealogical pursuits, little apology will be needed for the following work.”

In such a spirit I would give to the members of the family connection the results of my labor, trusting that they may not be without some benefit, especially to the young. The present moment is ever fleeting, and we all live mainly in the past and the future. May these records of the past stimulate our young kinsmen to seek for themselves a noble future, and in their turn leave a worthy example. J. H. C.

NEW YORK, January, 1879


PREFACE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

PART 1 – Knaresborough……………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

Part 2 – The Eldest Branch……………………………………………………………………………………………. 9


From Knaresborough Parish Register…………………………………………………………………………. 19

APPENDIX to PART II…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21

Grant from Marmaduke Coghill to his youngest son John, 1575………………………………… 21

Abstract of Thomas Coghill’s Will, 1624……………………………………………………………………… 22

Marriage Licence – John Coghill, 1639……………………………………………………………………….. 23

Purchase of Crake Manor – Thomas Coghill, 1648…………………………………………………….. 23

Major Kendal Josiah William Coghill (13)……………………………………………………………………. 24

Lieutenant Nevill Josiah Aylmer Coghill (14)………………………………………………………………. 24

Letter of condolence: Maj. Gen. M A Dillon to Sir John Jocelyn Coghill Bt…………………… 26

Poems to the memory of Lieutenants Coghill and Melvill………………………………………….. 26

Part 3 – The Junior Branch of England……………………………………………………………………….. 30

TOMB INSCRIPTIONS, ETC…………………………………………………………………………………………. 38

REFERRING TO HENRY COGHILL’S WILL…………………………………………………………………….. 39

ABSTRACT OF HENRY COGHILL’S WILL………………………………………………………………………. 39

ABSTRACT OF ELIZABETH COGHILL’S WILL………………………………………………………………… 39

WILL OF SIR THOMAS COGHILL…………………………………………………………………………………. 40

ALDENHAM, CO. HERTFORD. BAPTISMS……………………………………………………………………. 41

ALDENHAM, CO, HERTFORD. BURIALS………………………………………………………………………. 41

BLECHINGDON, CO. OXFORD. BAPTISMS………………………………………………………………….. 42

BLECHINGDON, CO. OXFORD. BURIALS…………………………………………………………………….. 43

BLECHINGDON CHURCH…………………………………………………………………………………………… 43

PART 4 – The Unconnected Branch of the Family in England……………………………………… 45

Part 5. The Scottish Branch……………………………………………………………………………………….. 49

Part 6. The American Branch…………………………………………………………………………………….. 49

Part 7. The Family of Slingsby……………………………………………………………………………………. 49

SCRIVEN HALL…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 50

The Family of Slingsby………………………………………………………………………………………………. 50


PART 1 – Knaresborough

The ancestors of the Coghill family had their homes in the county of York in England, and are traced back in a direct line to Knaresborough, AD 1378, on the paternal, and AD 1135, on the maternal side.  The name as above written was first assumed there.   It may not then be inappropriate to preface the pedigree and outline history of the family with a few allusions to that county, and a brief historical sketch of Knaresborough.

The section of country comprehended by the present boundaries of Yorkshire was inhabited by Brigantes, the most numerous and powerful of all the British tribes that possessed the island before the Roman Conquest.  In AD 71 they were overpowered and passed under the Roman yoke.  From that period until the abandonment of England by the Romans, AD 426-7, there were occasional revolt, but comparative quiet continued.  Many fine roads, some of which continue to the present time, and other improvements were made.  After the departure of the Romans the country sunk into a state of anarchy; civil discords terminated in the establishment of military tyrannies; “kings appointed, but not by God, who in their turn gave way to men more ferocious than themselves.” [1]  The standards of the Picts and Scots, the Saxons, the Danes, and the Normans were successively carried over its territory, and later those of the barons, the Houses of York and Lancaster; and the Parliament and the royal banners were here raised, and drew around them men of the same country and blood to engage in fraternal strife.

Within the present boundaries of this county some of the world’s rulers have resided: amongst them the Roman Emperors, Adrian (sic), Severus, Caracalla and Geta (sons of the latter, and joint emperors), Constantius, and Constantine the Great.  These all resided in Eboricum, afterwards York.  The Imperial Court of Rome was for three years held at this place by Severus, who died there.  Constantine arrived from Rome in time to be at his father’s deathbed, and was inaugurated emperor there.  Marcus Aurelius Lucius, a British king, said to have been the first crowned head in the world who embraced Christianity, was born there, and also John Wickliff, “the morning star of the Reformation,” in 1324.  In 1160, Henry II held in York the first Parliament mentioned in English history by that name.  In 1298, another Parliament was held there, when the barons attended, and the king’s confirmation of Magna Carta, and also Charta de Foresta, was read to them.  Charles I assembled his great council of all the peers of England in York, and Charles II was proclaimed there.  York in the ninth century was the seat of letters, as well as of trade and commerce.  The library collected by Archbishop Egbert, and placed in the cathedral, ranked among the first in Christendom.

The town of Knaresborough is situated on a rocky eminence on the northeast bank of the river Nidd, which runs here between precipitous banks, and through a romantic valley in the parish of the same name, in the Wapentake of Claro, West Riding, Yorkshire.  It is eighteen miles from York, and two hundred and three from London.  Hargrove supposes its name was derived from its situation, as Knares, in the German language, signifies a hard knot, and, when applied to situation, a rocky mountain.  He also conjectures that this may have been a fortified place of the Romans, as it is easy to trace the remains of a ditch, or ramparts; and numerous Roman coins have been found here, particularly some of the Emperors Claudius and Constantine.  It is one of the ancient burghs that were part of the demesnes of the crown, found under the title of Terra Regis in Doomsday Book and other records, all of which, and the land belonging to them, were held by royal grant.[2]  Littleton observes that burghs are the most ancient towns in England; such situations were chosen by the Saxons, as being already places of strength, to erect their castles upon.

For some centuries after the departure of the Romans this part of the country in particular was dreadfully harassed by contending armies.   Malmesbury states that it was always exposed to the fury of the northern nations, receiving the barbarous shocks of the Danes, and groaning under repeated depredations.  The Saxons finally prevailed, rather by exterminating than subduing the ancient inhabitants, in consequence of which they preserved unaltered all their civil and military institutions.  Whatever may have been the condition and privileges of Knaresborough before the Conquest, we find at that period a complete Saxon manor, that is, one township presiding over ten others.  Knaresborough and its villages suffered in the general devastation made by the ruthless and cruel Norman, who, after the siege of York in the year 1070, laid waste all the country between that city and Durham.  Malmesbury, writing half a century afterwards, says: “Thus the resources of a province, once flourishing, were cut off by fire, slaughter, and devastation; the ground for more than sixty miles, totally uncultivated and unproductive, remains bare to the present day.”

Hume finishes this sad story with these words: “The houses were reduced to ashes, the cattle seized and driven away, and many of the inhabitants perished in the woods from cold and hunger: the lives of one hundred thousand persons were computed to have been sacrificed to this stroke of barbarous policy.”  More than two centuries afterward came the long and bloody struggle between the houses of York and Lancaster, in which more than fourscore princes of the blood royal, and nearly the whole body of the ancient nobility, perished; and later still, the war between Charles I and the parliament, causing cruel disasters to the best families in the realm.  A writer has truly remarked: “York County seemed a land of destiny, echoing on every side with the solution of fearful problems.  What were the assured advantages accruing from so many changes?  What were the promptings of so many sad events?  Why should one portion of a people become so vividly alive to a need of defence from another portion?  It could only have been a strong faith that in the issues involved was a remedy for all social wrong, bad laws, and abuses.  The test of war was a final solution of the political problem.”

At the time of the Conquest, the manor of Knaresborough, which comprehended the town and ten surrounding villages, formed a part of the demesnes of the crown.  The castle, celebrated in history from its very founding to its dismantlement by order of Parliament in 1646, once the ornament and security of the town, and of which the venerable though scanty remains recall the recollection of other times, was built by Serlo de Burg, Baron of Tonesburg, in Normandy, who accompanied the Conqueror into England, and received this, with several other lordships, as a reward for his services.  In 1170, Hugh de Morville, Reginald Fitz-use, William de Tracey, and Richard Brito, the four knights who slew Thomas à Becket, fled to the castle, where they remained shut up for a year, but, submitting to the church, were pardoned, on condition of performing a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.  In 1319 the Scots, entering England, burnt both Knaresborough and Skipton.  In 1337 the castle was taken by John de Lilburn, an officer of the great Earl of Lancaster, the chief and most powerful of the discontented barons.  It was, however, soon invested by the king’s troops, and De Lilburn surrendered, after having destroyed all the records, and with them every memorial of the liberties, customs, and privileges of the place.  In 1371 the castle, honour, and manor of the town, with the house and cell of St Robert, were granted by the king (Edward III) to his fourth son, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster; and from that time they have belonged to the Duchy of Lancaster.  About 1400, Richard II was imprisoned in this castle, as appears from the following lines in Hardyng’s ‘Chronicle’ –

“The Kyng then sent Kyng Richard to Ledis,

There to be kepte surely in privitie;

Fro thens after to Pykering went he nedis,

And to Knaresburgh after led was he,

But to Pontefrete last, where he did de.”

The place of confinement is supposed to have been in that part of the ruins called the “king’s chamber.”  In 1590 the castle was repaired under the direction of Henry Slingsby Esq,. Who held it as barbican, by lease from the queen.  In 1616 it was granted by James I to his son Charles, before that prince ascended the throne of England, ion the troubles of whose unhappy reign the town had a considerable share.  In the early part of the civil wars, till the reduction of York by the Parliamentarians, the royal garrison of Knaresborough, consisting of a great number of horse and foot, was a terror to the surrounding country.  In 1642 Lord Fairfax arranged to place a garrison in the castle, but was prevented from doing so by Sir Henry Slingsby, who occupied and held it until reinforcements arrived.  In November, 1644, after the battle of Marston Moor, Lord Fairfax, with a division of Scotch forces, appeared before the town, and on the 12th of that month began the attack.  The garrison defended their works with spirit, but at last were obliged to retreat within the castle; Lord Fairfax being now master of the town, the castle was closely invested, and bravely defended by the resolute garrison, who prolonged the siege to the 20th of December, when they surrendered upon honourable terms.  Oliver Cromwell was in Knaresborough soon after this and lodged in a house on High Street, which was afterwards rebuilt, but the chamber in which he slept was preserved, as we learn from the “Gentleman’s Magazine” for March 1791.

The castle contained two and a half acres within its walls, which were flanked with eleven towers.  The front room on the ground floor has been from time immemorial the repository of the ancient court records, where Hargrove says they were still preserved in 1798, and the keys were then in the custody of the steward of the honour, and the chief of the Slingsby family.[3]

In 1758 a human skeleton was discovered by a man digging for limestone on Thistle Hill, near the town, which led to the discovery of the murder of Daniel Clark by Eugene Aram, a schoolmaster of Knaresborough, and others, committed fourteen years before.  Aram was tried, convicted and executed.  He employed no counsel, but conducted his own defence, and made a very able and ingenious argument, attacking with great acumen, plausibility ad curious erudition, the doctrine of circumstantial evidence.  His name was afterwards immortalised by that intellectual monarch of fallacious reasoners, Bulwer, who seized upon the strangely opposing elements in the moral character of this curious man, and the facts connected with the murder committed by him, as the text of his “Eugene Aram”, into which story, by his vivid and powerful fancy and capacity, his fine, subtle reasoning and impassioned eloquence, he has so insiduously interwoven his own dark and dangerous views of fate and destiny.  It is a grand and sublime work, so far as language and power of reasoning are concerned; beautiful and plausible, as only a man of his rare powers can make error appear; but, like the fabled Upas-tree, giving poison and death to all who seek rest and repose under its bright and inviting foliage.

A writer near the close of the last century, after describing the ruins of the castle at Knaresborough, says:  “Placed on an eminence projecting into the river, and from its towers commanding all advances into the town, it possesses all the advantages of strength and situation that could be desired before the introduction of artillery; and, even after that period, was found to be a place not easily reduced. From these mouldering remains of pride and dominion the eye is relieved, and the mind cheered, by the romantic beauty of the adjacent vale; a delicious compound of enclosures, woods, and rocks, at the bottom of which a fine river takes its bending course, shaded in many places with hanging wood ; on one side the houses and trees, ranging along the edge of the precipices, with parts of the town, the church, the bridge, and Coghill Hall; on the other side, Bellmont, with its woods and enclosures, the more elevated situation of Belton Hall, with a distant view of Brimham rocks, complete the beautiful scene.”

Hargrove, writing in 1798, remarks: “Considerable manufacture of linen has been carried on here for many ages, and is at present in a flourishing condition.” In that year there were “two hundred looms employed for cotton goods, averaging four hundred pieces each week.”

The population in 1821 was 5,283.

One of the peculiar customs observed in Knaresborough is that on Easter Sunday, the men take off the women’s shoes, which are only to be redeemed by a present on the day following. The women retaliate, and treat the men in like manner by taking their hats. This is supposed to be the remains of a festival called Hoketide, instituted at the sudden death of Hardi-Canute, and the downfall of the Danes, in 1042.[4] There are many places and things of interest in and around Knaresborough, but they cannot be mentioned in this short sketch.

It was once a place of fashionable resort for its mineral springs, but was succeeded by Harrowgate, some two or three miles distant, which, during the summer months, is a great resort of the nobility and gentry of Great Britain and Ireland, who come to drink the waters and to enjoy the pure and healthful air. The waters are chalybeate and sulphur. We spent a night there in September, 1866.

Part 2 – The Eldest Branch

Playfair, in his “British Family Antiquity” vol. vii., page 226, says: “The origin of this name (Coghill) was most probably derived from a place anciently called Cockel-hall,[5]  but now Coghill-Hall, in the hundred of Claro, in the West Riding of Yorkshire; or perhaps from the residence of one of the family on a hill near the river Cock, which runs through a part of that county.”[6]

As the greater part of the English family names were derived from local residences, it is safe to infer that the author of “Family Antiquity” is correct in his conjectures.

The first ancestor, as appears by records formerly in the Castle of Knaresborough, in the same county in which he resided during the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV (1378 to 1413), was –

  1. John Cockill, or Cockhill Esq., Gentleman of Cockhill.  It further appears that either he, or his only son and heir of whom we find any mention, changed the name to Coghill, and that all who have borne this latter name descended from him.  In our researches we find that in all of the baptisms, marriages and burials recorded in Knaresborough Church the name is spelt Coghill.  In the Diocesan Register of York, we find between 1544 and 1650 the wills of Thomas Cockhill, 1549; Edward Cockhill, 1612; Stephen Cockhill; 1618; Thomas Cockhill, 1620; George Cockhill of Leeds, 1635; Grace Cockhill of Lower Hall, 1637; and Henry Coggill, 1637; and in the records of the Archdeaconry of Richmond, where search was made for Coghill only from the earliest period to 1700, but two wills were found (abstracts of which are given at the end of this section), that of Thomas Coghill of Tentergate, in the township of Scriven and parish of Knaresborough, eldest son of Marmaduke Coghill, dated 9th October, 1585, and that of Jane Coghill, daughter of Thomas of Knaresborough (spinster), dated 22nd February, 1626-7.  In the Consistory Court of London, the will of Phoebe Coghill, 1665.  In the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, the will of Richard Cockhill, 1582, and a large number of wills and administratorships of Coghill.  In the Consistory Court of Oxford, and in numerous church and parish records in London, Hertforshire, and Oxfordshire we find the name of Coghill; all the persons thus indicated, with three exceptions, can be traced back to the first of that name at Knaresborough.  In the Fairfax Correspondence, Charles I, vol. ii, page 376, we find the following paragraph in a letter written by Thomas Stockdale to Lord Fairfax, dated at Knaresborough, February 25th 1641: “Mr Cockill of London Bridge wrote last week to some friends of his to make way to get himself elected Burgess of Knaresborough; for he writ Dearlove was absolutely rejected by the House, and that a writ would presently come for a new election.” [7]  The person here referred to most probably belonged to, or was a descendant of, the Coghills of Knaresborough.  Mr Stockdale may not have spelt the name correctly, and this is made more probable as we learn from records that there were Coghills living in that part of London about the date of his writing.  The records examined leave it no longer a matter of conjecture, but of certainty, that a part of the family, commencing with the John Cockhill mentioned, or else his son and heir, changed the name to Coghill, which has been borne only by his descendants, while another part adhered to the original.  We have no way of learning why the change was made, but it was probably the result of the great freedom exercised in all matters of orthography at that early period.[8]

The crest indicates that it was adopted by the family prior to the change of name.  The arms of the eldest branch are: Quarterly; 1st and 4th, erm, a chevron, between three cocks, gu. for Coghill; 2nd and 3rd, or, on a chief indented, az, three fleurs-de-lis of the field, a canton er, for Cramer.  Crest on a mount, vert, a cock, wings expanded, or.  Motto, Non dormit qui custodit (the guardian sleepeth not).

The arms of the youngest branches are gules on a chevron; argent, three pellets, a chief, sable.  Crest and motto same as those of the eldest branch.  An engraving of the latter is given on the opposite page.

The only child of John Cockhill that we find any record of was –

  1. Thomas Coghill (once we find it spelt Coughyll), his successor, who married Marjory, daughter of John Slingsby Esq., of Scriven (chief forester of Knaresborough), by his wife Joan, daughter of Walter Calverly Esq., of Calverly.[9]

By this marriage he had issue two sons, besides other children of whom we find no record –

  1. Thomas Coghill
  2. Robert Coghill.  We find no other mention of the latter than his name.

Thomas, the eldest son and heir, was twice married: first to Jane, daughter of Sir Thomas Tempest, Knight, of Bracewell in Craven, a descendant of John Tempest, Lord of Bracewell and Waddington, who descended from Roger Tempest, who lived during the reign of Henry I, when his name is subscribed to several charters, cited in the Monasticon.

By this marriage he had issue –

  1. Peter Coghill, who died at the age of twenty-four years.
  2. Catherine Coghill, a nun in Nun-Monkton.
  3. Ellen Coghill, a votaress; and other children of whom we find no mention, probably dying young.

His second wife was Anne, daughter of ? Nettleton, Esq., of Roundegrange (by his wife, who was sister to Sir Robert Suttle, or Sothill, Knight, of Suttle, or Sothill Hall, in Yorkshire), by whom he had issue –

  1. Marmaduke Coghill
  2. Thomas Coghill
  3. Elizabeth Coghill
  4. Margery Coghill

We can find no further mention of the last three than their names.

Marmaduke, eldest son and heir, succeeded his father, and in 1555 rebuilt the present Coghill Hall, near Knaresborough, which was for several centuries the seat of the heads of the family.  The frontispiece in this book was engraved from a photograph of the place taken in 1878.  It shows the south, or river front, and a part of the east, or main entrance front.  The heliotype shows the main front.  The building is of stone.  The following description of the place is taken from Hargrove’s “History of Knaresborough” published in 1798.


“Situated on a small elevation above the river Nidd; the length of the south front is one hundred and thirty feet, and that of the east eighty feet. In the course of the buildings are five projections, forming so many large bow-windows, from which the Town and Church of Knaresborough, the stately ruins of the Castle, the Bridge over the river, with Belmont wood and Bilton Park, compose a most beautiful landscape.

“The Dining Room is thirty-two feet by eighteen.

“The Drawing Room is thirty-one by twenty-four.

“The music Room is twenty-four by sixteen.

“The Library is twenty by twenty.

“The Lawn falls gently towards the river, on the bank of which a fine gravel walk winds through a thick grove, to a retired and pleasing spot called the Hermitage, where a rustic cell, built of stones and moss, is placed near a natural cascade, which the river forms by falling over a ridge of rocks; from hence the walk is carried up the hill, winding through a variety of flowering shrubs and evergreens, to the front of the house. The meadows, wood, and water, which lie below and opposite the shrubbery, afford some views scarce to be equaled in the extensive lawns of Studley, or amidst the wild and Alpine scenery of Hagfall.”

Coghill Hall, County of York, England – Main Front

This house for several centuries belonged to the Coghill family, but was purchased of Sir John Thomas Coghill, Bart., with fifty-one acres of land, by the Right Honorable the Countess of Conyngham, in the year 1796.[10] Later it came into the possession of Sir Francis Nathaniel Burton, as heir to the Countess of Conyngham, and in 1831 was sold by him to Marcus Worsley Esq., who in 1856 sold it to its present owner, Basil Thomas Woodd Esq., the present MP for Knaresborough.

This Marmaduke married Maude, daughter of John Pullein Esq., of Killinghall, steward of Knaresborough and Ripon, by his wife Jane (daughter of Thomas Roos, Esq., of Ingmanthorp), and Playfair incorrectly states that twenty-one children were the result of this marriage.  He was probably led into the error by including with his issue the children of his son Marmaduke, and possibly those of a grandson bearing the same name.  The will of Thomas Coghill, the eldest son of Marmaduke (an abstract of which may be seen at the end of this section), mentions his brother Marmaduke and his younger brother John (William, another brother, died young).  In entailing his estate at the end of the will, he would certainly have named other brothers if there had been any.  We learn from the records of Knaresborough Parish that one Marmaduke Coghill was buried September 27, 1577, and another April 14, 1607.  We also find on the same records the marriages of three Marmaduke Coghills, one to Jane Alice Thornton, October 22, 1593.  The first was probably a son of Marmaduke and Maude, who may have married twice, and the last was probably his son.

We find reference to only four children of the first Marmaduke –

  1. Thomas Coghill
  2. William Coghill
  3. Marmaduke Coghill
  4. John Coghill

William died young.  John was a merchant in London, and will be referred to under the head of the Junior Branch of the Family in England.  We have no other record of Marmaduke than the mention of him in his brother Thomas’ will, unless it is in the records of marriages and burials referred to.  Thomas, the eldest son, succeeded his father, and in the twenty-second year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1580) married Isabel, daughter of ? Tallentyre Esq., of Carlisle, sister of William Tallentyre, incumbent of Kirby Overblows, in Yorkshire, and Routhbury, in Northumberland.  He had issue two sons and three daughters –

  1. Thomas Coghill (eldest son)
  2. Henry Coghill
  3. Frances Coghill
  4. Mary Coghill
  5. Jane Coghill

Frances must have died young, as no mention is made of her in her father’s will.  Henry was born after the will was executed, and was baptised 8th December 1585, as is seen by parish records.  We have no other record of him than his baptism and that made in his sister Jane’s will.  Mary married Richard Andrews Esq., and had a daughter, Maude Hargrove, mentioned also in Jane’s will.  Jane died unmarried, as will be seen from the extract of her will at the end of this section.

Thomas, who succeeded his father, married Beatrice, daughter of William Halley Esq., of York.  This lady was buried at Knaresborough, July 9, 1623.  They had issue –

  1. John Coghill, baptised at Knaresborough, March 11, 1615
  2. Thomas Coghill, baptised same place, September 18, 1617
  3. Isabella Coghill, baptised same place, February 2, 1619

We find no further record of Thomas than the mention of his name, with that of his brother John and sister Isabella, in the will of his aunt, Jane Coghill.  Isabella married William Mann Esq., of Thorp Hazelwood, York, of a very old and distinguished family.

John, the eldest son, married Lucy, daughter of Charles Tancred Esq., of Whixley, a family both ancient and honourable.  The name was originally Tankred, which ”Le Nerve” says was a great name among the Danes.  There is a full pedigree of the family in Hargrove’s “History of Knaresborough,” taken from a painting on the side of the grand staircase at Whixley Hall, the seat of the family.

Charles Tancred, father of Lucy who married John Coghill, was eleventh in descent from the first in the pedigree.  He died 1644.  Against the wall in the Whixley Church is a monument with the inscription –

“In this Chancel is buried Charles Tancred [the same mentioned above], Sir Richard Tancred, his son, Kn’t, Charles Tancred Esq., his grandson, and Christopher Tancred, Esq., his great grandson, Master of Harriers to King William III, all Lords of the Manor of Whixley.  He was the youngest son of Thomas Tancred Esq., of Boroughbridge, by Jane, co-heir of Mr Paver of Branton, and married Barbara, daughter of William Wyville Esq., by whom he had two sons and four daughters.  Sir Richard, his eldest son, was knighted by Charles I for his services and great sufferings in the Civil wars.  But through his posterity may have found the effects of loyalty by the diminution it made in their fortune, yet it was lost in espousing the Royal Cause.”

This monument and inscription were probably placed there by Christopher Tancred Esq., son of the one last named on the monument.  He died August 1754 unmarried, left Whixley Hall and his estate there for the maintenance of twelve decayed gentlemen, four in each of the learned professions, who must be fifty years of age, or upwards, and unmarried.  A separate apartment is assigned to each, and the whole company, if in health, dine together every day.

Attached to the mansion is a chapel, and an annuity is provided for clergymen who officiate.  In a vault under the chapel, it is said, the noble founder is interred. [11]

We are inclined to the opinion that James Coghill, the first American ancestor, who came over to Virginia in 1664, and died in 1685, was a son of this John Coghill or of his brother Thomas; but about the probable date of his birth the civil war had commenced, and during its continuance and the time of the Commonwealth there is in many parishes a hiatus in the records of baptisms, marriages, and burials, which renders it very difficult to trace and connect pedigrees.  The only issue of John Coghill and Lucy Tancred of whom we fin any record is –

  1. John Coghill, LLD, who succeeded him and died in 1699.  He was Master in the High Court of Chancery in Ireland, and an advocate of the Ecclesiastical Court in that kingdom; was knighted in the Castle of Dublin, June 5, 1686, by Henry, Earl of Clarendon, Lord Lieutenant of that kingdom.  Sir John was probably sent to Ireland by his government, and took up his residence in Dublin, still, however, retaining Coghill Hall.

He and his successors are always mentioned in the various works in which we have seen their names, as of the latter place.  He married Hester, daughter of Tobias Cramer Esq., of Ballyfoile, who for his services in the reduction of Ireland under Cromwell, had the lands of Ballyfoile assigned him, was Sheriff of Dublin in 1653, and died 1655.  He was the eldest son of Belthazar Cramer, a high German born, colonel of a regiment in Ireland, and made a denizen of that country 28th May, 1639.  By this marriage Sir John had issue nine children –

  1. Thomas Coghill
  2. John Coghill
  3. Toby Coghill                         died young
  4. Henry Coghill
  5. Forrard Coghill
  6. Mary Coghill, died unmarried
  7. Hester Coghill
  8. Marmaduke Coghill
  9. James Coghill

We have not the dates of birth of any of the children, and they are probably not mentioned here in their regular order.

Marmaduke, the eldest son and heir, died unmarried in 1739.  The following sketch of him is copied from the “History of the University of Dublin” by WBS Taylor FMA; London edition, p.419.

“Marmaduke Coghill was a native of Dublin, born in the year 1673.  At fifteen years of age he was admitted as a student of the University.  Here he graduated and eventually took the degree of Doctor of Civil Law; soon after which the College elected him to the rank of one of its representatives in Parliament, and this very distinguished honour was continued to Mr Coghill at every general election whilst he lived.  Having filled several important offices in the State, he was in the year 1721 appointed Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer.  This office he held during the remainder of his life.  He died 1738. [12]  In the performance of his public duties he was a man of unwearied diligence and clearness of judgement; he combined the very rare qualities of being an honest Councillor of the Crown and an independent representative of the people.  Among the many many benefits that this learned and excellent man conferred on society is, that being one of the original commissioners of the ‘board of first fruits’ he in a great measure organised that body, and thus became the great and indeed principal cause of the numerous benefits which have arisen to the Established Church of Ireland from this circumstance.  In private life he was greatly esteemed for his benevolence and all the social virtues.  He wrote several able papers on finance, etc., which have been published in the Transactions of the learned Societies.”

In the same work, and on page 222, under the head of “Returns to Parliament”, we find –

“In 1713, Sir Marmaduke Coghill, J.U.D., and John Elwood, J.U.D., were returned.  In 1715, Sir Marmaduke Coghill was again returned, along with Samuel Doping, Esq., LL.D.  In 1727, the Right Honourable Marmaduke Coghill was again returned, along with the Right Honourable Samuel Molyneux.  In 1739, Alexander MacAuley was elected in the room of Mr Coghill, deceased.”

In a letter from Sir Jocelyn Coghill to the compiler of this book, dated January 1878, referring to Marmaduke Coghill, he says: “I have full-length oil painting of him among the family portraits, from which I am forced to the conclusion that any good looks that are to be found in the family were not derived from him. He is a fat, apoplectic-looking old gentleman, clad in Chancellor’s robes, with very short legs and a shorter throat; and the large marble statue of him in Drumcondra Church tells the same story.” James, the brother of Marmaduke, was Doctor of Law and Register Prerogative Court. He died in 1734 having married Anne, daughter of – Pierson, Esq., by whom he had one child, a daughter:-

  1. Hester Coghill. She married first, in 1737 Lord Tullamore, [13] afterwards created Earl of Charleville, who died 1764; and secondly, Major John Mayne, who assumed the name of Coghill by sign-manual, and was created a Baronet in 1781.[14] He died 14th, and was buried at Aldenham Church in Hertfordshire, England, 22nd November, 1785. His wife, as Hester, Countess Dowager of Charleville, died without issue, and was buried in the same church, 1778. She bequeathed her property to her cousin, the issue of Balthazar John Cramer.

Of the two sisters of Marmaduke and James, Mary died unmarried. Hester married Oliver Cramer a cousin, and had three sons:-

  1. Balthazar John, Oliver, and John. Balthazar John married Judith, daughter of Brinsley Butler, Viscount of Lanesborough, and fourth in descent from Lord Abergavenny, who was a Neville(sic), and had three sons and one daughter, – John, Oliver, Marmaduke, and Catherine, who married Ralph Smith. Pursuant to the will of his great uncle, Marmaduke Coghill, Oliver, the second son, was made his heir upon his assuming the name of Coghill, and by so doing he became –
  2. Oliver Coghill. He married first, Anne, daughter of Robert Hucks, Esq., by his wife Sarah, daughter of Henry Coghill, Esq., of Aldenham House, in the county of Hertford, England;[15] She died leaving no issue, after which he married Jane, daughter of – Holl, Esq., by whom he had issue one daughter:-
  3. Jane Coghill who married George Mowbray, Esq., of Ford, County Durham, and Mortimer Co. Bucks. Oliver died in 1774, leaving no male issue, when, in conformity to the conditions of the aforesaid will of Marmaduke Coghill, and the will of his cousin Hester Coghill, Countess of Charleville, John Cramer, the eldest son and heir, became his brother’s successor by assuming the name of Coghill, which he did by sign-manual was made a Baronet and became –
  4. Sir John Coghill.  He married, in 1754, Mary, daughter of Josiah Hort, Archbishop of Tuam (whose wife was the grand-daughter of William, 20th Lord Kerry), and had issue –
  5. John Thomas Coghill
  6. Josiah Coghill
  7. Mary Cramer Coghill, died unmarried
  8. Judith Coghill, married Rev. Dr. W. Forrard
  9. Elizabeth Coghill, married Rev. N. Hinde
  10. Frances Coghill, married E. Sankey Esq
  11. Charlotte Priscilla Coghill, married Rev. – Offley
  12. Sophia Coghill, married Lieutenant-General Sir Charles Doyle
  13. Theodiscia Cramer Coghill, died unmarried

Sir John died in 1790, and was succeeded by Sir John Thomas Coghill, Baronet, his eldest son, who was born in 1766.  We learn from Playfair that he was residing in Coghill Hall in 1789.

From records in the Castle of Knaresborough (extracts of which were furnished us by Messrs. Samuel and Charles Powell, stewards of the castle), we find that in 1796, Coghill Hall was purchased of him by the Right Honourable the Countess of Conyngham, and thus the place which for centuries had been the seat of the heads of the family passed into other hands.  Sir John Thomas never married.  We hear of him some years later as visiting Italy and spending some time in Naples.  While there he purchased a very fine collection of Greek vases, which had been made by M. de Lalo, and afterwards owned by M. le Chevalier de Rossi, who had thirty-nine of the most valuable vases carefully engraved on large plates.  When the collection came into the possession of Sir John Thomas Coghill, he largely augmented it by purchases made in Naples, and added thirteen new plates to the thirty-nine which came to him with the collection.  In 1817 these engravings, with several letters from M. de Rossi and full explanations of the plates, were published in Rome by James Millingen, of the Society of Antiquaries of London, and of the Academy of Archaeology of Rome, in a work entitled “Peintures Antiques des Vases Grecs de la Collection de Sir John Coghill Bart.” (Impl. folio.)  This work is now very rare.  We obtained a copy by advertising for itin London.  Sir John Jocelyn Coghill, in a letter to the compiler, says –

“My uncle, Sir John Thomas, lived principally abroad, and was a great dabbler in art matters.  He spent a large sum in bringing out the work on Grecian and Etruscan vases.  I recollect hearing that after the war my father had a good deal of trouble in getting all my uncle’s art treasures over into England.  My father who was a through sailor of the old school, although one of the finest fellows and most lovable (sic.) of characters, cared little for such matters.  The vases were most of them, if not all, sold to the British Museum, and the marbles and a quantity of the pictures were reserved as heirlooms.  I am sorry to say that in my father’s time these works of art did not receive the fairest of play, but came to me in a very knocked-about condition, statues minus noses, fingers and arms, and pictures with holes in them and paint off.  I have done what I could in the way of judicious restoration, but some of them were as battered and weather-beaten in appearance as the dear old admiral himself.  My uncle, whilse detained in France during the war with the first Napoleon, became acquainted with Lafayette, and through him was induced to purchase a large amount of land at New Orleans.  I believe a large part of that City is now built over this very land and, had my father kept possession of it, I have no doubt that it would now be of immense value, and have added largely to our estate; but he did not foresee what was to happen, and sold it in the full belief that his brother had been well swindled by Lafayette, as in taking possession it was found that at a few spades’ depth there was nothing but water.”

Sir John Thomas died in 1817 without issue, and was succeeded by (12) Sir Josiah Coghill, his brother, vice-admiral in the Royal Navy, – born 1773.  He was twice married, – first in March, 1803, to Sophia, daughter of James Dodson Esq.  This lady died in Normandy in 1817.  By her he had issue three daughters –

  1. Caroline Mary Coghill
  2. Emeline C. E. Coghill, married Rev. Chas. Bushe, 1839
  3. Josephine Coghill, married George de Morgan, 1844

He next married, 27th January, 1819, Anna Maria, eldest daughter of the late Right Honourable Charles Kendal Bushe, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench in Ireland (who died in 1848), by whom he had issue –

  1. John Jocelyn Coghill, born 11th February, 1826
  2. Kendal Josiah William Coghill, born August 1832
  3. Rosanna Louisa Coghill
  4. Sidney Catherine Coghill
  5. Anna Georgiana Coghill
  6. Alice E. Judith Coghill
  7. Adelaide Eliza Coghill
  8. Florence Charlotte Coghill
  9. Sylvia Maria Coghill

Kendal Josiah is an officer in the army.

Rosanna L., married, 1849, to John Harrison Aylmer, Esq,. Of Walworth Castle, County Durham.  Sydney C., married in 1854 to Rev. Samuel Allen Windle.  Anna G., married in 1860 to Rev. William Izon Chevasse.  Alice E. J., married in 1850 to Rev. George Henry Ray.  Adelaide E., married, 1857, to Major Thomas H. Somerville, late 68th Light Infantry.  Sylvia M., married to Thomas Greene Esq.

Sir Josiah died 20th June, 1850, and was succeeded by his eldest son –

(13) Sir John Jocelyn Coghill, present Baronet.  He married, 18th February, 1851, Catherine Frances, second daughter of John, third Lord Plunket, and has issue –

  1. Neville Josiah Aylmer Coghill, born 1852
  2. Egerton Bushe Coghill, born 1853
  3. Gerald Cramer Coghill, born 1854, died 13th July 1873
  4. Ethel Charlotte Coghill
  6. Beatrice Anna Coghill
  7. Violet Alice Penrose Coghill

Neville Josiah Aylmer [16] is a lieutenant in the 24th Regiment, and at the present time (1878) is aid-de-camp to Gen. Sir A. Connynghame at the Cape of Good Hope.

We are indebted to Sir John Jocelyn Coghill for the pedigree of the eldest branch of the family, which has aided us very much in our researches.

In looking at the pedigree of Lord Plunket, we noticed that one of his sons, born before the marriage of his daughter to Sir John Jocelyn Coghill, bore the name of Patrick Henry Coghill.  Sir John, in answer to a letter from us inquiring if there was any relationship between the families before his marriage, writes –

“Patrick Henry Coghill Plunket is my godson and first cousin.  He was christened ‘Coghill’ in compliment to me.  I married my first cousin, Miss Plunket, and my connection with that family is easily explained.  My mother was a Miss Bushe, daughter of the celebrated Chief Justice of that name, and her sister married Mr John Plunket, afterwards Lord Plunket, who was a son of the still more celebrated Lord Plunket, Chancellor of Ireland, and the first possessor of the title.  His eldest son, Bishop of Tuam, died without male issue, and the title went to his second son, John, my father-in-law, from whom it descended to my brother-in-law, the present peer, who is also Bishop of Meath.  On the same day I received your letter, I got another announcing the approaching marriage of the very Patrick henry Coghill Plunket about whom you inquire to a Miss Murray, a match agreeable to all parties.”

Having followed the eldest branch of the family down to the present time, we will close this section of our work by giving the few records of the courts and parishes relating to it which have come directly to us.  Some of them may be of service in any future investigations which may be undertaken.


Thomas Coghill, of Tentergate, in the township of Scriven, in the parish of Knaresborough, Gentleman; dated 9th October, 1585.  To be buried in my parish church, near where my father lyeth.  To Jane and Mary my daughters, and to such child as my wife goeth with, sundry closes of lands, &c. (described in will), when twenty-one years of age, and I appoint my wife and my brother, William Tallentyre,[17] tutors and governors of my said children.  To my wife certain lands, &c. (described).  All my other lands, tenements, &c. to Thomas, my son, when twenty-one years old, and the heirs of his body, and in default thereof, to my said brother Marmaduke, and his heirs male, and in default thereof, to John Coghill my youngest brother, and his heirs, &c.

There is no probate act attached to the will of Thomas Coghill; it was probably a copy deposited in the office for safe keeping.

Jane Coghill, of Knaresborough, County York, spinster; dated 22d February, 1626-7. To be buried in the church-yard among my friends.  To John and Thomas Coghill, sons of my late brother, and to Isabella their sister, each twelve pence. To my brother, Henry Coghill,[18] half a crown; to Maude Hargrove, daughter of my brother Richard Andrews,[19] of Scriven, five pounds.  To Jane Pearson, daughter of John Pearson of the Bond End, in Scriven, twenty shillings.  All the residue of my estate to my brother, Richard Andrews, and Mary his wife, and I appoint them executors.

The will was proved 6th May, 1628, by Richard Andrews, power being reserved to his wife Mary.

From Knaresborough Parish Register.[20]


                                               May 24 1563              Richard Coghill

                                                               Sept 14 1584              Maria Coghill

                                                               June 5 1585                Jane Coghill

                                                               Dec 8 1585                 Henry Coghill

                                                               Feb 21 1595               Frances Coghill

                                                               Dec 29 1596               Thomas Coghill

                                                               June 14 1598              Anna Coghill

                                                               July 12 1599               Maria Coghill

                                                               March 1 1600            Jane Coghill

                                                               Nov 12 1603               Thomas Coghill

                                                               April 3, 1605              William Coghill

                                                               March 11, 1615         John Coghill

                                                               Sept 18, 1617             Thomas Coghill

                                                               Feb 2, 1619                Isabella Coghill


                         Dec 18, 1564              William Simondson – Jane Coghill

                         June 23, 1565            John Kirkman – Dorothy Coghill

                         Jan 21, 1569               Marmaduke Coghill – Jane Thornton

                         Oct 20, 1578              Marmaduke Coghill – Anna Gervia

                         Oct 22, 1593              Marmaduke Coghill – Alicia Thornton

                         Jan 28, 1605               Richard Andrews – Maria Coghill

                         June 8, 1613               Matthew Gibson – Ellen Coghill


                                                               May 29, 1563             Richard Coghill

                                                               Aug 25, 1565              William Coghill

                                                               Sept 16, 1568             Matilda Coghill

                                                               Sept 27, 1577             Marmaduke Coghill

                                                               Nov 6, 1585                Thomas Coghill

                                                               Dec 31, 1586              Jane Coghill

                                                               Feb 26, 1595              Frances Coghill

                                                               July 18, 1606              Alice Coghill

                                                               April 14, 1607            Marmaduke Coghill

                                                               July 9, 1623                Beatrice Coghill

                                                               Aug 30, 1627              Jane Coghill

                                                               Aug 4, 1665                Thomas Coghill


The copies of records and other matter contained in this Appendix were received after Part II had gone through the press.  As they refer exclusively to the eldest branch of the family, we have deemed it best to insert them here, even at the expense of disturbing the uniformity in paging the book.

Grant from Marmaduke Coghill to his youngest son John, [21] 1575

Be yt knowne unto all men to whome this p’sent wryting shall come to be sene harde or Rede that I Marmaduke Coghill of Tentergate within the Towneshipe of Scrivinge in the Countye of Yorke th elder Gentilman, Sendyth greting in our Lorde God ev’lasting.  Knowe ye me the saide Marmaduke th elder for divers causes and consideracions me specially movinge to have closely and absolutelye Geven, granted bargained solde assigned and sett over and by this my present wrytinge doith clerelye fullye and absolutelye geve grannt bargaine sell assigne and sett over unto John Coghill my youngest sonne all that my estait Right Tytle Interest possession tearme of yeres clames and demandes that I the said Marmaduke Coghill th elder nowe hath holdyth or by any weyes or meanes clamyth or of ryght ought to have of and in the several closes and acres of grounde hereafter in this p’sent wryting named and expressed  That is to say, of and inone close of medowe called Sandhills conteynyng fower acres ofLand and medowe scytuate lying and being w’hin the terrytories and feides of fferingbie nowe in the holding and occupacion of Wilton Wreye, m’chant one other close lying and being w’hin the saide field of fferingbie called Symson close, contenying[  ] acres of lande pasture and medowe nowe in the occupacion of Thomas Horner, m’chant two other closes of medowe and pasture ther the one called Netherbutterells contenyng [  ] acres and the other called calfe close contenyng [  ] acres whh two severall closes ar nowe in the occupacion of Thomas Palliser and others, all which said closes and acres of lande ar p’cell of the Quenes matia demaines of her Highnes castle of Knaresburgh  To have and to hold the said closes and all other the premisses with all and singuler th appurtenances unto the said John Coghill his heires and assignes for ever.  Yieldinge and paying to the said Soveraigne Ladye, her heires and successors all suche Rentes as ar yerely paide to her Highnes for the premisses.  In witnes whereof I the saide Marmaduke Coghill to this my p’sent wryting and grannt have putt my seale and subscribed my name the ffyfteynth day of November in the seaventeanth yere of the Rayne of our saide soveraigne Ladye Elizabeth by the grace of [God?] Quene of England France and Ireland defender of the ffayth &c. 1575

Abstract of Thomas Coghill’s Will, 1624

With a facsimile of his signature; original in the possession of Henry Hucks Gibbs Esq.[22]

March 21 22 Jac: 1. 1624  I, Thomas Coghill of Tentergate co: York, doe make this my last will … in manner afor following: … For my personal estate …Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God to bless me with three children viz: two sonnes and one daughter, & since my owne kindred are all for the moste pte for their owne endes & profitts soe as I doe much feare to repose soe greate a truste in them as the care & charge of my children, I have therefore left them to the … care of such worthye… frends as I shall hereafter name.

…I…bequeathe to John Coghill my eldest sonne, all my Mansion House called Coghill Hall… with all other tenements &c lease or copyhold thereunto annciently belonging & descended to me from my ancestors; all freeholds hereunto belonging & all copyholds as I have purchased.  To Thomas Coghill my youngest sonne one capital messuage…called Spittle Crofte…near Knaresborough, and sundry closes of meadow, & a house &  land bought of one Richard Craven of Tentergate.  Also for his better mayntenance and advancement during his mynoritye £100.

I give and bequeathe to my daughter Issabell Coghill £300.

I nomynate and apointe John Coggen & Thomas Coggen,[23] my two sonnes, Executors.

I bequeathe to Henry Coggen my brother the yearely annuitye of twentye nobles p. annum out of the rent of a certayne close called fferribye close & one close called Sandhills.  Then to my hoble and worthye master Sir Richd Hutton, Knt. £10 in memoriall of my dutye & servyse.  Then to my Hoble good lady, £5 in meml [as above] Then unto my worthy ffreinds Sir HyGoodricke Kt and Rd Hutton & John Dawney Esq & Thos Losse, clarke ffeoffers and overseers of this my…will…40p a peece.

Then to … sonne John all my household stuffe…in Coghill Hall and theBooks that were my Grandfathers, & half my other books; & the other half to my sonne Thomas [Said books to be delivered to them on their coming to “full yeares”]

To my daughter Issabell tenne poundes of old gould which…was her mothers.

…Unto Thomas Hutton £5, unto Henry Hutton 40p, unto MrsKatheryne Hutton & to MrsJudith Hutton 40p a peece.

Item I give unto my poore sister Jane Coghill [24] twenty nobles.  Item…unto my sister Mary Andrew fyve […]. Item…unto Maud Andrew daughter of my sister Andrew, tenne poundes whereof her father owes me seaven poundes ten shillinges.

[Legacies to his servants and to the poor of the parishes of Knaresborough and Wythern ffrary [25]]


Marriage Licence – John Coghill, 1639

A marriage licence was granted in 1639, by the Ecclesiastical Court of York Minster, to John Coghill, Gent., bachelor, age twenty-four years, of the Parish of Monkton, and Lucy Tancred, spinster, age twenty-three years, of the Parish of Whixley.  H.H. Gibbs Esq., writes:  “I have the marriage settlement of John Coghill of Coghill Hall, and Lucy, daughter of Charles and sister of Richard Tancred, of Whixley, dated September 28, 15th Charles I.

Purchase of Crake Manor – Thomas Coghill, 1648

In looking through Nichols’ “Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica,” which we found at the Astor Library, vol. i., p. 126, we saw that Sir Thomas Waddrington and Thomas Coghill, in March 1648, were the purchasers of the manor of Crake, in the County of Durham, being a part of the lands of the bishopric sequestrated by the Parliament.  Price paid, £1163. 8. 2½ .  And in the same volume, page 290, it is stated that on July 27, 1649, the manor of Howdens, in Yorkshire, being a part of the lands of the Bishpric of Durham, also sequestrated by the Parliament, was purchased by William Underwood, Thomas Coghill, and Matthew Bigg, for £592. 5. 0.

This Thomas Coghill was probably the brother of John, who maried Lucy Tancred, and was spoken of in the early part of this section as possibly being the father of the American ancestor.

We have very recently come into possession of a copy of the “Visitation of Yorkshire” made in 1584-5 by Robert Glover, to which is added the subsequent visitation made in 1612 by Richard St. George, Norroy king of arms, edited by Joseph Foster and privately printed for him in London, 1875.

On page 398 of this work we find the name of Thomas Coghill, Gent., amongst those of the Libertas de Knaresburgh, who, in 1584-5 and 1612, were summoned to appear and enter their pedigrees.

On page 505 we find a partial pedigree of the family, beginning with Thomas Coghill who married Marjory Slingsby, and ending with Thomas who married Beatrice Halley.  Only two of the first Thomas’ children are given in this pedigree, – Thomas and Nicholas.  In our pedigree another son, Robert, is mentioned, but the name of Nicholas does not appear.

We also learn from this work that coats of arms were granted to Thomas Coghill of Knaresborough, and John Coghill of London, his brother, 10th May 612, by Richard St. George, Norroy.  Two different coats are given, one corresponding with that borne by the eldest branch (without the Cramer impaling), the other with that of the younger branches,[26] differing only in the crest of the latter, which is given as a demi lion rampant argent, crowned or, holding a cross crosslet fitchée, and is evidently a mistake, as that crest belongs to the Earl of Essex.  All the branches of the family used the cock as a crest, differing only in position and colour.  Henry Hucks Gibbs Esq., informs us that among the family papers in his possession are deeds sealed with both of these coats.  The portrait of John Coghill, painted in 624 (a heliotype of which may be seen farther on), has in one corner the arms of the junior branch, impaling the arms of Viell, argent, a fesse reguly between three amulets gules.

Major Kendal Josiah William Coghill (13)

We learn from “Hart’s Army List,” 1878, that “Major Coghill, of the 19th Hussars, was appointed Second Lieutenant in 85, Lieutenant in 1855, Captain in 1863 and Major in 1877.

“He served with the 2nd European Bengal Fusileers in Burmah, 1853-55.  Served as Adjutant 2nd E.B. Fusileers throughout the Indian Mutiny campaign of 857-58.  Was present at the battle of Budleekeserai, and storming the heights in front of Delhi on 8th June, 857.  Served throughout the siege of Delhi from 8th June 1857, to its capture.  Present in all the actions in front of the city, including the repulse of the sortie on the 10th; capture of the Metcalf position on the 12th; repeeling sorties 19th and 20th; capture of Subzimundy on 24th; repelling sortie on the 27th and 30th June, and 8th, 9th and 14th July; capture of Pahrypore, under Gen. Sir John Jones; repelling sortie of 30th July, and 1st and 2nd August; present with the storming column during the assault on the Cashmere Bastion breach, and during the capture of Delhi, from 14th to 21st September 1857.

“Served with General Showers’ pursuing column from 1st October to 10th November 1857 and was present at the taking of the forts Rewarrie Jujjher, Ranaude, Furrucknugur, and Bullumbghur, and the capture of the heights of Sonah.  He received a medal with clasp”

Lieutenant Nevill Josiah Aylmer Coghill (14)


Of that deed of noble daring,
In its chivalry sublime,
Vivid, grand, historic pages
Shall descend to future ages;
Poets, painters, hoary sages
Shall record it for all time.

The death of this gallant young officer was mentioned at the foot-note of page [  ].  Since that was printed some of the details of the disaster to the British arms at Isandula, and also the particulars of the desperate courage and energy displayed by Lieutenants Coghill and Melvill in cutting their way through the dense lines of savages, and bearing off the colours of the regiment from that bloody field, have reached England and become a part of history.  Every London Journal has given a leading article in praise of that act of heroism, and poets have already woven it into song.  The names of Coghill and Melvill will ever be held in proud and grateful remembrance by their countrymen, and honoured by those of every nationality who respect courage and appreciate noble daring.

Our young kinsman has proved himself no degenerate scion of his house, but added new lustre to the old name.  Before the memory of his gallant deeds we hang our humble wreath of immortelles.

The following sketch of Lieutenant Coghill was at our request sent to us by a member of his family: –

Lieut. Nevill Josiah Aylmer Coghill was born in Dublin, January 25, 1852, and wanted but two days to be twenty-seven years old when he met his death.  He was educated at Hailebury College, in Hertfordshire, England, and passed his examination for the army and received his commission in 1873.  He went through the Gaika and Gallka war in 1877 as aide-de-camp to General Sir Arthur Cunnynghame, Bart., and was mentioned by him in dispatches for efficiency and coolness under fire.  In the spring of 1878 he returned with that general to England, but went out again almost immediately, and on his arrival at the Cape was appointed aide-de-camp to the Lord High Commissioner, Sir Bartle Frere, Bart., and accompanied him to the Transvaal. Upon the declaration of war against the Zulus, at his own request, he was allowed to go to the front as extra aide-de-camp to Colonel Glyn, commanding the column.

A few days before the battle of Isandula he unfortunately twisted his knee, which he had injured some years before at football, so that when Lord Chelmsford marched out of camp on the 22d January, he was obliged to remain behind.

In the afternoon of that day the small force left at the camp were surrounded and attacked on all sides by Cetewayo’s army, and when the ammunition was all expended, and the six or seven hundred were overwhelmed by twenty thousand Zulus, Colonel Pulleyn ordered Melvill, the adjutant, and Lieutenant Coghill (they being mounted officers), to take the colours of the regiment, and endeavour to get through the enemy’s lines and notify the posts in the rear of the disaster.[27]They succeeded in cutting their way through dense masses of the enemy, but were hotly pursued to the banks of the Buffalo River, which at a distance of twelve miles from the battle-field separates Natal from Zululand.  Here they attempted to cross the river, which was in a dangerous state of flood.  Lieutenant Coghill got over in safety, and was breasting the hill on the opposite side, quite out of danger, when he perceived that Melvill’s horse was shot under him in the river; he immediately turned and rode back into the river to his assistance, when unfortunately his horse too was shot.  In this struggle with the swollen river and the Zulus, the colours escaped them.  They managed with difficulty to reach the bank, and, though much exhausted, continued to stagger on for about a quarter of a mile, when they were again attacked by a party of Zulus who had crossed the river, and were both killed; not, however, without one more desperate struggle, for their bodies were found, and around them ten dead Zulus.

On Lieutenant Coghill’s body were found his diamond ring, a small Zulu bangle that he used to wear, and his boots and spurs – everything else had been taken.  The party who discovered their bodies also found the colours which they had died to save, among the bowlders in the river on the Natal side.

We learn from a letter written by Lady Bartle Frere that the articles found on the person of Lieutenant Coghill were forwarded by her to Sir J.J. Coghill, his father.

Letter of condolence: Maj. Gen. M A Dillon to Sir John Jocelyn Coghill Bt.

The following official letter of condolence was sent to Sir John Jocelyn Coghill, after his son’s death –

“SIR – I am directed by the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief to inform you that his Royal Highness perused with melancholy interest the report forwarded to him by Lord Chelmsford from Colonel Glyn, showing how the Queen’s colour of the 1st Battalion 24th Foot would have fallen into the hands of the enemy but for the gallant behaviour of your son, Lieutenant Coghill, and Lieutenant and Adjutant Melvill, of that regiment.  His Royal Highness in communicating this dispatch desires me to assure you of his sincere sympathy with you in the loss of your son, whose gallant death in the successful endeavour to save the colour of his regiment has gained the admiration of the army.  It is gratifying to His Royal Highness to inform you that if your son had survived his noble effort it was her Majesty’s intention to confer upon him the Victoria Cross, and a notification to that effect will be made in the London Gazette.

                                      “I have the honour to be, sir,

                                                                            “Your obedient servant,

                                                                                                                 “M. A. Dillon,

                                                                                                                                “Major General.

“To Sir Joscelyn Coghill, Bart.”

Poems to the memory of Lieutenants Coghill and Melvill

From the many tributes to the memory of Lieutenants Coghill and Melvill now before us, we have selected for preservation with these family records two poems.  The first was written by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who was one of England’s greatest diplomats some thirty years since.  He is now upwards of ninety years of age.  The other is from “The Battle of Isandula”, a poem of thirteen stanzas, by Robert Buchanan, published in the “Contemporary Review” (London) of April, 1879.

ISANDLANA,[28]  JANUARY 22, 1879

It was a fearful battle, a dread, ill-omen’d day,
When sudden, as by swoop of storm, in the pride of their array,
Full half the gallant Twenty-fourth to a man were swept away.

A brotherhood in arms were they, surpassed in fame by none;
And even on the battlefield, when all but hope was gone,
The beat of the surviving hearts was as the beat of one.

Their blazon’d colours proudly told of many a glorious fight,
And when from thickest of the fray they shed their meteor light,
There was not, and there could not be, a thought of fear or flight.

The column doomed to move apart trod firm a hostile land,
And all at ease the tents were spread, when from his rocky stand
The watcher’s cheery voice declared no enemy at hand.

But soon a word of ruder tone throughout th’encampment rang;
”They come, in swarms, they come; our lives on instant action hang.”
Not one but hurries to his post, and, swift as lightning’s flash,
The line is formed and all in place to meet the tempest’s crash.

From the hills
Down, downward pouring,
Streams to sight the swarthy flood,
Dark as clouds,
Which, thunder storing,
O’er a wilder’d city brood.
Alert to fight, athirst to slay,
They shake the dreaded assegai,
And rush with blind and frantic will
On all, when few, whose force is skill.

E’en so; but while they gather strength to strike the fatal blow,
Their front sustains a deadly shock, which lays a thousand low,
Yet thousands more replace the slain, and what can hundreds do,
But bravely face their doom, and die, to fame and duty true?

A whisper! – hark! – The guns, the guns! – No ready voice replies;
But lo! each gun in silence spiked, the captor’s grasp defies;
A brave and meritorious act; alas! who does it dies.

Far, far away, at fearful risk, a nobler charge was moved,
And those in trust right well achieved what more than valour proved;
Both still were young, and firm in minds that ne’er from duty roved.

Quick, quick, they mount the bridled steeds, while near each loyal breast
The colours lie, from ill secured, as in a miser’s chest.
What could be done in haste they did; to faith they gave the rest.

In fast succession forth they passed along the straggling host;
On, gallant youths! ye may not heed the peril or the cost.
Oh! speed them Heav’n! direct their course; what shame if such were lost!

A stare of silent brief surprise, and then a deaf’ning yell;
As if the imprison’d souls below had burst the bonds of hell;
On dash’d the dauntless riders still; who dares to cross them fell.

Soon clear of foemen, side by side, athwart the pathless wild,
Conveyors of a precious charge, by capture ne’er defiled,
On, boldly on, they stretched with speed, by youthful hope beguiled.

Alike through pools of rotten marsh, o’er beds of flint they rode;
They cross’d the dell, they scal’d the hill, they shunn’d the lone abode,
Nor ceased to urge the foaming beasts their weary limbs bestrode.

At length the frontier stream appears; hurrah! What need of more?
Oh fate! They plunge, the waters flash, the rushing waters roar,
Unseated, wounded, all but drown’d, they touch, they clasp the shore.

A few brief hours of calm succeed, they share the joy of those
Who, purpose gained and danger past, from anxious toil repose:
But nature sinks – too great the strain, and wounds are slow to close.

One slept – nor woke again; like him too soon the other slept;
And those who sought and found them dead, the colours near them kept,
In pity – doubt not – stoop’d awhile, and o’er the bodies wept.

MELVILL and COGHILL! honour’d names! ye need no verse of mine
To fix the record of your worth on memory’s faithful shrine;
To you a wreath that may not fade shall England’s praise assign.

Ye crown the list of glorious acts which form our country’s boast,
Ye rescued from the brink of shame what soldiers priz’d the most,
And reached by duty’s path a life beyond the lives ye lost.

                                                               STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE


“Save the colours!” shrieks a dying voice, and lo!

Two horsemen breast the raging ranks, and go. –

                   (In thy sacred list, O Fame!

                   Keep each dear and noble name.)[29]

                       See, they flash upon the foe,

                       Fierce as flame –

                   And one undaunted form

                   Lifts a British banner, warm

With the blood-rain and the storm of Isandula!

“Save the colours!” and amidst a flood of foes,

At gallop, sword in hand, each horseman goes –

                   Around the steeds they stride

                   Cling devils crimson-dyed,

                       But God! through butchering blows,

                       How they ride!

                   Their horses’ hoofs are red

                   With blood of dying and dead,

Trampled down beneath their tread at Isandula!

“Save the colours!” – They are saved – and side by side

The horsemen swim a raging river’s tide –

                   They are safe – they are alone –

                   But one, without a groan,

                       After tottering filmy-eyed,

                       Drops like stone;

                   And before his comrade true

                   Can reach his side he too

Falls, smitten through and through at Isandula! …

Bless the Lord, who in the hollow of his hand,

Kept the remnant of that little British band!

                   But give honour everywhere

                   To the brave who perish’d there,

                       Speak their praise throughout the land

                       With a prayer –

                   More than sorrow they can claim:

                   They have won the crown of Fame!

They have glorified the name of Isandula!

                                                                     ROBERT BUCHANAN

Part 3 – The Junior Branch of England

Having completed the pedigree of the family by descent from the eldest sons, with occasional sketches of some of its members, we next proceed to state what we have been able to learn with reference to the junior branches, confining this section of our history to those of them who remained in England.

It will be remembered that Marmaduke Coghill, fourth in descent, had only four sons of whom we could find any record:  William who died unmarried; Thomas, the eldest surviving son, who succeeded his father; Marmaduke, mentioned in the will of his brother Thomas; and John, a merchant in London, – all of whom were referred to in the preceding section.  If Marmaduke had other children, we have no means of ascertaining why they were not mentioned in the will of his eldest son, or in any of the numerous books we have examined.

  1. John Coghill, the youngest son of Marmaduke, was a merchant in London, and, as we learn from the records of St. Bartholmew’s by the Exchange, London, was married on the 20th January, 1588-9, to Susannah, daughter of Denis Viell, Esq., of Charleval, in Normandy; and the records show that he was buried in the chancel of St. Michael’s Bassishaw, London, 28th March 1625.[30]  He left two sons: –
  2. Henry Coghill, the eldest son [of whom later].
  3. Sir Thomas Coghill, of Blechingdon (a large lordship near Oxford). These two brothers, as will be seen further on, married sisters.  We will refer to Sir Thomas and his descendants first, and then return to Henry.  The records of St. Bartholemew’s the Less, London, show that “Thomas Coghill of this parish, London, Gent.,” and “Elizabeth, daughter and co-heiress of John Sutton, merchant of the same parish,” and Aldenham, Co. Hertford, youngest son of John Sutton of Horsell, Co. Surrey, and heir to his eldest brother Thomas, were married October 20, 1622.  He was knighted at Woodstock in 1633, and died June 2, 1659.  The records of the Blechingdon church show that he was buried there June 5, 1659.  By this marriage Sir Thomas had eleven children: –
  4. An abortive child, buried May 17, 1623, at St. Bartholemew’s the Less, London
  5. John Coghill, died September 19, 1628
  6. Thomas Coghill, baptized September 17, 1626, at Blechingdon
  7. Elizabeth Coghill, baptized December 28, 1628 at Blechingdon
  8. Susan Coghill, baptized December 26, 1630, at Blechingdon
  9. John Coghill, baptized April 28, 1633, at Blechingdon
  10. Sutton Coghill, baptized July 17, 1634, at Blechingdon
  11. Faith Coghill, baptized March 24, 1636-7, at Blechingdon
  12. Anne Coghill, baptized January 30, 1637-8, at Aldenham
  13. Catherine Coghill, baptized January 20, 1640-1, at Blechingdon
  14. Mary Coghill, baptized January 16, 1644-5, at Blechingdon.

All of these children except the first John and Anne, are named in their father’s will.  He also makes a bequest to his grandchild, Thomas Coghill, who was most probably a son of Thomas.  The records at Blechingdon show that Thomas Coghill, son of Thomas Coghill, Esq., was buried September 19, 1665, and the inference is that this is the grandchild referred to in Sir Thomas’ will.

Susan married George Pudsey, Gent., as we learn from her father’s will, but we find no recored of any of her descendants.

John married, but when, and to whom, we have not been able to learn.  The Blechingdon records show that he was buried there February 20, 1694-5, and the records of the Consistory Court of Oxford, that letters of administration were granted to Mary, relict of John Coghill, November 2, 1695.  Mary, relict of John Coghill, was buried at Blechingdon, as the records there show, February 22, 1702-3.  They had issue two daughters living July 28, 1698: –

  1. Elizabeth Coghill, married John Knapp, Esq.
  2. Mary Coghill, married [-] Hernson Esq., as we learn from their renouncing their father’s estate to his sister, and their aunt, Mary Courtney (John’s widow, Mary, renouncing at the same time).  We find no records of any other children.

Mary (7) married Peter Courtney, Esq., as we find from the records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, where letters of administration were granted to Mary, wife of Peter Courtney, on the estate of her brother, John Coghill, July 28, 1698; and the same records show that she died prior to May 14, 1703, when letters of administration on John Coghill’s estate were granted to his eldest daughter, Elizabeth Knapp, said Mary Courtney (his sister) being dead.

Sutton married, but we could not learn to whom, further than that her name was Jane, and that she lies buried at Blechingdon.  The only issue that we can find any record of are –

  1. Sutton Coghill, eldest son, died May 15, 1708, buried at Blechingdon.
  2. John Coghill, died January 31, 1716, buried at Blechingdon.
  3. Elizabeth Coghill
  4. Thomas Coghill, baptized at Blechingdon July 30, 1681.

Sutton we hear of only once.  Henry Hucks Gibbs, Esq., writes that “Sutton Coghill the younger was trustee to a post-nuptial settlement of Henry Coghill and Sarah Blythe in 1699,” as he learns from family records and papers now in his possession.  Thomas we have placed as the son of the eldest Sutton, but it is possible that he may have been the son of Sutton the younger.  John we trace by two monuments in Blechingdon Church,[31] one to his grandfather, father and two uncles, his brothers, and his mother and grandmother, and the other to his sister, Elizabeth, who married Charles Collins Esq., of Betterton, in the County of Berks, and died in 1713, as we learn from the monument just referred to, and which bears the following inscription: –

“Elizabeth ux. Charles Collins of Betterton, Co. Berks, only daughter of Sutton Coghill of Blechingdon, died in childbed, 19th October, 1713: Erected by her surviving brother, John Coghill, Esq.”

Faith married Sir Christopher Wren (the celebrated architect of St. Paul’s, London) December 7, 1669; she died, and was buried September 4, 1675, at St. Martin’s in the Fields, leaving an only son, Christopher Wren, born 1675.  (After her death Sir Christopher married, in February, 1676-7, Jane, daughter of Viscount Fitzwilliam, by whom he had other children.)  Christopher, the son, was a member of Parliament for Windsor from 1712 to 1714.  He wrote the memoirs of his family, entitled “Parentalia,” and also several other works, which are mentioned in Allibone’s “Dictionary of Authors.”  In 1710 the topmost stone of St. Paul’s, London, was with fitting ceremonies laid by him. He died in 1747, leaving one son.

Of the other children of Sir Thomas, or any of their descendants except those mentioned, we know nothing definitely.  We shall insert at the end of this section the baptisms and burials at Blechingdon and Aldenham, so far as we have been able to obtain them.  Most of those of the name who were buried at Blechingdon, and some few at Aldenham, were doubtless his descendants.  The authorities consulted state that the male line has been extinct for more than a century.  A copy of Sir Thomas’s will may be seen at the end of this section.

We now return to Henry Coghill, Esq. (6), of Aldenham (eldest son of John and brother of Sir Thomas). He was born in London in 1589; was first a merchant in that city, but afterwards resided at Bushey, and later at Aldenham, both in the County of Hertford, and in 1632 was sheriff of that county.  There is some uncertainty as to whether he resided at the older house which once stood on the land still called Penne’s Place, [32] [33] and the foundations and moat of which are still visible, or at another place, called Wigbournes.  Chauncy speaks of a “fair house of brick built by H. Coghill.”  It is not quite clear whether this was the old house of Penne’s Place, perhaps modernised by him about 1630 under the name Aldenham Hall, or the conversion of this house of Wigbournes (which dated from the previous century, and was inherited by Henry Coghill from his father-in-law, John Sutton) into the shape in which it came to its present owner.  Penne’s Place was apparently the chief seat of this branch of the family for two or three generations.  It is spoken of as a mansion apparently still existing, in the will of Sarah Coghill, 1767, but had sunk to a mere parcel of land in the deed of partition made by her great-grand-daughters in 1815.  Aldenham House, under its former name of Wigbournes, belonged to Faith, wife of Henry Coghill.  In 1734 we find it in possession of Thomas, a younger and surviving brother of the third Henry Coghill, and from him descended to his niece, Sarah Hucks.  Thomas made his will June 2, 1784, proved P.C.C., 24th of the following month.[34]

We learn from the records of St. Bartholemew’s the Less, London, that he, Henry (6) married Faith, daughter and co-heiress of John Sutton, merchant of the same parish, January 16, 1620.  This lady died 31st May, 1670, and was buried in the south chancel of Aldenham Church.  Her husband died August 20, 1672, and was buried by her side.  The inscriptions on both monuments may be seen among the monumental inscriptions in Aldenham and Blechingdon Churches at the end of this section.  By this marriage he had issue –

  1. Elizabeth Coghill, baptised in London, at St. Bartholemew’s the Less, May 15, 1623; died August 20, 1628.
  2. John Coghill, baptised in London, June 23, 1624; died young.
  3. Thomas Coghill, baptised in Blechingdon, July 10, 1625; died August 18, 1628.
  4. Faith Coghill, baptised in Blechingdon, September 30, 1626; died May 3, 1630.
  5. Elizabeth Coghill, baptised in Aldenham, October 29, 1629.
  6. Henry Coghill, baptised in Aldenham, February 13, 1633-4.
  7. John Coghill, baptised in Blechingdon, July 2, 1637; born same day.

It will be observed that the first four children died young.  Elizabeth never married, as may be seen by an abstract of her will at the end of this section.  John Coghill, of Bentley, the youngest son, married Debora, daughter of William Dudley, Esq., of Ellstree.  She died August 31, 1714, and John Coghill, her husband, October 13, 1714; both she and her husband were buried in Aldenham Church, where their monuments are still to be seen.  A full description of them, and also of one to Mrs Coghill’s mother, Lucy Dudley, may be found at the end of this section.

They had issue –

  1. John Coghill, baptised at Aldenham, November 24, 1669; died following December, and was buried in south chancel of Aldenham Church.
  2. Lucy Coghill, died young.
  3. Thomas Coghill.
  4. Lucy Coghill.

            There were other children who died in infancy.

Lucy was living October 26, 1676, as may be seen by a bequest in the will of her aunt Elizabeth, daughter (7) of Henry Coghill, Esq., an abstract o which is given at the end of this section.  Thomas, the only surviving son, was an officer in the army.  He was with the army which marched under the Duke of Marlborough from Flanders up into Germany, and was slain in the battle of Donawert, 2d July, 1704, in the twenty-second year of his age.  This sanguinary battle was long remembered by many English families.  The French and Bavarian armies were posted in an almost impregnable entrenched camp, earth-works with the town of Donawert. The allied army, after a hard day’s march, reached the base of the hill late in the afternoon, and notwithstanding the fatigue of his troops, Marlborough gave his orders to storm the works.  It was in that terrible charge against a pitiless storm of lead, in many respects so closely resembling the one made on the same day of the same month, and about the same hour of the day, one hundred and fifty-nine years later, by a division of General Lee’s army on the Federal position at Gettysburg, that along with more than five thousand of his comrades in arms, this young officer fell, the last male descendant of John Coghill of Bentley.

Returning now to Henry Coghill (7), of Aldenham Hall, alias Penne’s Place, as his house was called in his marriage settlement (the eldest son of Henry), we find that he married Sarah, daughter of Thomas Blythe, of the family of Blythes in Elferrat, in Yorkshire.  She was buried in linen[35] at Aldenham, 3d March, 1723-4; and he, 24th June, 1709, having been high sheriff of the county in 1673.  They had issue –

  1. Elizabeth Coghill, baptised 23d April, 1674.
  2. Henry Coghill, baptised 24th March, 1675-6.
  3. John Coghill, baptised 29th January, 1678-9.
  4. Thomas Coghill, baptised 13th May, 1684.
  5. Charles Coghill, baptised 2d December, 1686.

We find no other record of John than his baptism and burial.  Thomas was buried in linen at Aldenham, 2d February, 1734-5, and devised the manor of Bentley (now called Bentley Priory[36]), as we learn from Lyson’s “Environs of London”, to his nephew (grand), Thomas Wittewronge, grandson of his sister Elizabeth; and his other lands, left him by his brother Henry, and coming to the latter from their uncle John, descended to his nephew, Henry Coghill; and from him to Sarah, his sister.  We find no other mention of Charles than his baptism. Elizabeth was twice married; first, as we learn from the records of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, on 14th February, 1693-4, to Jacob Wittewronge, of Lincoln (Son of James and grandson of Sir John Wittewronge).  He was born in 1671, and was fourth in descent from James Wittewronge, a native of Ghent, in Flanders, who fled from that country during the time of the Protestant persecution under Philip II. of Spain, and settled in England in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.  He (Jacob) died, leaving one son, Jacob, who married, 9th May, 1719, Anne, widow of – Hale, Esq., of Coventry, and died 26th and was buried 30th June, 1727, at Harpenden.  He left issue, James; Jacob, baptised 16th October, 1722, and died the following December; Thomas, baptised 16th October, 1723, and died 14th June, 1763; Elizabeth, died infant, and buried 16th April, 1729.

James married Martha, daughter of Sir John Strange, Knight and Master of the Rolls, and died 1748, leaving no issue.  Thomas was the nephew to whom the manor of Bentley was bequeathed by his great-uncle, Thomas Coghill, in 1734.  He died without issue, and was buried at Harpenden, 14th June, 1763; and, being the last of the male line, bequeathed his estate to John, the grandson of Thomas Bennet, Esq., who married his great-aunt. Elizabeth Wittewronge, after the death of her husband, married, in May, 1700, Anthony Ettrick, Esq., of High Barnes, County Durham, a widower with one daughter.  They had issue, William, baptised at Aldenham, December 29, 1701; Walter, baptised at Aldenham, November 17, 1706; Sarah, baptised at Aldenham, November 6, 1707; Helen, baptised at Aldenham, May 7, 1710; Henry, baptised at Aldenham, December 25, 1711.

We know nothing of the four younger children; but the eldest, William, married Isabella Langley, of Higham-Gobion, County Bedford, and left a son,William, baptised at Harpenden, County Hertford, May 16, 1726; married at St. Nicholas, Durham, January 27, 1752; died, February 22, 1808, and was buried at Bishop’s Wearmouth.  His wife was Catherine Whorton, of Old Park, Durham; she was buried at High Barnes, November 24, 1794.  Their son, Rev. William Ettrick, was baptised at St. Nocholas, Durham, May 15, 1757; was admitted to certain copyholds in Hertfordshire, on the death of Sarah Noyes, as customary heir to her grandmother, Sarah Hucks, born Coghill.

We go back now to Henry Coghill (8), of Aldenham House (formerly called Wigbournes).  He married Anne, daughter of Robert Nicoll, Esq., of St. Michael’s, County Hertford, and was buried at Aldenham, 2d August, 1728.

They had issue –

  1. Sarah Coghill, baptised at Aldenham, Aug. 3, 1705.
  2. Mary Coghill.
  3. Henry Coghill.
  4. Anne Coghill.
  5. John Coghill.
  6. Thomas Coghill.
  7. Lucy Coghill.

In the pedigree sent by Sir John Jocelyn Coghill, all of these children, except Sarah, are said to have died young; but Henry Hucks Gibbs, Esq., writes that both Henry and John lived to be of age.  John, the younger son, he writes, was married; his wife’s name was Anne, and she was buried at Aldenham, January 9, 1725, and her will was proved on the 26th of the same month, leaving her property to her husband, who himself died the following year, and was buried August 30th, at Aldenham.  Another Ann Coghill was witness to her will; this may have been the wife of Henry, her father-in-law, born Ann Nicoll, and who was buried at Aldenham, August 3, 1739, as “Ann Coghill, widow, from London.”

Henry Coghill, the eldest son, and last male of the family, inherited the main estates of his father, and also some lands which belonged to John, his younger brother.  He died unmarried, and was buried at Aldenham, August 2, 1728, and administration was granted in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, to his sister –

Sarah,[37] who married, December 22, 1730, Robert, only son of William Hucks, Esq., of Bloomsbury, M.P. for Wallingford; and died February 25, 1771.  Her husband died in 1745, in the forty-fifth year of his age.  Both are buried in Aldenham Church, where their monument still remains.  A full description is given of it at the end of this section.

Mr Hucks was a Member of Parliament for Abbingdon [sic], and recorder of Wallingford.

They had issue –

  1. Elizabeth, Sarah, Mary and William Hucks, who died infants.
  2. Anne Hucks, baptised December 2, 1731.
  3. Harriet Hucks, baptised August 7, 1736.
  4. Sarah Hucks, baptised January 3, 1738.
  5. Robert Hucks, baptised November 8, 1742, at St. George’s Bloomsbury.

Anne, in 1757, married Oliver Coghill, of Coghill Hall, who was Oliver Cramer, but in pursuance of the will of Marmaduke Coghill, his great-uncle, assumed the name of Coghill by sign-manual, and became his heir as well as heir to his cousin Hester (daughter of James Coghill), Countess of Charleville.  Anne died leaving no issue, and Oliver Coghill afterwards married Jane, daughter of – Holl, Esq., by whom he had one daughter, Jane. (See Part II.)

Sarah married Thomas Buckeridge Noyes, Esq., of Southcote in Reading, who died 1797, and had issue –

  1. Sarah Noyes, died April, 1842.
  2. Anne Noyes, died December, 1841.

Robert Hucks died June 8, 1814, and his will, dated July 4, 1771, was proved on the 29th July of that year. He was declared a lunatic in 1792, and so continued till his death. His nieces, Sarah and Anne Noyes, succeeded to his estates as heirs-at-law; and executed a deed of partition in April, 1815, whereby the Oxfordshire and Berkshire estates, which came from the Hucks family, and the land in Lambeth, fell to Anne, and the Hertfordshire, Middlesex, and Cambridgeshire estates, which came from the Coghills, fell to Sarah. On her death intestate, as to, her real estate, the freehold portion of these estates passed to her heir ex parte malerna, George Henry Gibbs, Esq., of London, representative through his mother of Joseph Hucks, of Bloomsbury, next brother of “William Hucks first before mentioned. Such of her copyhold estates as had descended from the Coghills to Sarah, wife of Robert Hucks, passed to the Rev. William Ettrick, eldest representative of Elizabeth Coghill by her second husband (from which we may conclude that the descendants of her first husband, Jacob Wittewronge, were wholly extinct), and such as came to her from the Nicolls descended to John Smith, a clerk in the India Office, who was admitted to them as next heir of Anne Nicoll, the wife of Henry Coghill, and mother of the said Sarah Hucks, as sixth in descent from her grandfather, Robert Nicoll, of Hendon~ County Middlesex. Henry Hucks Gibbs, Esq., of Aldenham House, and of London, late Governor of the Bank of England, the eldest son of the above named George Henry Gibbs, Esq., is the present representative of the Hucks family, and of the principal estates of the family of Coghill.


The records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, London, refer to five Coghills whose names are not mentioned in this pedigree. These records furnish the only information we have been able to obtain concerning them; first, –

John Coghill, of Lincoln, whose estate was administered upon in 1639-40.

Susanna Coghill, of the parish of Leonard, Eastcheap, London, whose will was probated August 28, 1657.

Thomas Coghill, of the parish of Leonard, Eastcheap, London, husband of Susanna, whose estate was administered upon October 27, 1657, by Henry Bonner and John Spencer, who were also appointed guardians to Thomas Coghill, a minor, the only child of the deceased.

Thomas Coghill, a minor, son of Thomas and Susanna mentioned above, late of the parish of Leonard, Eastcheap, London, whose estate was administered upon by John Cogbill, the nephew by the brother and next of kin, March 14, 1666.

Thomas Coghill, of Knaresborough, County of York, whose estate was administered upon by John Coghill, the cousin and next of kin, February 14, 1665-6.

Recorded in the same court is the WILL of Susanna Coghill (referred to above), wife of Thomas Coghill, of the parish of Leonard, Eastcheap, and mother of Thomas, his son, who was, when she married Mr. Coghill, the widow of the late Brandon Wetherill, of London. After giving several small legacies to her relations, and to Sir Thomas Trevor and “My Ladie Trevor,” she bequeathes the residue of the property which she held in her own right to her husband and their son. Sir Thomas Trevor is sole executor. The will is dated 12th May, 1655. witnesses: Ed. Owen, Ann House, and Thomas Barber. Proved 28th August, 1657.

The records of St. Michael’s, Bassishaw, London, show that Thomas Coghill, son of John Coghill, Barber-Surgeon,[38] was baptized January 29, 1603-4. We can find no mention of this John anywhere else.

Thomas, the son, was most probably the husband of Susanna just before mentioned, who died in the parish of Leonard, Eastcheap, in 1657.


Henry Coghill, of Aldenham, must have made provision for his two youngest children, John and Elizabeth, during his life, as by his will he bequeathed only twenty shillings each, to them. John, it is known, was a gentleman of wealth, and Elizabeth, who died unmarried six years after her father, as will be seen by her will, after leaving, including annuity, some sixteen hundred pounds to various persons, gave the remainder of her property, “personall and reall” (which was probably much the larger part), to her eldest brother, Henry.


“I, Henry Coghill of Aldenham in the County of Hertford, Esqr,” – “to the poore of the parish of Aldenham Five pounds ” – ” to each of such servants that shall be dwelling with mee att the time of my decease a yeares wages over and above what they ought to have and receive for theire service” – ” to my maid servant Anne Miillington ” an Annuity of £5 for life to be paid “att or in the now dwelling house of mee the said Henry Coghill, called Wigbournes situate in Aldenham aforesaid “

– “unto my God daughter, Elizabeth Downing” “£10 per annum – to my sonne Jolin and my daughter Elizabeth Coghill, to each of them twenty shi1lings” – “my son Henry Coghill sole Exectr and to him all my Goods and Chattels whatsoever.” – Dated 8 May, 1672. – Witnesses: John Nicoll and George Smith. – Proved 20 November, 1672.


“I, Elizabeth Coghill of Aldenham in the Conntie of Hertford, Spinster” – “unto .Anne Millington my Servant ” an Annuity of £ 15 for life charged on property in Aldenham and to be paid ” at or in the now dwelling house of Henry Coghill, esq. in Alden ham aforesaid” – “to my loving Brother John Coghill of Bentley, gent, and Deborah his wife fiftie pounds a peece” – “to Lucy Coghill, Daughter of the said John Coghill £100 ” – “to my loving Sister in Law, Sarah Coghill, now wife of Henry Coghill of Aldenham aforesaid esqr £100 ” – “to Elizabeth Coghill, daughter of the said Henry Coghill £500 ” – “to Henry Coghill, SONNE of the said Henry £500 ” – ” my loving Brother, the said Henry Coghill, sole Exe., to whom after payment of my legacies and funeral expenses I give and bequeath all my personall and Reall Estate whatsoever.” -Dated 26 October, 1676. – Witnesses: John Nicholl, Bithiah Nicholl, and Margaret Russell. – Proved 1 December, 1677.


“I, Sir Thomas Coghill of Bletchingdon in the County of Oxford, Knight” – “to be buried in the Chancell of the Church of Bletchingdon ” – Testator revokes a Conveyance made upon certain Trusts to Vincent Barry, the younger, of Tame in the said Co. of Oxford, Gent., Ralph Deane of Princes Risborough in Bucks, Gent., and John Dixon of Rowleright in said Co. Oxford, Gent., by Indenture dated 18 July, 1656, of “All those Mannors called or known by the name of Poures Mannor and Adderburges Mannors, with their appurtenances and of divers messuages, lands, Tenements, and hereditaments lying and being in Bletchingdon aforesaid and in Hampton Poell to the said Mannor or one of them belonging,” and devises as follows : ”all my lands unsould and conteyned in the said Lease are Assigned” ” To my deare and loveing wife, Dame Elizabeth Coghill” for life, remainder “to such person and persons to whom I shall hereby give and dispose of the inheritance or Fee Simple of the several lands therein conteyned unto.” – “unto my second sonne, John Coghill and his heires, the Inheritance and Fee Simple of all that Messuage or Tenement with all and Singular the lands,” &c. belonging thereto in Bletchingdon, now in the possession of John Edgerly, Gent. my Messe or Tenet, with the lands, &c. now in my possession, and heretofore in that of William Hawkins, all those four Cottages, &c., now in the possession of– Goodwife, George Goodwife, Stiles Goodwife, Gyles and Goodman Falconer, the Messe where I live and now dwell, with the gardens, that Messe or Tenet with the lands now in the possession of William Anyson, otherwise Daker with the appurte (except Chitsnell meade ), that Messe or Tenet, with the Close adjoining, now in the possession of Robert Munchion. One Messe or Tenet, with the lands now or late in the possession of Fra Brathwayt that Messe or Tenet now or late in the possession of Richard Prickett, and all that Messe or Tenet now or late in the possession of Edward Silversides, all that Messe or Tenet now or late in the possession of John Spindler, that Messe or Tenet now or late in the possession of Hester Buckley, and all those several Messes or Tenets now or late in the several possessions or occupations of Richard Kent, Richard Parratt, William Greene, John Bidwell and Thomas Judge, and also the house called the Towne house – “unto my sonne, Sutton Coghill, and his heires” All that Messe or Tenet, with the Lands, &c., heretofore in the possession of Mary Bowden, widow deceased, and now in the possession of me or my assigns, my Messe or Tenet and Lands now or late in the possession of Henry Verney, all that Messe or Tenet and Lands, now or late in the possession of Richard Dennett, that Messe or Tenet and Lands now or late in the possession of –Mathews, and all those Cottages now in the possession of “‘Widdow Dodur, Tho. Drake, Rice Evans, Rich. Gibbs, Widdow Kent and Richard Munchion, and also all that my Coppice, called the Lynch – “unto my Deare Wife, Dame Elizabeth Coghill; Vincent Barry the elder, of Tame, Esquire, and Vincent Barry, the younger, his sonne,” certain Messes, Tenets, Lands, &c., in Trust to sell same, ant1 pay thereout “unto my said Sonne John Coghill,” £800, to “my said Sonne Sutton,” £800, to “my daughter Faith Coghill” £1,000, to “my Daughter Catherine Coghill” £800, to “my daughter Mary Coghill” £800, to “my GRANDCHILD Thomas Coghill” £500, unto my daughter Elizabeth Coghill £50 to buy her a Ring and same sum to my daughter Susan for a like purpose, to my son Thomas Coghill £100 to buy him a Ring, and to my “loving friend and Counsellor, S. William Moreton” £5 to buy him a Ring – All my books, wheresoever they are, to my Sonne John Coghill; to my daughter Susan Pudsey, wife of John Pudsey Esquire – ” Residue of my lands in Blechingdon herein and hereby not disposed of, given or bequeathed, together with the said Two Mannors, called Poures Mannor and Aderburyes Mannor” “unto my said Sonne John Coghill and his heires after the decease of Dame Elizabeth my wife, whom I doe hereby make, &c., sole Exector, to her all my Leases, Goods, Plate, Household Stuff and Personal Estate whatsoever” – “my very loving friends, Sir Robert Croke Knt. and my Cosen Jo Dixon” Overseers. – Dated 26 May, 1659. – Witnesses: “‘William Norton, William Wansbrough, and Lawrence Bruer.

By Codicil, dated 1 June, 1659, and witnessed by William Marton, Christopher Barry, and Nicholas Gawdy, Testator revokes his bequest to his sd son John Coghill, of the Inheritance and Fee Simple of the Messe or Tenet and lands in Blechingdon, in the possession of John Edgerly, Gent, and the Messes Lands &c. or Cottages in the occupation of William Hawkins Goodwife, George Goodwife, Stiles Goodwife, Giles and Goodman Falconer, and gives the same to his deare and loving Wife, Dame Elizabeth Coghill, to be disposed of as she shall think fit. Proved December, 1659.


1629, Oct. 29. Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Coghill, Esq.

1633-4, Feb. 3. Henry, son of same.

1637-8, Jan. 30. Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas Coghill, Knt., and

Dame Elizabeth.

1669, Dec. 7. John, son of John and Mrs. Debora Coghill, born 24


1674, April 23. Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Coghill.

1675-6, Mar. 24. Henry, son of Henry Coghill, Esq., and Sarah.

1678-9, Jan. 29. John, son of same.

1684, May 13. Thomas, son of same.

1686, Dec. 2. Charles, son of same.

1705, Aug. 3. Sarah, daughter of Mr. Henry Coghill and Anne.


[Records of Burials from 1678 to 1700 are lost.]

1669, Dec. 7. John, ye child of Mr. John Coghill, in South Chancel.

1670, June 4. Mrs. Faith, wife of Henry Coghill, Esq., in South Chancel, her grandchild, John Coghill, being taken up and laid in the same grave.

1672, Aug. 26.  Henry Coghill, Esq., in South Chancel, by his wife.

1676, April 3.  Mrs. Elizabeth Coghill, in South Aisle.

1709, June 24.  Henry Coghill, Esq., in linen.[39]

1714, Sept. 3.  Madam Debora, wife of John Coghill, Esq.

1714, Oct. 18.  John Coghill, Esq., age seventy-eight.

1716, Aug. 18.  Henry Coghill, Esq., of Aldenham Wood, in linen, died 13th.

1723-4, Mar. 3. Mrs. Sarah Coghill, widow, in linen.

1724-5, Jan. 9. Mrs. Anne Coghill.

1726, Oct. 30. Mr. John Coghill.

1728, Aug. 2. Henry Coghill, Esq.

1734-5, Feb. 2. Mr. Thomas Coghill, in linen.

1739, Aug. 3. Mrs. Ann Coghill, widow, from London.

1785, Nov. 22. Sir John Coghill, Bart., from London.[40]


1625, July 10. Thomas, son of Henry Coghill.

1626, Sept. 17. Thomas, son of Thomas Coghill.

1626, Sept. 30. Faith, daughter of Henry Coghill.

1628, Dec. 28. Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Coghill.

1630, Dec. 26. Susan, daughter of same.

1633, April 28. John, son of same.

1634, July 17. Sutton, son of same, born 3d.

1636-7, Mar. 24. Faith, daughter of Sir Thomas Coghill, Knt.

1637, July 2. John, son of Henry Coghill, Esq., born same day.

1640-1, Jan. 20. Catherine, daughter of Sir Thomas Coghill, Knt.

1644-5, Jan. 16. Mary, daughter of same.

1681, July 30. Thomas, son of Sutton Coghill, Gent.


1659, June 5. Sir Thomas Coghill, Knt.

1665, Sept. 19. Thomas, son of Thomas Coghill, Esq.

1694, May 17. Thomas Coghill, Esq., died 12th.

1694-5, Feb. 20. Johan Coghill.

1702-3, Feb. 22. Mary, relict of John Coghill.

1706, Dec. 10. Thomas Coghill, Lord of the Manor.

1713, Oct. 22. Elizabeth, daughter of Sutton Coghill, Esq., and

wife of Charles Collins of Betterton, Co. Berks.

1716-7, Feb. 3. John Coghill, Esq., Lord of the Manor.


On the north wall of the chancel is a monument with the following inscriptions:-

THOMAS, son and heir of Henry Coghill, of Aldenham, Herts, Esq.,
age 3 years, died 18 Aug., 1628.

ELIZABETH, eldest daughter of same,
age 5 years, died 20 Aug., 1628.

JOHN, eldest son of Thomas Coghill
of Blechingdon, Esq., age 4 years,
died 19 September, 1628.

Also, FAITH, second daughter of sd Henry Coghill,
age 4 years, died 3 May, 1 G30.


Aldenham Church, in which are the monuments and inscriptions following this, is situated in the parish of that name, in the County of Hertford. It is built almost entirely of flints, and has a handsome square embattled tower at its west end, surmounted by a short spire, a nave with side aisles covered with lead, and a chancel, tiled.

ON THE FLOOR, ON THE NORTH SIDE, are the following inscriptions: –

Arms: Gules, on a chevron three pellets, Coghill: empaling, a chevron between three bulls passant guardant, Sutton, with the crest of Coghill.

“Here lyeth interred the body of

wife of Henry Coghill, Esqr., and daughter and co-heir of John Sutton, Esqr., who departed this life upon the 31st day of May, Anno Domini 1670, at 75 years of age. She left issue behind her, two sons, Henry and John, and one daughter named Elizabeth. By her son John, who married Deborah Dudley, daughter of William Dudley, of Elstree, Esqr.,  she had two grandchildren, John and Lucy, both of which are buried under this stone.”

“HENRY COGHILL, Esqr., deceased the 22nd of August, 1672, aged 83 years.”

”Here lieth the body of the pious and truly religious gentlewoman
relict of William Dudley, Esqr., who lived to the 80th year of her age, and departed this life the first of March, Anno Domini, 1684-5. She left issue only one daughter, Debora, the wife of John Coghill of Bentley, Gent. In the same grave lyes burried three children of the said Coghills, viz.: one daughter and two sons, who died young.”

ON THE SAME SIDE is an altar-tomb of white marble, on which are the figures of a gentleman and lady, with these arms and inscriptions: –

Arms: Gules, on a chevron three pellets, a chief Sable, Coghill, empaling, or, two lions passant azure; Dudley. Crest, on a wreath, Argent and Gules, a cock crowing ermine, crested and winged, or.

“Here lyeth the body of
late of Bentley, in this county, Gent, younger son of Henry Coghill, heretofore of Aldenham, Esq., who died October 13th 1714, in the 79 year of his age.

“ALSO DEBORAH, his wife (only daughter of “William Dudley, Esq.), who dyed August 3lst, 1714, in the 73rd year of her age.

“Their only son, Thomas Coghill, who lived to about the age of twentytwo years, in commission in the army which marched under the Duke of Marlborongh from Flanders, up into Germany, was unfortunately slain at the attack of Donawert, An° 1704.”

Against the wall, on the south side of the chancel, is a marble monument, the upper part of which consists of a sarcophagus of Sienna marble, in front of which, carved in relief, is a medallion, with a male and female head, beneath which is a tablet, between two pillars of the Ionic order, with this inscription : –

“Sacred to the memory of
ROBERT HUCKS, Esqr., and of
Sarah, his wife;

he was the only son of William Hucks, Esqr., of wallingford, in Berkshire, who served for that Borough in four successive parliaments, by Mary Selwood, his wife. He was a tender and affectionate husband, a fond parent, a warm and firm friend, a kind and generous landlord, an indulgent master. No man was more beloved by his friends, or more esteemed and trusted by all that knew him. It was his constant object to live well with every one, and every office to his neighbours, was a gratification to himself; his benevolent heart was warm in the interest of all mankind, and of this nation and Government in particular. He served for the Borough of Abbingdon, in Berkshire, in several Parliaments, respected and approved by his constituents; the good of his country was the unerring rule of his conduct; it was difficult to mislead, impossible to corrupt him; he looked back on his past life with humble diffidence, and was only confident in that Gospel that offereth mercy and peace to all men. He died after a long and painful illness, which he bore with manly fortitude and Christian resignation, in the prime and strength of his days, in the 45th year of his age, lamented by his friends and forever to be lamented by his family. Sarah, his wife, was the only surviving child of Henry Coghill, Esqr., of Wigbourns, in this Parish, by his wife Ann Nicoll, daughter of Robert Nicoll, Esqr.; she survived her husband many years, ever regretting his loss ; her long widowhood fully evinced she merited the confidence he placed in her; with ample means to have formed a second connection at a time when the temptations of health and pleasure were in their strength, she rejected every offer; and, as a never-ceasing testimony of her affection for him, devoted her life to the care of their children. She died after a short illness, February 25th 1771, in the 65th year of her age. They had issue: Ann, married Oliver Cramer Coghill, Esqr., of Coghill-Hall, in Yorkshire, who died without children; Elizabeth, Sarah, Mary, and William, who died infants, and Harriet, Sarah, and Robert, now living; the last of whom, out of respect and gratitude to the best of parents, erected this monument, a small tribute of filial duty to preserve their memory in this world; but their virtues are written in the eternal records, and will remain in lasting characters when this marble shall be mouldered into dust.”

Beneath this inscription are two shields, with these arms: Dexter, argent, a chevron between three owls, azure. Hucks. An escutcheon gules, on a chevron argent, three pellets, a chief sable. Coghill. Sinister, the arms of Coghill.

PART 4 – The Unconnected Branch of the Family in England

THE following pedigree was furnished by Mr. Anthony Gogliill, of 9 Prince Road, Notting Hill, London, and Miss Martha Coghill, daughter of Mr. Daniel Coghill, of Ivy House Farm, Ichenham, W. Uxbridge, in Middlesex.

They are both of the opinion that they descended from Sir Thomas Coghill, of Blechingdon, and the fact of Anthony Coghill, their ancestor, having been a resident of Oxfordshire, would seem to favor their supposition. On the other hand, the descendants of Sir Thomas Coghill are all said to be extinct in the pedigree sent to us by Sir John Jocelyn Coghill, and further, if the first Anthony in the pedigree which follows had been a descendant of Sir Thomas, he would in all probability have inherited some of his estates. Joseph L. Chester, LL. D., of London, who has had a long experience in genealogical researches, and whose opinion is considered authority, is positive that they did not descend from Sir Thomas.

We give the pedigree and leave it for others who may feel inclined to pursue the investigations.

  1. ANTHONY COGHILL, farmer, resided at Worminghall, near Oxford, and died, and was buried at that place March 1, 1779; age, sixty-eight years. The only issue that we know of was a son, –
  1. THOMAS COGHILL, born October 10, 1736, and died January 27, 1804. He was parish clerk and schoolmaster at Stanton for over forty years, and was buried there. He married, and his wife Katharine died December 5, 1806 ; age, seventy-three years. He had issue –
  5. ANTHONY COGHILL, born 1768.

Thomas married, and had one son, who died single. Katharine married R. Bradford, and had two sons. Elizabeth married Thomas Ray, and had one daughter.

Anthony married Elizabeth Neighbour in 1788, who died 29th March, 1840; age, seventy-three years. He was a farmer, and held the same farms that the first Anthony held at Worminghall, and also the following places: Wadelsdon and Homage farm, Chelton farm, both in Bucks County; also Lobbs farm, Great Haseley, in Oxfordshire, at which place he died June 1, 1841, and was buried at Worminghall Church, Buckinghamshire. He had issue twelve children: –

  1. ANTHONY COGHILL, born 18th March, 1789; died December, 1802.
  2. ELIZABETH COGHILL, born 10th May, 1790.
  3. THOMAS COGHILL, born 7th October, 1791.
  4. KATHARINE COGHILL, born 15th January, 1793 ; died 20th June, 1793.
  5. WILLIAM COGHILL, born 25th April, 1794; died 1849.
  6. JOHN COGHILL, born 17th November, 1796; died 3d June, 1810.
  7. JAMES COGIIILL, born 14th August, 1798.
  8. DANIEL COGHILL, born 12th October, 1800.
  9. MARY COGHILL, born 3d December, 1802 ; died 1st July, 1876.
  10. ANTHONY COGHILL, second, born 10th May, 1805.
  11. KATHARINE COGHILL, second, born 20th September, 1808.
  12. JOHN COGHILL, second, born 5th February, 1812.

Elizabeth married James Garner, and died leaving seven children. Thomas was apprenticed on board a merchant ship, and, in the war between England and America in 1812, was pressed into service on board a man-of-war (family tradition says the “Bellerophon “), and when the war was over he left the navy. He sailed in the American brig” Mary,” Captain Thorndyke, in 1816, and was never heard of afterwards; a brig answering the description of the “Mary” was captured off the Malay coast, the captain and mate murdered, and the crew made prisoners.

William was a farmer and resided at Tetsworth, Oxon. He married Martha Lovejoy, 6th January, 1825; and died May 14, 1840, and had issue –

  1. THOMAS COGHILL, born 12th October, 1825; died 24th February, 1839.
  2. WILLIAM COGHILL, born 4th June, 1827.
  3. ANN COGHILL, born 17th March, 1830; died 6th April, 1854.
  4. ELLEN ELIZABETH COGHILL, born 30th January, 1832.

Ellen E. married Robert Pratt, of Lynham, Oxon, farmer, and had one son, Freeman, now living.

William married Rachael Jones (widow, maiden name Hardwick), June 4, 1850, at St. George’s, Hanover Square, London. He died 26th August, 1872. Rachel, his wife, died 22d August, 1876 ; both buried at Kensal-green Cemetery. He left issue eight children : –

  1. E. ELIZABETH COGHILL, born 2d February, 1851; now living single.
  2. SARAH HUSS COGHILL, born 20th February, 1853; living and single.
  3. DRUCILLA ADELAIDE COGHILL, born 2d May, 1854.
  4. WILLIAM ANTHONY COGHILL, born 22d May, 1855; died 7th July, 1856.
  5. ALICE MARTHA COGHILL, born 10th March, 1857; living and single.
  6. LYDIA LOUISE COGHILL, born 14th December, 1858; died 19th August, 1859.
  7. JESSIE AGNES COGHILL, born 11th August, 1860; 30th December, 1860.
  8. ANTHONY ·WILLIAM COGHILL, born 2d November, 1862; died 19th December, 1862.

Drucilla Adelaide married William Anthony French, 8th December, 1874, and has one son, Arthur William, born 3d February, 1876.

James (4) married Elizabeth Emmerton. He was a surveyor and resided at Long Crendon, Buckingham; died 9th February, 1851, and was buried at Ickford in the same county. He had issue –

  1. ELLEN COGHILL, not living.
  2. HARRIET COGHILL, married.

And one son who died in infancy.

Daniel (4), of Ivy House Farm, near Ichenham, in Middlesex, married his cousin Elizabeth Burnard, at Thane Church, 23d December, 1830, and in 1852 removed from Thane, Oxon, to his present residence. He is a farmer, and both he and his wife are living. He had issue –

  1. MARTHA COGHILL, born 24th December, 1831; unmarried.
  2. HORATIO COGHILL, born 26th September, 1834; died 30th April, 1835.
  3. ANTHONY COGHILL, born 28th March, 1837; died 6th April, 1841.

Mary (4) married Joseph Wheeler, and died January 1, 1876, leaving one son and one daughter.

Anthony (4) was married three times: first, to Alice Edmunds; second, to Mary Ann Buckle; and last, to Sarah Mason. All of the children by the first two wives are dead. There are now living by the last marriage nine children: –

  1. ELIZABETH COGHILL, unmarried.
  5. SARAH COGHILL, unmarried.
  7. SUSANNAH ALMA COGHILL, unmarried.
  8. ALICE COGHILL, unmarried.
  9. AGNES COGHILL, unmarried.

Thomas is living at Warwick, Queensland. Anthony is married and resides at Portland Road, South Norwood, London; has no issue. Mary married Mr. W. T. Martin, and has two children, Frederick Chandos and William Thomas Coghill. She resides at 18 High Street, Hampstead.

William married and resides at 16 Queen’s Road, Notting Hill, W. London, and has three sons: –


Katharine (4) married Robert Cunning, and had two children. John ( 4) married Miss Corbett, and removed to Canada, and resided near Toronto, where he died, leaving two sons: –


Both of them are farmers, living near Toronto.

Joseph L. Chester, LL. D., of London, very kindly sent us the following monumental inscriptions and parish records, from a volume of collections which he was having indexed.

“On a stone on the floor of the nave of the CHURCH AT STANTON ST. JOHN, Oxfordshire: –

“‘In memory of Elizabeth, the wife of Anty Coghill, who died 5th April, 1753, aged 89 years. Also of Eliz., the wife of Thomas Gilbert, who died 29th May, 1761, aged 75 years. Also of Anty Coghill, who died lst March, 1779, aged 68 years.’

“In the parish register of Stanton St. John these persons are thus described in the burials : –

“‘1753 April 9 Elizabeth Cockle.

“‘1761June1 Elizth wife of Thos Gilbert.

“‘1779 March 3 Anthony Coghill of Wormall,[42] Co. Bucks.’

“I should say the last two were son and daughter of the first.”

This Elizabeth Cockle, or Coghill, is the earliest member of this branch of the family that we hear of. We find no record of her husband’s death. It is possible that the name may have been changed by the descendants from Cockle, as entered on the parish register, to Coghill, and, if so, that of Elizabeth may have been included in the change to conform to her son’s name. These inscriptions were not made until after the death of Anthony, some twenty-six years later than that of Elizabeth.

Part 5. The Scottish Branch

(not transcribed)

Part 6. The American Branch

(not transcribed)

Part 7. The Family of Slingsby




“A SEAT of the ancient family of the Slingsbys,[43] pleasantly situated in the park on the right of the road leading from Knaresborough to Ripley.

It has undergone many alterations. Some additions were made to it in the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and a full suite of rooms then finished were first occupied by Thomas, the seventh Earl of Northumberland, brother to Lady Mary Slingsby. The new front was added, with many other improvements, and the road made through the park,[44] by Sir Henry Slingsby, about the year 1730. A winding walk, near a mile in extent, leads from the west side of the house through a very fine wood of elm and beech trees, whose foliage meeting above forms a most pleasing solitary shade, rendered still more agreeable by the distant clamor of the rookery, and the soft notes of the plaintive stock-doves.” – Hargrove’ s History of Knaresborough.

The Family of Slingsby.

THE family of Slingsby is, to a greater or less extent, identified with English history for a long period. Its members intermarried at an early date with the Percys, the heads of which house were successively the earls of Northumberland; and, later, with several other noble families. Many of them held high positions under their government, and some were the recipients of special honors from their sovereigns. One, from deliberately matured convictions of duty, the sublimest of all promptings, suffered the loss of his fortune and his head, for his loyalty to his king ; and one, from the impulse of a noble and generous nature, lost his own life in trying to save that of his servant. The descendants from such men, who do not look back with noble pride of lineage, can hardly be expected to emulate their virtues, or to bequeath to posterity like laudable examples.

As the Coghills were all descended on the maternal side from the Slingsbys by the marriage of Thomas Coghill Esq., son and heir of John Cockhill, Gentleman, the first ancestor of whom we find any record, with Margery, daughter of John Slingsby, Esq., of Scriven, that family belongs also to our ancestry; and to make our pedigree more full and complete, we propose to add to it a part of theirs, together with some sketches of the more prominent members of the family.

The Slingsbys are, as we learn from various authors, a very ancient and famous family, being descended on the maternal side from one Gamel, the king’s forester, who settled near Knaresborough soon after the Conquest. He had a confirmation of his lands in Scriven by Henry I. (A. D. 1100 to 1135). He was the first of his house who enjoyed the feudal honor of capital or chief forester of the forests and parks of Knaresborough. The posterity of this Gamel took the name of Scriven from their habitation.

Joanna de Scriven, the fourth in descent from Gamel, and daughter of Henry de Scriven by his wife Alice, daughter of Richard de Caperon, of Scotton, was heiress to her father’s estates, and carried the manor of Scriven, with several others, and also the dignity of capital forester of the forests and parks of Knaresborough, into· the family of Slingsby, by intermarrying with William de Slingsby of Studley, in 1357. This William de Slingsby of Studley, in whose issue the families of Slingsby and Scriven were thus united, was son of John de Slingsby (greatgrandson of William de Selingisbye, of Selingisbye, in the North Riding of Yorkshire), by his wife Agnes, daughter of William de Stodleigh (Studley), and heir to her brother William. By this marriage he had issue: –

Richard Slingsby, who died without issue, in the thirty-first year of the reign of Edward III., and

Gilbert Slingsby, who married a daughter of William Calverly, Esq., and had issue:-

William Slingsby, who married the daughter of Thomas Banks, Esq., of Whixley, and had issue :-

Richard Slingsby, who married Anne, daughter and coheiress of John Nesfield, by whom he had the manors of Scotton, Brereton, and Thorp ; and had issue :-

William Slingsby, living in the twentieth year of Henry VI., who married Joan, daughter of Sir Robert Plompton, of Plompton, Knight, and had issue, William, John, Robert, Thomas, and Agnes, who married Thomas Knaresborough.

William Slingsby, Esq., of Scriven, son and heir, married Janet, daughter of Sir John Melton, of Afton, Knight, and had issue : –

John Slingsby, of Scriven, son and heir, chief forester of Knaresborough, who married Joan, daughter of Walter Calverly, Esq., of Calverly, and had issue: –

John; Jane, prioress of Nun-Monkton ; Margery, wife of Thomas Coghill, Esq ., of Coghill Hall, and Margaret, wife of William Tancred, Esq.

John Slingsby, Esq., son and heir, married Margery, daughter of Simon Pooley, of Badley, in Suffolk. He was mortally wounded at the battle of Flodden-field, September 9, 1513, and died four days after. He had issue,

Thomas, John, Marmaduke, Peter, Simon, Anne, Margery, wife of Walter Pullein, Esq., of Scotton, and Isabel.

John and Marmaduke died without issue. Peter married, and had issue, one daughter. Simon married, and had issue, Christopher, Robert, and Peter, which Peter was the father of Sir Anthony Slingsby, Governor of Zutphen, in the Low Countries, who was advanced to the degree of an English baronet, October 23, 1628, but as he died without issue, in 1630, the title in this branch became extinct. Anne and Isabel both married.

Thomas Slingsby, Esq., of Scriven, eldest son and heir, married Joan, daughter of Sir John Mallory, Knight, of Studley, and had issue : –

Francis, Marmaduke, Christopher, William, Peter, Thomas, Elizabeth, Dorothy, Anne, Joanna.

Marmaduke married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir William Mallory, of Studley.

Christopher married Elizabeth, daughter of Richard Tancred, of Pannall. William, Peter, and Thomas died without issue; the daughters all married.

Francis Slingsby, of Scriven, eldest son and heir, married Mary, only sister of Thomas and Henry Percy, who were successively Earls of Northumberland.[45] This lady died in 1508, aged sixty-six years, and Francis died in 1600.

They were both buried in the Slingsby family chapel, on the north side of the choir, in Knaresborough Church.

On an altar tomb are placed fine and full-length figures of each. The knight is in complete armor, except helmet, which is placed under his head; ·a small frill encircles the upper part of the neck, his beard flowing gracefully in ringlets over his breast. On his left side is his sword, and on his right, at some distance, lies his dagger; his hands are elevated, and at his feet lies a lion, the crest of the family.

The lady is habited in a long white robe, her head resting on a pillow; on her right side, upon the skirt of her robe, are the arms of Percy and Brabant; one foot rests against a crescent, as the other, now broken off, formerly did against a lion passant, both crests of the Percys. The inscriptions are in Latin, and of great length, covering two pages in the “History of Knaresborough.”

In the same chapel is a full-length figure of Sir William Slingsby, son of Francis, born in 1562, died in 1624. It stands in a niche. His head reclines a little on one hand, the elbow resting on the guard of his sword; the other hand hangs down and holds a shield with family arms. Pennant, in his “Tour from Alston Moor to Harrowgate,” says of this figure, after having minutely described it, “It is one of the best sculptures I have seen in any of our churches.” There is also a very long Latin inscription on this monument.

Francis had nine sons and three daughters, namely:

(1) Thomas, drowned in the river Nidd while endeavouring to save his servant, in 1581, in the twenty-eighth year of his age; (2) Francis and (3) Henry, both died young; (4) Sir Henry; (5) Arthur, who died without issue; (6) Charles, who was a clergyman, married and had issue; (7) Sir William; (8) Sir Guilford; (9) Sir Francis. The three daughters were Eleanor, Anne, who died young, and Elizabeth.

Sir William, whose monument is referred to above, was the founder of the Kippax branch, and was made Commissioner General in 1595, Cibicida Honorarius to Anne Queen Consort, in 1603, and one of the deputy lieutenants of Middlesex in 1617. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Stephen Board, of Sussex, and had issue,

William, died young; Elizabeth, married John Villiers, Viscount Purbeck, eldest brother of George, first Duke of Buckingham by that name; Henry, Master of the Mint to King Charles II., and as such said to be the author of that notable motto on British coins,” Decus et Tutamen.” He married a daughter of Sir — Cage, and had issue,

Henry, who married Katherine, daughter of Sir William Lowther, and died without issue, 1695; and Anthony, who died unmarried, April 3, 16 97; when the male issue of Sir William became extinct.

Sir Guilford (8) was comptroller of the navy in the reign of James I. He married Margaret, daughter of William Water, Alderman of York, and had issue twelve children:

Guilford,[46] Robert, Percie, Walter, George, Francis, Arthur, William, and four daughters, Dorothy, Margaret, Maria, and Anne. Robert and Walter were colonels in the king’s army, and were at the siege of Bristol, in 1645, where they were of Prince Rupert’s Council of War. Whitlock’s “Memorials,” p.460, relates that July 9, 1650, “an act passed for the trial of Walter Slingsby” and others, “by an high court of justice.”

Arthur was created a baronet at Bruges, October 9, 1657.

Sir Francis,[47] (9) Knight, of Kilmore, near Cork, was Constable of Haulboline, and of the Royal Council of the Province of Munster. He married in 1605, and had issue two sons, Francis and Henry, and five daughters.

Henry was knighted ; one of the daughters was mother of the celebrated Henry Dodwell. She is said, in the “Biographia Britannica,” to have died at the house of her brother, Sir Henry.

Sir Henry, fourth but eldest surviving son of Francis and Mary Slingsby, succeeded to the representation of the family. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth, and held sundry offices under the Duchy of Lancaster; was one of the Council of the North, and several times vicepresident.

He married Frances, daughter of William Vavasour, Esq., of Weston (by his wife, daughter and heir of Sir Leonard Beckwith, of Selby, Knight, and Elizabeth, his wife, daughter and co-heir of Sir Robert Cholmeley, Knight, Chief Justice of England). He had issue, William, killed at Florence, 1617;[48] Henry, of whom presently; Thomas (said in the printed pedigrees to have died in France in 1617), who was a colonel in the King’s army during the rebellion, was at the siege of York, and “had a fine set for his loyalty in 1646,” died without issue in February, 1670, and was buried on the 11th of that month at Knaresborough; Elizabeth, wife of Sir Thomas Metcalf; Mary, wife of Sir Walter Bethel ; Catherine, wife of Sir John Fenwick; Alice, wife of Thomas Waterton, Esq. ; Anne, died unmarried ; Frances, wife of Bryan Stapleton, Esq., and Eleanor, wife of Sir Arthur Ingram. Sir Henry died 17th, and was buried at Knaresborough Church, 28th December, 1634. Sir Henry Slingsby, of Scriven, eldest surviving son and heir, was born in 1601.

He was at school under Mr. Otby, parson of Foston, in the North Riding of Yorkshire. In January, 1618, he was entered a Fellow-Commoner of Queen’s College, Cambridge, where he resided till 1621, at which time, in company with his tutor, he made a tour of the Continent.

From this period until his marriage, his time seems to have been spent between Yorkshire and London, in which city his father possessed considerable property.[49] He was created Baronet of Nova Scotia by Charles I., 1638, as may be seen by the original letters patent, under the great seal of Scotland, now remaining at Scriven: “Apud

Striveling secundo die mensis Martij, Anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo trigesimo octavo, et anno regni nri decimo tertio.”

The king had a short time previously (1633) honoured him with a visit to the Red. House.[50] The bed on which the royal guest slept is still preserved.

Clarendon, referring to him in his “History of the Rebellion,” says:-

“Sir Henry Slingsby was in the first rank of the gentlemen of Yorkshire, and was returned to serve as a member in the Parliament that continued so many years, where he sat till the troubles began, and having no relation to or dependence upon the Court, he was swayed duly by his conscience to detest the violent and undutiful behavior of that Parliament. He was a gentleman of good understanding, but of a melancholic nature, and of very few words; and when he could stay no longer with a good conscience in their councils, he returned to the country, and joined with the first who took up arms for the King, and when the war was ended, he remained still in his own house, prepared and disposed to run the fortunes of the Crown in any other attempt, and having a good fortune, and a general reputation, he had a greater influence upon the people than they who talked more and louder, and was known to be irreconcilable to the new government, and was therefore cut off. He, with John Mordaunt, and Dr. Hewet, an earnest preacher in London, were the first brought before the High Court of Justice (?), of which John Lisle, who gave his vote in the King’s blood, and continued an entire confidant and instrument of Cromwell, was president.

“Mordaunt escaped by bribing some of the judges; Sir Henry and Dr. Hewet were less fortunate, and their blood was the more thirsted after, for the other’s indemnity. The former had been two years in prison, in Hull, and was brought now up to the Tower, for fear they might not discover enough of any new plot to make so many formidable examples as the present conjuncture required. The charge against him was that he had contracted with some officers in Hull, two years before, for the delivery of one of the Block Houses to him for the King’s service. He did not care to defend himself against the accusation, but rather acknowledged and justified his affection, and owned his loyalty to the King, with very little compliment or ceremony to the present power.

Notwithstanding very great intercession to preserve him, for he was uncle to Lord Falconberg, who engaged his wife and alI his new allies to intercede for him, he was condemned and beheaded. ‘When he was brought to die, he spent very little time in discourse, but told them he was to die for being an honest man, of which he was glad.”

Playfair says of him : –

”He did and suffered much for Charles I.; having a large estate, he spent the greater part of it in the King’s service, and for doing so, the Parliament sequestered the rest; he brought six hundred men, horse and foot, into the field, to assist the Prince, and did more real service than any other gentleman in Yorkshire, being constantly in action, until he was overpowered and taken prisoner.”

Burke remarks : –

”Sir Henry adhered to the King through all his troubles, had his estates sequestered and sold,[51] and lived a ruined man, till 1658, when for an attempt, unhappily for him, a little too early made, to restore his Majesty, Charles II., he was beheaded after a mock trial, before a pretended Court, 8th June, 1658, on Tower Hill, being the time and place also of the execution of the eminent Dr. Hewet.”

Hargrove’s “Knaresborough” contains a full pedigree of the Slingsby family, and referring to Sir Henry, says :

“He was a man of deeds, rather than words; he said very little upon his trial, and as little upon the scaffold, persisting in his loyalty, and told the people he died for being an honest man.”

The opinion of the republican General Ludlow, on the trial and sentence of Sir Henry, is a valuable record of the general impression which they made on the minds of a party very unfriendly to him, and to all loyalty : –

“Sir Henry Slingsby was called to the bar, and the witnesses on each side being heard, he was pronounced guilty, though in the opinion of many men he had very hard measure. For it appeared that he was a prisoner at the time when he was charged to have practiced against the government; that he was a declared enemy, and therefore by the laws of war, free to make any such attempt: Besides it was alleged that the persons whom he was accused of having endeavoured to corrupt, had trapan’d him by their promises to serve the King in delivering Hull, if he would give them a commission to act for him. But all this being not thought sufficient to excuse him he was adjudged to die.” -Memoirs, vol. i., p. 606.

In one of the rooms in the Public Library of Boston is Copley’s historical painting of “King Charles I. demanding, in the House of Commons, the five impeached members,” A.D. 1641-42. There are fifty-eight portraits in this picture, and among them, one of Sir Henry Slingsby. The descriptive pamphlet says: –

“Of the other party in this group is Sir Henry Slingsby; he stands behind Whitlocke, a little raised above the level of the floor, his eyes steadfastly fixed upon the countenance of Charles. His temper was inclined to sorrow and melancholy; he opposed, from the beginning, the measures of the republicans, and at length terminated on the scaffold a close confinement of two years in the common prison of Hull.”

We have at this writing received from London a book ordered some time since, entitled “The Diary of Sir Henry Slingsby, of Scriven, Bart., now first published entire from the MS. A reprint of ‘Sir Henry Slingsby’s Trial.’ His rare tract, ‘A Father’s Legacy.’ Extracts from Family Correspondence, etc.” By Rev. Daniel Parsons, M.A. London, 1836. The editor, in his preface, says:-

“And had it so happened that Sir Henry Slingsby was to be spoken of merely as a link in a chain of respectable ancestry, it would have been scarcely possible to avoid feeling, that in such times, a chivalrous and loyal character might have been expected in him: but we find him rather exceeding the high standard of the patriotism of his day, than falling short of it, and throwing into the shade his unblemished descent by the lustre of his personal history.”

The “Diary” commences in 1638 and ends in 1648, the last entry being in reference to the execution of the King! At this crisis, Sir Henry, with characteristic loyalty, gives up all notice of public events. The lack of space restricts us to a few quotations from the “Diary,” “Trial,” and “A Father’s Legacy;” the latter contains more sound advice for young men than is often found in so small a compass. In the “Correspondence” are very many interesting letters, not only from members of the family, but also from many of the most prominent men of the times, among whom were Bryan and Thomas Fairfax, of the same family as the Fairfaxes of America.

There are also in the work facsimile autographs of twenty-seven distinguished persons, including Charles I., Sir Henry Slingsby, and the Duke of Buckingham. It must be remembered that Sir Henry’s writings are in the style of the middle of the seventeenth century, a period when there were few, if any, examples of what would now be considered elegant writing, and a diary is the last place where carefulness of expression is to be looked for.

The “Diary” furnishes a detail of many of the events of those calamitous years, and gives information as to the manner of life of a country gentleman of that day, and enables us to form a correct estimate of the character of the writer himself The editor, after deducing from his diary that he was a gentleman whose disposition and tastes would lead him to the leisure and employments of a country life, and who was rather fitted for serving the public interest by filling the stations to which in the common course of things he would be appointed in his county, than in taking a lead in state policy or in war, says : –

“But when the new kind of circumstances in which he found himself placed by the breaking out of the rebellion forced him, like the majority of that class in his day, to follow the path of duty in very different courses, he addressed himself to his altered condition of life, with the energy and consistency of a man who had one great and honest end in view – the preservation of his country. Nor can we fail to be impressed with the conviction, that whatever he did was under the correction of higher motives than those of human expediency; and that he owed his firmness to the support of sober and sincere religion.”

No one who has carefully examined into all the circumstances connected with his arrest, imprisonment, and trial, and who has studied the character of the man, can for a moment question his patriotism and honesty of purpose, or doubt that he fell a victim to a long preconcerted plot, by which he was entrapped into conduct exactly such as it was known his loyalty would lead to under the circumstances. He had been arraigned and sentenced before an officer of the army and a commission at York, as one of the “late plotters,” as may be seen by a letter written by Col. Robert Lilburn to the Protector in 1655, his estates sequestered, and he sent to Hull as a prisoner, where he was held until his removal to the Tower of London in 1658. It was during his imprisonment at Hull that he was entrapped by Cromwell’s decoys.

The following extracts from his diary will throw some light upon his arrest, and show that the articles of surrender were violated by the Parliamentarians, which was in keeping with their general conduct. He commences his diary, which, during his two years of active service in the army, had been suspended, as follows :-

“Now I will tell my own story, where I have been ever since I marched out of York [July16, 1644] until ye 7 of May [1646]; for I have now good leisure in ye solitariness wherein I live; & ye setting down ye places & times wherein I spent my two years’ peregrination, & ye taking & review thereof will serve to put off ye tediousness of my close retirement; for ever since my coming out of Newark[52] (wch this day is 27 weeks & 2 days) I have for ye most part kept wth in my bottle; but since they came for me, I have escap’d ym ; & I betake myself to one room in my house, scarce known to my servants, where I spend my days in great sylence, scarce daring to speak or walk, but with great heed taken least I be discovered. Et jam veniet tacito curva senecta pede: & why I should be thus aim’d at I know not, if my neighborhood to York makes them not more quarrelsome. As acerima proximorum odia, so, beat and cold if they meet in a cloud produceth thunder. My own disposition is to love quietness, & since ye King will’d me to go home wn I parted from him at Topcliff…

“I resolved to keep at home, if my Lord Mayor & Alderman Watson would have permitted me quietly to live there; but they would not suffer me to have ye benefit of ye articles of Newark, which gave us liberty 3 months to live at home undisturbed;[53] but from York they send to take me wth in ye first month; & all is to try me wth ye Negative oath & national Covenant. The one makes me renounce my allegiance, ye other my religion. For ye oath, why it should be impos’d on us not to assist ye King wn all means is taken from us whereby we might assist him, and to assist in this warr wch is now come to an end & nothing in all England held for ye King, I see no manner of reason, unless they would have us do a wicked act, & they the authors, out of greater spite to wound both soul & body. For now ye not taking of it cannot much prejudice prejudice ym, and ye taking of ye oath will much prejudice us, being contrary to former oaths wch we have taken; & against civil justice, wch as it abhors neutrality, so it will not admit a man should falsify ye trust wch he hath given.”

In referring further on to the oaths which they required him to take, he says:-

“I should be convinced of ye lawfulness of it before I take it & not urged, as ye Mahometans do their disciples, by force & not by reason….. By this new religion wch is impos’d yon make every man yt takes it up guilty, either of having no religion, & so become an Atheist, or else a religion put off or on, as he doth his hat, to every one he meets; but you would have me conform to ye faith or the definition of faith & religion wch you have made! but wth all see how impartiall you are, for mutato nomine de te fabula narratur; where in former times it was thought grievous that conformity should be impos’d by ye bishopps wn ye scruple should be only a Cap or a Sirples, you scrupled at ye out branches only, but we scruple to have root & branch plucked up; therefore judge of our scruple by your own.”

When all had turned out to the wish of the usurper, and he had ample proofs against Sir Henry of what would have been treason, if he had been lawful king, still so little could he rely upon the ordinary course of legal procedure, that he denied Sir Henry, and Dr. Hewet and Mr. Mordaunt, his fellow-prisoners, their right of trial by jury, and bad them arraigned before an unlawful body, called a high court of justice, constituted for the occasion, and composed exclusively of his creatures, with the infamous Lisle as president. Sir Henry knew that his conviction was a foregone conclusion. In his letter to “Persons of Quality and Others,” he says, “I insisted not much upon my defense, nor vindication of mine innocence, for I understood it was effectless.” He insisted upon his right to be tried by a jury. We make the following extracts from his trial : –

“Lord President. Thou here standest charged for high treason; this court requires that thou give a positive answer, whether guilty or not guilty.

”Sir Henry S. I desire to have counsel assigned me.

“Lord Pres. There is matter of fact laid to your charge, which amounts to treason, and there is no law allowed in matters of fact.

“Sir Henry S. There is also matter of law; and I desire to be tried by a jury, which is according to the law of the land.

“Lord Pres. We are all here your jury as well as your judges; we are the number of two or three juries, and your jury is well known, for they are chosen by the Parliament; you are to plead to your indictment…..

“Sir Henry S. If it be by the laws of the land that the trial should be by a jury, I desire I may have that privilege.

“Lord Pres. Acts of Parliament make justice and law; they are both; they think fit to change the custom of trials that have been in former times, and all persons must submit to it. And the Parliament hath thought fit to make this court both jury and judges ; and therefore I require that you answer, whether guilty or not guilty.

“Sir Henry S. I desire that the Act of Parliament may be read.

“Lord Pres… Parliament has appointed this court, and his Highness hath appointed you to be tried by us; you ought, therefore, to plead to your indictment.

“Sir Henry S. The law gives liberty in case of juries to the party accused, to make his exceptions against the jury, which he cannot do here, where you are both judge and jury.

“Lord Pres. If you have any particular exception to any man you may make it. You were, sir, of the Parliament when this Act was made.

“Sir Henry S. I was a prisoner at the same time.

“Lord Pres. Although a prisoner, yet yon are bound by Act of Parliament.

“Sir Henry S. I am, my lord, of an opinion (though you may count it a paradox) that I cannot trespass against your laws because I did not submit to them.

“Lord Pres. All the people of England must submit to the laws of England – to the authorities of England; all must submit to my Lord Protector and Acts of Parliament …..

“Sir Henry S. The laws have been so uncertain with me that I could not well know them, and when I was a prisoner, I could not take notice of them. I could have no benefit by your laws, because that is no law to me which does not give me interest and property to what I have. It is the benefit of laws that they do distinguish between meum and tuum; but when you take all from me, in my case it is not so.”

When asked what he had to say why the court should not proceed to judgment, he replied: –

“My lord, I humbly desire I may be tried by a jury, for I must say you ‘are my enemies’ (pardon the expression); if not so why did you sequester me, and sell my whole estate? and why did you deny me the act of oblivion? There is no man would willingly appeal to his adversaries; there are some among you that have been instrumental in my sequestration, and in the selling of my estate, for which they gave me no reason but this, that I would not compound, when I thought not fit so to do, when there was no establishment or settled peace; if I had compounded, I had not been sure whether I might not have compounded over again; my estate hath been sequestered, and sold; now to be my judge and jury. I humbly pray, being a commoner, I may be tried by commoners.”

This just and lawful right was of course denied, and the lord president proceeded to make a speech, which was characteristic of many of the hypocritical, canting creatures of the ambitious and bigoted, if not hypocritical, Cromwell:-

“Sir,” said he, “was it not a great aggravation of the sins of the Egyptians, that when God had declared Himself with so many signs in behalf of the Israelites, that notwithstanding, they would still pursue Moses and Israel? Who is so great a stranger in this nation as to be ignorant what God has done amongst us, by a series of wonderful providences so many years together, against that very party who are still hatching treason and rebellions amongst us? It grieves my soul to think of it, that after so many signal providences, wherein God seems to declare Himself (as it were by signs and wonders), that your heart still should be hardened, I may say, more hardened than the very hearts of the Egyptians, for they did not only see, but confessed, that the Lord fought against them; hut you, oh, that you would confess and give glory to God.”

After much more of the same sort of cant, and expressing great sorrow for Sir Henry, because “he, being a Protestant, should assist such a confederacy as this,” this devout Christian closes by informing the prisoner “that he shall never have done praying for him as long as he is alive,” and then “ordered the judgment of the court to be read.” The following is a copy of that humane and Christian (of the Cromwell kind) sentence:-

“That SIR HENRY SLYNGSBY, as a false Traytor, to his said Highness the Lord Protector and this Commonwealth, shall be conveyed back again to the Tower of London, and from thence through the middle of the city of London, directly shall be drawn unto the Gallows at Tibourn, and upon the said Gallows there shall be hanged, and being alive, shall be cut down to the ground, and his Entrails taken out of his Belly, and, he living, be burnt before him; and that his head shall be cut off, and that his body shall be divided into four quarters,” etc.

“His Highness” the Lord Protector, who was the author of the murder of Sir Henry, and of that eminent Episcopal divine, Dr. Hewet, was “graciously pleased” to change their sentence to beheading.

Sir Henry was beheaded 8th June, 1658, and by permission of the usurper his remains were privately taken to Yorkshire, and buried in the Slingsby Chapel in Knaresborough Church. His tombstone is of black marble removed from St. Robert’s Chapel, in Knaresborough, belonging to the family, and bears the following inscription:[54]


Huc Saxum advertum est sub eodemq; nunc Jacet hic Henricus Slingesby Henrici filius cui e Parliamento Ejecto & ex plebiscito bonis omnibus exuto nihil aliud supererat.

Quam ut vellet Animam suam salvam esse passus est Anno Etatis suoe LVII. Sexto Idus Junias, annoq; Christi 1658. Fidei in Regem Legesque patrias causa : Non perjit, sed ad Meliores Sedes translates est a Tyranno Cromwellio Capite Mulctatus; posuit Thomas Slingesby Baronetus. Non Degener Nepos.

Anno Aerae Christi 1693.

If this work was being prepared for general circulation we should consider it almost a duty to embody in it “A Father’s Legacy to his Children” entire, for, as before stated, we have rarely met with more sound and practical advice than is contained in this dying legacy of a Christian father. We shall, however, give only a few quotations, – just enough to enable the reader to get an idea of the general character of the paper. After cautioning his sons against religious controversies and their barren results, he says: –

“How fruitlessly bestowed are those empty hours, that are employed with what subtilty of arguments they may dispute, but never with what purity they may live. Polite orators, but profane professors. Such sophisters are but titular Christians. Believe it, there ought to be no controversie, but conference among the servants of Christ, which being discreetly seasoned with meekness and mildness, beget more converts to God’s honour, than a thousand fiery spirits shall ever do by speaking in thunder.”

In reference to the choice of company, he says: –

“Good acquaintance will improve both your knowledge and demean; by your conversing with these, you shall every day get by heart some new lesson, that may season and accommodate you, whereas our debauched gallantry (the greatest impostor of youth) would by their society quickly deprave you. Now to apply a Remedy to so dangerous and infectious a malady, be tender of your Honour; beware with whom you consort. Be known to many, but familiar with few ….. Make ever choice of such for your companions of whom you retain this grounded opinion, that you have either hope to improve them, or be improved by them.”

Referring to the value of time, he says: –

“And great pity it is, that our youth, even in the most eminent extractions, should make so light an estimate of time; as to hold no consorts fitter for their concerns nor corresponding with their tempers, than such who only study a fruitless expense of time; making no other account of hours, than harbingers of pleasure….. In private and retired hours consult with the dead,· being the best means to make men wise; make devout Books your discreet consorts: they will tell you what you are to do without fear of censure ….. Let it be the lowest of your scorn to suffer your thoughts to be depressed with inferior objects.”

“In the carriage of public affairs appear cautious. Many by putting themselves upon numerous employments have lost themselves; though in neighborly offices to be modestly active, manifests signal arguments of piety. But in all concerns appear just. This will beget you a good report among men; and acceptance before the throne of grace. All justice is comprehended in this Word Innocence, all injustice reprehended.

“As for your hours of recreation, let them never so overtake you as to make your thoughts strangers in what most concerns you, and make choice of suitable consorts in these. For though precepts induce, examples draw, and more danger there is in a personal example, than any Doctrinal motive.

“I could challenge from many descents, but my thoughts have ever been estranged from titular arrogance; holding only Fame to be the strongest continuer of family, being borne up with such an impregnable arch as it needed no groundling buttresses to preserve it, nor any secondaries to prevent an untimely ruin ….. After a troublesome voyage, encountered with many cross winds and adverse billows, I am now arriving in a safe Harbour; and I hope without touch of Dishonour…. Prefer your fame before all fortunes; it is that sweet odour which will perfume you living and embalm you dying….. My peace I hope is made with God: having in these solitary hours of my retirement made this my constant ejaculation: O, how can we choose but begin to love him whom we have offended; or how should we but begin to grieve that we have offended him whom we love! …. Be zealous in your service of God; ever recommending in the prime hour of the day, all your ensuing actions designed and addressed for that day, to his gracious protection.

Be constant in your Resolves, ever grounded on a religious Fear that they may be seconded by God’s favour. Be serious in your studies: and with all humility crave the assistance of others, for your better proficiency.

Be affable to all, familiar with few. Be provident and discreetly frugal, in your expense: never spending where honest Providence bids you spare; neither sparing where reputation invites you to spend. Continue firm in brotherly unity; as you are near in blood be dear in your affection….

“I find myself now, through the apprehension of my approaching summons, which I shall entertain with a cheerful admittance, breathing homeward: the eye of my body is fixt on you; the eye of my Soul on Heaven. Think on me as your natural Father, and of Earth as your common mother. Thither am I going, where by course of nature, though not in the same manner, yon must follow, I am to act my last scene on a stage; you in a turbulent state. Value earth as it is; that when you shall pass from Earth, yon may enjoy what earth cannot afford you; to which happiness your dying Father, hastening to his dear spouse and your virtuous mother, faithfully commends you.”


Dead unto Earth before I past from thence.
Dead unto Life, alive to conscience.
Just, and by justice doom’d ; impeached by those
Whom Semblance writ my Friends, their witness Foes.
My Silence in reply impli’d no guilt.

Words not believ’d resemble Water spilt
Upon the parched surface of the floor,
No sooner dropt, than heat dries up the Showre.
To plead for life when ears are prepossest,
Sounds but like airy Eccho’s at the best.
The Hatchet acted what the court decreed,
Who would not for his Head, lay down his head?
Branches have their dependance on the Vine,
And Subjects on their Princes, so had mine.
The Native Vine cut down her cyenes wither,
Let them then grow or perish both together.
Thus liv’d I, thus I dy’d, my Faith the wing
That mounts my Kingly zeal to th’ Highest King.

These extracts, it will be borne in mind, are from the writings of a leading Cavalier, and show that our Puritan friends did not possess all of the religion and morality of that period.

Sir Henry was married July 7, 1631, at Kensington Church, London, to Barbara, daughter of Thomas Bellasyse, first Viscount Falconberg (a lady who seems to have been as pious as she was naturally amiable; she died 3lst December, 1641), and by her had issue: –

Thomas, born 15th June, 1636.

Henry, born 14th and baptized 29th January, 1638, in chapel of Red House. He was one of the gentlemen of the bed-chamber to King Charles II.

Barbara, born 14th May, 1633; married Sir John Talbot.

Sir Henry was succeeded by his eldest son, – Sir Thomas Slingsby, who was Member of Parliament for Knaresborough from 1678 to 1681, and for Scarborough in 1685. He married Dorothy, daughter and co-heiress of George Cradock, Esq., of Caversall Castle, County Stafford (who died 24th January and was buried 2d February, 1673, in the Slingsby Chapel in Knaresborough Church), by whom he had issue:-





Dorothy. ·

Barbara, thrice married: first, to Sir Richard Mauleverer, of Alberton Mauleverer, County York; second, to John, Lord Arundel, of Trerice; and third, to Thomas, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery.

He was succeeded by his eldest son, –

Sir Henry Slingsby, Member of Parliament for Knaresborough, who died without issue in 1692, and was succeeded by his brother, Sir Thomas Slingsby, who married, 1602, Sarah, daughter of John Savile, Esq., of Methley, County York, and had issue eight children: –

  1. Henry.
  2. Thomas.
  3. Savile.
  4. Charles, who dying before his last elder brother, never succeeded to the title. He married Miss Turner in 1738, and by her had issue: –

Thomas Turner, who succeeded as eighth baronet.

Sarah, died without issue.

  1. Mary, maid of honor to Queen Anne, married, 18th August, 1714, at Moor-Monkton, to Thomas Duncombe, Esq., of Helmsley, of which marriage the first Lord Feversham is the lineal descendant.
  2. Sarah.
  3. Barbara.
  4. Jane, died without issue.

Sir Thomas was succeeded by his eldest son,

Sir Henry Slingsby, Member of Parliament for Knaresborough in the last parliament of Queen Anne and the first of George I., who married a daughter of John Ainslie, Esq., of Studley, Chancellor of the Exchequer (who died 3lst May, 1736), by whom he had no issue, and, dying in 1763, was succeeded by his brother, –

Sir Thomas Slingsby, who died without issue 1765, and was succeeded by his brother, –

Sir Savile Slingsby, who died without issue 1780, when the title devolved on his nephew, –

Sir Thomas Turner Slingsby; he married, first, his cousin, Catherine Turner Buckley, and second, a natural daughter of his uncle, Sir Henry, by whom he had no issue. He died in 1806, leaving issue by his first wife : –


Charles, of Loftus Hall, who, dying before his eldest brother, never succeeded to the title. He married, October 1, 1823, Emma Margaret, daughter of John Atkinson, Esq., by whom he had issue: –

Charles, born 1824, the tenth baronet.

Emma Louisa Catherine, born 1829; married 19th July, 1860, to Captain Leslie, Royal Horse Guards, son of Charles Powell Leslie, born 1826.

He was succeeded by his eldest son, –

Sir Thomas Slingsby, who died without issue February, 1835, and was succeeded by his nephew, –

Sir Charles Slingsby, who was drowned in the river Ure, opposite to Newby Hall, the residence of Lady Mary Vyner, near Ripon, in Yorkshire, on the 11th of February, 1869, while hunting, he being master of the York and Ainsty Fox Hounds.[55] Sir Charles was never married: he was succeeded by his brother-in-law, Thomas Leslie, Esq., who, in 1869, assumed the name of Slingsby and became Sir Thomas Slingsby, the eleventh baronet. He has no issue, and in default of issue, the property and title will go to Sir Charles’ maternal uncle, Rev. Thomas Atkinson, and his son.

Our first intention was only to give a condensed pedigree, with a few sketches, of some of the members of the family. We have, however, been led on, almost imperceptibly, into writing a synopsis of its history. It will be readily seen that what we have written is only a compilation.

This was a necessity, as our information was mostly obtained from published works.

[1] Turner’s History of the Anglo-Saxons

[2] Brady on Burghs

[3] The present stewards are Messrs. Samuel and Charles Powell – one of whom, for the time being, as Bailiff of the borough, is the returning office of the members of the borough to Parliament.  We are under obligations to these gentlemen for copies of records and other valuable information.

[4] Hargrove

[5] We learn from The Book of Family Crests, tenth edition, London, 1862, that there was once living in England a family of Cockell, whose arms were “on a mural coronet, or a cock; gules, sémé of roundles, resting on the dexter claw on an escallop shell; and in the beak a sprig of laurel.

[6] On Teasdale’s map of Yorkshire, which we received from London after these sketches were written, and on which are all the principal family seats in the county, we find a place situated about seven miles from York, and one mile from the Red House (one of the seats of the Slingsbys, a description of which will be given in the last section of this book), called Cock Hill.  This was most probably the residence of some member of this family, – possibly of John, prior to his going to Knaresborough.  It is eight to ten miles in a straight line from the river Cock, a small rivulet, in most places about twelve feet wide.

[7] In 1641, Sir Henry Slingsby, like the rest of the loyal party, finding that he could no longer perform his legislative duties in Parliament with safety to his life, was compelled to absent himself.  His seat was declared vacant, and at an election held at Knaresborough in 1641, William Dearlove was chosen in his place; but the election was contested as illegal by Sir William Constable, his opponent on the grounds of his being deputy steward and judge of the court, and therefore the “burghers durst not give their voices for fear of him.”  Instead of another election, we learn from the Journal of the House of Commons, under date March 19, 1642, that William Dearlove’s election was decided void and Sir William Constable was duly elected.

[8] In a Gazetteer and Directory of Yorkshire, published in 1822, we find the names of one Cockell, four Cockills, three Cockhills and but one Coghill – Richard Coghill, gentleman, residing in York.

[9] By this intermarriage the Slingsbys became the ancestors of all who have borne the name Coghill; this Thomas Coghill being the first who presents the name as it is now spelled.  We shall devote some space in the latter part of the book to a notice of the distinguished family of Slingsby.

[10] Various other properties in Yorkshire, belonging to the Coghill estate, were sold about the same time.

[11] Allen’s History of Yorkshire

[12] Musgrave’s Obituary gives his death as 11th March, 1739, which is probably correct.

[13] Charles Moore,  a descendant of the Moores, Earls and Marquesses of Drogheda

[14] Sir John Coghill purchased of the Duke of Northumberland Richings Park, in Buckinghamshire, where he afterwards resided.

[15] Referred to in part III, Junior Branch

[16] We had barely finished reading the printer’s proof of this very page, when the news of the death of Lieutenant Coghill reached us.  He fell on the 22nd January 1879 in the disastrous engagement between a column of the British army, numbering eight or nine hundred men, and twenty thousand Zulus, at the village of Isandula, near the Buffalo River, in South Africa.

Referring to a letter received from his father in June last, we find the following mention of him:  “my eldest boy has just come back to us on a short leave from the Kaffre war, where he has been serving as aid-de-camp to the general, and at which he has the good fortune to be mentioned in dispatches.

“It seems to have agreed with him wonderfully, and he looks brown and hardy.  He expects that the war will not close without a sharp battle with the Zulus on the Transvaal border, who are a much more warlike nation, and will show better fight than the other Kaffre tribes; but he thinks it the intention of the government to make this war a final one, and settle the black question for once and for all.  My son will probably be off there again by the next draft of troops.”

[17] William Tallentyre was Thomas’ brother-in-law.

[18] Henry was the unborn child referred to in his father’s will.

[19] her brother-in-law, husband to her sister Mary

[20] “Church registers were first enjoined to be kept by Cromwell, the king’s vicegerent in spiritual affairs, in 1538, just upon the dissolution of religious houses.  In 1547, Edward VI enjoined the same; as did Elizabeth in 1559; from which last period these parochial records were generally kept with tolerable regularity; and since the abolition of inquisitions post mortem, by Charles II, are the best evidence of family descents.” (Cullum’s Hawsted and Hardwick, page 73, note.)  These records were obtained from the parish clerk, who probably made a loose examination, and omitted a number of names, as there must have been many more under each head than are given here.  We wrote on two occasions, asking him to make a more thorough search, but could get no reply.

[21] The London merchant whose portrait appears in this work.

[22] [This will with numerous other family papers was passed to the compiler by Henry Hucks Gibbs during a visit to Aldenham House in July 1880 – according to pencil note in a copy of the Book]

[23] Evidently an error of the scribe.

[24] The same whose will is on page [ ]

[25] We find no such parish as Wythern ffrary in the County of York.  The Priory of Wythernfey was founded in the seventeenth year of the reign of King John (1216)

[26] These arms are given on page [  ]

[27] Mr Young, who escaped, described how, when looking back, he saw these two officers with the colours, trying to force their way through the ring of yelling savages.  Coghill, he said, was wounded, and he saw no chance of escape for him; but the gallant young fellow cut his way through, and crossed the river in safety; but on looking back and seeing his companion disabled, true to the instincts of a noble and unselfish nature, he returned to rescue or to die with him – Compiler.

[28] Spelt Isandlana, Isandusana and Isandula; the last has been adopted by the press.

[29] Lieut. Nevill Josiah Aylmer Coghill (24th Regiment), Lieut. Teignmouth Melvill (24th Regiment), both killed while escaping with the colours, January 22, 1879.

[30] Henry Hucks Gibbs, Esq., writes under date of October 23, 1878, from his country seat, Aldenham House, County Hertford (once the residence of Henry Coghill Esq., son of John, and which descended to Mr Gibbs through the family of Hucks; Robert Hucks, Esq., having married Sarah Coghill, a great-granddaughter of Henry Coghill Esq.): “I have a portrait of this John Coghill, in a panel in the hall, with an inscription saying that he was seventy years old in 1624.  Also the portrait of Denis Viell, his father-in-law. I have portraits of his two sons, Henry and Sir Thomas Coghill, and their respective wives.”

[31] See reference to these monuments in Appendix to Part III

[32] Henry Hucks Gibbs, Esq., in a letter to the compiler, says: “Penne’s Place is always spoken of in our title deeds in the same terms as are used to describe it in the deed of conveyance from Fitzwilliam Coningsby to Henry Coghill, of the 27th November, 1640, namely, ‘the Site of the Mannor or Capitall Messuage commonly called Aldenham Hall alias Penne’s Place, together with all houses, edifices, buildings, barnes, stables, outhouses, cottages, dovehouses, gardens, orchards, fishponds, courts, yards, and folds to the said Site or Capitall Messuage belonging or in any wise appertaining;’ so that it is possible that even in those early days the manor-house was not in existence, mention being always made of the site; but, on the other hand, the buildings, etc,. should be the house, and it seems most probable that it was for some generations at least the chief residence of the family.

[33] [Henry Hucks Gibbs continued:] “The house in which I am now writing is distant about a furlong from Pennes Place, and is now and was in 1815 known by the name of Aldenham House, but was, when it descended to Henry Coghill in 1614, called Wigbournes, and bore that name even in the days of his great-granddaughter. (See monument of Robert Hucks in Aldenham Church.)  At one time this house also seems to have borne the name of Pennes Place; for my friend Baron Dinsdale, of Essendon, in this county, has a drawing of it made about one hundred and fifty years ago, when the trees in the avenue were yet young, and at the bottom of the drawing is the name Pennes Place.  The Coghill arms are still in the pediment of the west front of the building.”

[from Haberdashers’ Aske’s School Web-site: –

“Although the school only moved to its present location in 1961, the estate dates back 700 years when in about 1250, a certain Reginald de la Penne built a moated manor house near the present site of the North Gate [presumably Pennes Place]

.  Aldenham House itself dates back to the British Civil War, and eventually passed into the hands of Henry Hucks Gibbs [Director and Governor of the Bank of England] (later Lord Aldenham) in 1843.  The grounds akin to the house stretch far and wide, and the school’s grounds include 108 acres of land.

The present Lord Aldenham lives close to the school.  Since the 17th Century very little has changed in the structure of the house, although parts of the house were damaged in the two World Wars.  Some surrounding woodland has been cleared to make way for school buildings.”

Aldenham House, now Haberdashers’ Aske’s School]

[34] We are indebted to Henry Hucks Gibbs, Esq., for these particulars.

[35] See explanation of “buried in linen” in note at the end of this section.

[36] RAF Fighter Command Base during World War II – especially the Battle of Britain:

[37] Sarah was the last of the Hertfordshire Coghills.  Henry Hucks Gibbs, Esq., writes: “I have a full-length portrait of him [Robert Hucks], and a half-length of his father and wife, all by James Vanderbank.  I have also another portrait of his wife, taken at a later period of life.”

[38] In reply to an inquiry made by the compiler, Joseph L. Chester, LL. D., of London, writes: “In olden times in London there was a company of Barbers and a company of Surgeons. These two companies were united in the year 1540, and continued as the company of Barber-Surgeons, until 1745, when they dissolved ; you know, I presume, the nature and character of these old city companies; all of them were of great respectability, though some ranked higher than others. It is supposed that at the time of the union the Barbers were not very strong, and so sought an alliance with the Surgeons.

The combination seems to us in modern times a strange one, but in old times the Barbers were always called in to bleed patients, it being beneath the dignity of the Surgeons to do so. The probability is, that in this company the Surgeons predominated; but I must also add that a man might become a member of the company without being either a Barber or a Surgeon. The Earl of Beaconsfield and the Marquis of Salisbury were the other day admitted into the Merchant Taylors Company, and the late Prince Consort was a member of the Fisher Mongers Company. I have little doubt, from the position of the family in London and England, that John Coghill was a regular professional man.”

[39] In 1679 an act of Parliament was passed, directing that henceforth no persons should be buried in linen shrouds, but in woolen. The object of this was, according to the act, “for the lessening of the importation of linen from beyond the seas, and the encouragement of the woolen and paper manufactures of this Kingdom.” The penalty for burying in linen was five pounds. Those who preferred this mode followed it by paying the penalty.

[40] This was Major John Mayne who married Hester Coghill, Countess of Charleville, and assumed the name of Coghill by sign-manual.

[41] These inscriptions are taken from Clutterbuck’s History and Antiquities of the County of Hertford.

[42] Worminghall

[43] See a description of the Red House, another seat of the heads of the Slingsby family

[44] Anciently styled Heal Park (heal, Saxon, hall), q. d., Hall Park.

[45] 1 This Henry Percy was the father of Captain Percy, who succeeded Captain

Smith as President of the Virginia Colony (1609). “Percy, who succeeded

Smith as president, came over in the first fleet; he was brother to the Earl of Northumberland [his father had died, and his eldest brother Henry had succeeded him. – Compiler], and was esteemed for honor, courage, and industry; he had been, for some time, in bad health, and had taken his passage for England ; but when Smith was disabled, and advised to return to England, he yielded to the solicitations of the people and took upon himself the government of the Colony.” – Southern Literary :Messenger, vol. ii., p. 352.

[46] Guilford was M. A. of St. Andrews, and was incorporated in Oxford, November 14, 1629. He was Secretary to the Earl of Strafford, and by him was made lieutenant of the ordnance, and Vice-Admiral of Munster. At the earl’s trial, he managed his papers for him, and gave evidence in his behalf.

During the parliamentary war, he levied a regiment in York, was defeated in an engagement with Sir Hugh Cholmley, badly wounded, and taken prisoner.

Both legs were amputated in order to save his life, but he survived the operation only three days. He was buried in York Minster.” -Appendix to Diary of Sir H. Slingsby.

[47] For several extraordinary instances of this gentleman’s military prowess, see Stafford’s Pacata Hibernia.

[48] In ” Instructions for Mr. Snell, for the guidance of his pupil, William Slingsby” (during his travels on the Continent), dated 31st March, 1610, Sir Henry directs him to “send all letters to London, to Mr. Philip Bourlemache, near the Exchange, and from thence to be sent to Mr. John Coghill, near Blackwell-hall, and from thence to Thomas Scoley, at Wafefeilde.” This John Coghill was probably the son of Marmaduke.

[49] Family papers

[50] The Red House, situated on the southern bank of the river Onse, about seven miles northwest of York, was formerly the seat of the Oughtreds, one of whom granted to William Fairfax, Esq., and his heirs, “free liberty to hunt, hawk, and fish in his manor; rendering, for all, one red rose at midsummer. In the year 1562, Francis Slingsby, Esq., purchased the Red House and Scagglethorp, of Robert Oughtred, Esq., and the house was built. by Sir Henry Slingsby, in the reign of Charles I., except the chapel, which was built by his father.” It is still in the Slings by family. On the south front of the house is inscribed, – “PRO TERMINO VITAE, SIC NOS, NON NOBIS”. On the west front, – “PAULISPER ET RELUCEBIS, ET IPSE M.R. 29, 1652”. Under which is the figure of a setting sun.

In the room called the Star-Chamber are four shields of arms, beautifully stained on glass: first, Slingsby and Mallory; second, Slingsby and Percy; third, Slingsby and Vavasour; and fourth, Slingsby and Bellasyse. In this room also are the figures of Truth, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude, supporting a carved chimney-piece; in the divisions of which are symbolical representations of the five senses, well executed. The great staircase is thus described in the Memoirs of Sir Henry Slingsby: “The staircase is above five feet within the rails in width, the posts eight inches square; upon every post a crest is set, of some one of my especial friends, and of my brothers-in-law; and upon that post that bears up the half-pace, that leads into the painted chamber, there sits a blackamoor (cast in lead, by Andrew Karne), with a candlestick in each hand, to set a candle in, to give light to the staircase.”

Among the crests set in the posts are those of the Earl of Pembroke, Sir Walter Vavasour, who married a daughter of Lord Falconberg, and therefore brother-in-law to Lady Slingsby, Bryan Stapleton, Thomas Watterton, Thomas Ingram, Sir Walter Bethel, Sir Thomas Metcalf, Sir John Fenwick (whose son, Colonel John, was slain at Marston Moor), all brothers-in-law to Sir Henry; Thomas, Viscount of Falconberg, Lady Slingsby’s father, Henry Clifford, Earl of Cumberland, Sir Williarn Savile, Algernon Percy, tenth Earl of Northumberland, Lord Ferdinand Fairfax, and Sir Charles Slingsby, Knight, a relation of Sir Henry who was slain at Marston Moor, and buried in York Minster. On the 24th of August, 1665, the Duke of York, afterwards James II., honored Sir Thomas Slingsby with his and his duchess’ company, at the Red House.

The chapel is a neat building paved with black and white marble. The seats and pulpit arc oak, embellished with Gothic ornaments. In the east window, above the communion table, are the following paintings on glass: the arms of Thomas Morton, Bishop of Litchfield, who consecrated the chapel; the arms of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. In the centre of the window are the Slingsby arms, with fifteen quarterings, and a margin round the shield, whereon are inscribed the marriages of some of the ancestors of that family. On the south side of the chapel are two windows. In one are the heads of five of the Apostles, and in the other, the figures of Faith, Charity, and Justice; also the arms of the King of England and the Prince of Wales.

The Red House is about two miles from Marston Moor. It ceased to be the family residence about the middle of the last century. Sir Thomas, son of Sir Thomas Turner Slingsby, caused the greater part of it to be pulled down. Two pillars of a gateway were removed, and now stand at the entrance gateway into Scriven Park. – Hargrove.

[51] They were bought in for him by Mr. Stapleton and Mr. Slingsby Bethell, whom he mentions in the Father’s Legacy as his “friendly trustees.”

[52] Newark was surrendered May 8, 1646

[53] Article third of the surrender of Newark fully confirms this statement. It is given by Rushworth, pp. 638-9, 40, part 3, vol. ii.

[54] There are a few mistakes in spelling and punctuation which the Latin scholar can easily correct.

[55] At the same time were also drowned, while crossing the river in a ferryboat, Mr. E. Lloyd, of Lingeroft, near York, Mr. Edmund Robinson, of York, William Oveys (first whip), C. Warrener (gardener at Newby Hall), and J.Warrener, his son.

Coghills and Cramers

A Genealogical Note on the Family of Cramer or Coghill

From Materials collected by BERTRAM C.  A.  WINDLE, LL.D., F.R.S., F.S.A.

The only excuse which I can offer for the appearance of these Notes in the pages of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Journal is that they relate to a family which has long been seated in this county, and contain notices of various persons and places concerned with the City and County, and notably of one individual who enjoyed the distinguished honour of having been Mayor of Cork.   They may thus some day be of interest and value to a future continuator of the County History; and in the hope that this may be the case, I have put them together, and have ventured to offer them to the editors of this Journal.

These papers consist of:

  • a letter written from Pisa in 1826 by Thomas Cramer, a copy of which I obtained from my mother;
  • a note written by Ambrose Cramer in 1828, containing some interesting matters in connection with the relation of the family to this City;
  • a letter respecting the French family of Cramer, dated 1904; and
  • a letter respecting the American branch of the same family, dated 1905.

I owe these last three to the kindness of my cousin, Sir Egerton Coghill Bt., the head of the senior branch of the family.   To these I have added:

  • a genealogical tree of the Cramer family, compiled by Mr Ambrose Cramer, the writer of the American letter; and
  • another tree of the senior branch as far as the generation to which I belong myself, and one stage further in the case of the line of direct descent of the title. This is partly from Lodge but as Lodge’s facts are not complete, I have brought the matter to a state of greater accuracy, and made it as complete as was possible.

With respect to Thomas Cramer’s letter, I entertained some doubts as to whether it should be published in full.   It was not intended for the public eye, and it contains appreciations of his own family which the writer was quite entitled to express to a relative, but would probably not have committed to print.   However, on due consideration, it seemed better to publish the letter just as it was written.   It is many years since Thomas Cramer was gathered to his fathers, and its publication cannot affect him, while his letter gains –at least so I think – by the familiar tone in which it is written.[1]

One curious genealogical point may be made clear to those who are not in the habit of studying “family trees”.   It will be noticed that Sir Josiah Coghill (born Cramer) was twice married.   By his first wife he had three daughters, one of whom died unmarried.   His second daughter married a son of Charles Kendal Bushe, whilst Sir Josiah himself married, as his second wife, a daughter of the same Charles Kendal Bushe, thus becoming the brother-in-law of his own daughter.

As a result it follows that all the descendants of Sir Josiah, except the children of his daughter Josephine, can claim descent from that very distinguished man, C.  K.  Bushe, for a time Solicitor-General, and afterwards Lord Chief Justice of Ireland.

He was a member of the Irish House of Commons and may be seen in the well-known picture of that body in 1790, his head being immediately above those of Grattan and Flood, who are placed in the foreground.   He voted consistently against the Act of Union, and in Sir John Barrington’s ‘Red List’ there appears after his name the word “incorruptible”.   There is only one other member of the House thus described, and that is John Ball, member for Drogheda, and, oddly enough, in the picture above alluded to, he is represented as in conversation with Bushe.   Whatever views Bushe’s posterity may take about politics, they can all agree that this description of their ancestor is not the least cherished of their family possessions.   Perhaps it might be mentioned as a curious piece of family history, and as a link with the past, that the last surviving child of the Lord Chief Justice, Mrs Maria Harris, died two years ago, in her ninety-ninth year, and in full possession of all her faculties.   My mother, who died earlier in this year, often sat on the Bench with her distinguished grandfather when he was Lord Chief Justice and she a young girl.   It is, perhaps, not amiss to record these links of today with the giants of the last century in Ireland

University College, Cork

(i)           letter from Pisa in 1826 by Thomas Cramer


In compliance with your repeated desire, I proceed to execute my promise of committing to paper what information I have been able to collect relative to our family, which is, after all, very scanty and derived almost entirely from reminiscences of the conversations of my father and of our cousin the late Lady Forster, from occasional researches in books of Genealogy and Heraldry, and from the perusal of several old Registers and Chronicles of the Irish Civil Wars of the 17th Century.

My brother and my sister Homan, and also your late good father have communicated to me a few family traditions, which I avail myself of; but unfortunately from a variety of circumstances I had never an opportunity of exploring the true and genuine source of information on this subject – I mean the papers of Sir J.  Coghill Coghill, which alone can throw any light on the first establishment and alliances of our ancestors in Ireland.  Many authentic and interesting facts might also be gleaned from examining the Registers of the Prerogative Court in Dublin, and of all such Records and Archives of the County Kilkenny as are in preservation, to all of which I suppose you could easily procure access.  Without any further preamble I now attempt my sketch of our family history.

The founder of our family in Ireland was Colonel Tobias von Cramer, who commanded a regiment of cavalry under Prince Maurice in the wars of the Low Countries in the 16th Century, and after the Peace of 1609, being received into the same military rank into the service of King James the First, was employed by that monarch in Ireland where he finally settled.

He was a native of Suabia, of a noble family (from the prejudices of that age considered in Continental services essential to military command), but you must not here associate the grand ideas we attach in our country to the word nobility with the term it is understood on the Continent, where being noble implies little more than genteel birth, the privilege of armorial bearings, and exemption from certain taxes and the right of sporting one’s own property – in fact, nineteen out of twenty of the Continental nobility would in Ireland be considered very private gentlemen.

From our ancestor expatriating himself to such a wild unsettled country as Ireland then was, we may very naturally presume that he was either of a very adventurous disposition, or that he was a younger brother little favoured with gifts of fortune, and this latter conjecture seems to me not improbable, having met about two years ago, at the waters of Aix-la-Chapelle, a Baron de Cramer, who was a Suabian by either by birth or extraction (I am not positive which), who told me his family had a tradition that about the latter end of the 16th Century a younger brother of it, after extraordinary vicissitudes of fortune, had settled in Ireland, where he married a lady of great birth and property.

Whom our ancestor married I have never been able to ascertain, but his Suabian origin and time of arrival in Ireland so singularly coincide with Baron de Cramer’s tradition, that I am inclined to think he was the identical person he alludes to.

The Colonel was unquestionably in his time considered an excellent officer, and, if implicit credit may be given to one of our family traditions, was Governor of Ostend in the beginning of that memorable siege in the early part of the 17th Century, that lasted three years, three months, three weeks and three days, and when 136,000 persons on both sides are said to have perished before its reduction by the Spaniards.  I must, however, acknowledge I doubt the fact of such an important fortress being confided to the government of an officer having no higher rank than that of Colonel, and think it more probable he might have been Deputy-Governor or Commandant, not but there are numerous instances in the wars of that period and in the Thirty Years War of Colonels commanding corps of four and five thousand men, and in the English Civil Wars of the 17th Century we find ranks of General and Colonel frequently confounded – thus the celebrated Harrison, though he was one of the most distinguished of the Parliamentary Generals, and we are struck with the same circumstance in reading of Lambert, Pride, Desborough, and other Generals of the Republican Party.

Lodge’s Peerage refers Tobias Cramer’s Letters of Denization to 1639, but he had long before established in the country, and probably then went through the forms of denization, as did many of the recent English and Scottish settlers, to prevent any chicanery of the Government at a future period, contesting their rights of their posterity to landed property acquired by their ancestors, who, according to the strict letter of the law, would have been otherwise aliens – a precaution not ill-founded, Lord Stafford, the then Lord Lieutenant, having caused a general alarm through Ireland by researches as to the original titles many of them possessed of their estates for centuries, many of whom were forced to pay large fines and surrender one-third and even one-half of their lands to the Crown, under the pretext of their having been irregularly acquired by their first possessors.

Our ancestor died at a very advanced age in 1649, nor did his eldest son Balthazar [Balthazer], survive him above four years; of the latter we know little or nothing.  There appears, however, little doubt but that Balthazar was born several years before his father settled in Ireland, which could not have been earlier than 1610; now Balthazer had a son old enough for military service in 1641, only thirty-one years afterwards.

I remember half-length portraits of both father and son [presumably Col.  Tobias and Balthazer Cramer] in the hall of Sallymount, which have been unaccountably mislaid.   The old gentleman was represented with a beard and a ruff, and in a kind of Spanish dress, leaning on an ivory-headed cane.  The son as a young man of four and twenty in the costume of the early part of the reign of Charles the First.

I may here observe that it is very singular, and can only be explained by the little intercourse between the two countries now, that very shortly all connection appears to have ceased between the expatriated branch and the Teutonic parent stock; our immediate progenitors heard nothing of their German relatives, nor, I believe, did their fathers before them.

Some thirty years ago there was a Genevese family named Cramer Delon, that I understand have since settled in England, who considered themselves of our blood, and were remarkably civil to any of the family that visited Geneva, but I believe had no other proof of affinity but bearing the same arms.

The third representative of our family in Ireland, and grandson of our founder, whom he was named after, distinguished himself on the Royal side in the unfortunate Civil Wars of 1641, in which he attained the rank of Colonel.  As he was a very zealous Protestant, his support of the Crown probably proceeded more from animosity to the Roman Catholics than any real attachment to the Royal Family.  Generally suspected by the Irish Protestants of having instigated the rebellion, he therefore appears not only very readily to have submitted to the authority of the English Commonwealth on the reduction of the country by Cromwell, but what may have been less excusable to have taken advantage of the distracted state of the times to improve his fortune, having acquired considerable tracts of confiscated land by purchasing the Debentures of the English officers and adventurers.

It may be alleged, in his justification, that these lands were already lost to ancient possessors, and if he had not purchased them, others would, so great indeed at that time was the violence of party spirit, and such the blindness of religious zeal, that it is extremely probable that he who was in other respects a man of high honour was not on this occasion for a moment sensible that he was supporting a rapacious system of unjust spoliation.  This description of property was at that time so little valued that Ludlow says 1,000 acres of the best confiscated land in the county Dublin sold for £1,500, in the county Kilkenny for £1,000, in the county Wexford for £800, and in other counties of Leinster for £600.

Our ancestor’s acquisitions were principally in the county of Kilkenny, where he settled himself on the estate of Ballyfoyle that had previously belonged to the Purcell family, who, to judge by their Norman name, had probably acquired it either directly or indirectly by confiscation some centuries earlier.  There he made considerable improvement, and was distinguished by intelligence and activity in the discharge of the usual duties of a country gentleman.

Some editions of Debrett’s Baronetage mention him as Sheriff of the City of Dublin for 1653, but this appears to me evidently an error, the business of such a situation being totally incompatible with military avocations.   He may possibly have been mistaken for a paternal uncle of the same name, who died without issue; he himself died in 1680, having had, besides two sons, Balthazar  and Tobias, a daughter [Hester] married to Sir John Coghill, of very ancient family in Yorkshire, who, patronized by Bramall, Archbishop of Armagh, also a Yorkshireman, settled in Ireland in the reign of Charles the Second, and held many eminent legal situations.[2]

Both Balthazar and Tobias appear in the list of 3,000 Protestant gentlemen attained by King James’ Parliament.  They therefore had ample reason for supporting the cause of King William, which they appear most cordially to have done, and after the Battle of the Boyne, Balthazar, with two other commissioners, was appointed by that monarch to receive the submission of all in the county of Kilkenny who were disposed to acknowledge his authority.  Balthazar does not seem to have been forgetful of what he conceived his rights, for I find his name in a large folio, containing the claims for compensation of suffering Protestants in that war, but unfortunately his appeal was totally rejected.

In the list of attained gentlemen, his brother Tobias is described as an inhabitant of Thomas Street, Dublin, but though that part of the city is not at present the most polite, do not imagine that this derogates in the least from your ancestor’s respectability (for with him commences your branch of the Cramer family), as it was by far the most fashionable quarter at that time.  The Earl of Kildare’s town residence was in that very street, and we find by the Rawdon papers, lately published, that in the days of Charles the Second the Duke of Ormond, the Primate, and the Earl of Mountrath lodged in Skinner’s Row adjoining it.

I have not been able to learn any further particulars of Tobias, who was either father or grandfather of Ambrose Cramer, who was Mayor of Cork in 1724, and was the father of Balthazar Cramer, your grandfather, and of another son from whom is descended a branch of the family, that being some time established in Ulster, emigrated to the United States,[3] where they are numerous and all in respectable situations.

Your grandfather, I believe, was the first Cramer that fixed his residence at Rathmore, where by an able and enlightened discharge of his duties as a magistrate, he acquired the general esteem of his neighbourhood.  I have more than once in my early days heard him described as of uncommonly amiable and engaging manners; he married a lady of the name of Stephens, said to have been a lineal descendant of the celebrated Robert FitzStephen, the first Anglo-Norman Chieftain that landed in Ireland, but this being your own immediate line, of course you are infinitely better acquainted with its fortunes, alliances and connection than I could possibly be, and might, therefore, at your leisure add a supplement to this little essay, illustrative of all these points, which will thus transmit to your posterity the most precise information relative to their direct ancestry.

I now go back to the elder branch.  After the reduction of the country by William of glorious, pious and immortal memory, Balthazar once more fixed his residence at Ballyfoyle, which, however, dismantled and denudated, was then by every account a spacious and venerable castle embosomed in woods; here he appears to have passed the remainder of his days in the usual pursuits of country life.

I do not know the precise year of his death, nor indeed anything more of him but that he was succeeded in his estates by his son Oliver, who continued to inherit Ballyfoyle, and married his cousin-german, Hester Coghill, sister of Drs. Marmaduke and James Coghill.  The former was judge of the Prerogative Court, a Privy Councillor, and represented the University of Dublin for more than thirty years in Parliament.

He was a man highly esteemed by his contemporaries for talents, integrity and patriotism; in the letters of Archbishop Boulter, who managed the English interests in Ireland from 1724 to 1740, that prelate speaks in a strain of peevishness and virulence of Dr. Coghill’s uncompromising attachment to Ireland, that can now but reflect a brighter lustre on his name.  In his latter years he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, consequently first responsible minister of the Crown.  It not being till many years afterwards, in the Duke of Dorset’s second administration, that public opinion rather attached this responsibility to the office of the Lord Lieutenant’s Secretary; Lord George Sackville, the Viceroy’s son, then holding that situation, and evidently directing all the affairs of Government.

Dr. Coghill’s principal residence was at Drumcondra House, where the adjoining church was built and endowed by him, and where may be seen his monument executed by Shomacher, considered as a fine piece of scupture.  The neighbouring mansion of Belvedere[4] was the seat of his brother, Dr. James Coghill, the handsomer man to judge by their portraits at Sallymount, but who never attained the reputation of his brother.

He [Marmaduke] died a King’s Councillor, leaving an only daughter, who married very young the Earl of Charleville, and after his death, Sir John Mayne, who took the name of Coghill, by neither of whom she had issue.  The estate in the Co. Kildare my brother inherits from her, containing 2,400 plantation acres, originally purchased by her father from Lord Loftus Ely, the greatest part of which at that time was an immense sheep walk, scarcely worth half a crown an acre, which he enclosed and divided into farms and otherwise so improved that I am assured the rental would now average forty shillings an acre.  I make no apology for this digression relative to the Coghills, for we are so closely allied and the name in Ireland is so entwined with ours that we may almost be considered the same family, independently of the head of the Cramers being now the representative of the house of Coghill and bearing the name.

Let us now return to Oliver Cramer of Ballyfoyle, of whom, however, I know little else than that by his wife Hester he had two sons, John Balthazar  and Oliver, and that she survived him several years.  All accounts represent her as a singular woman, uniting much natural genius with a deal of eccentricity; though she lost both her breasts from cancer it did not deter her from the freak of taking a second husband, a Mr. Helsham, of the County Kilkenny, a man much younger than herself, by whom, however, she had no issue, which has preserved to the family a good estate she possessed in her own right in that county, which now belongs to my brothers: the adjoining lands of Ontrath that I hold under the See of Ossory also formed part of her inheritance.

Whether from caprice or mistaken tenderness, she so neglected the education of her elder son, who was of a very delicate constitution, that I have been told that he could scarcely read or write, being in other respects of slender capacity as well as homely person, yet withal of such an amiable disposition and so truly honourable, generous and noble in all his conduct and sentiments as to have acquired more than general esteem.

He married the Hon. Judith Butler, daughter of the first Viscount Lanesborough, and a little anecdote on the subject which I have heard my father relate is, in my opinion, highly creditable to them both.  His external accomplishments, as I have said, were by no means prepossessing, and she, in a manner, had been obliged by her parents to receive his addresses.  Some time after their being accepted an opportunity of her forming a much more advantageous alliance occurred, and she was earnestly solicited by her family to avail herself of it and break off the match with Mr. Cramer.  This she would not consent to do, declaring that as it was fro a sentiment of duty alone she had originally promised him her heart, now that they were better acquainted and she could appreciate his worth, no consideration whatever should tempt her to act unkindly towards him.  Their marriage took place in 1724, and was followed by numerous issue.

His younger and only brother, Oliver, possessed property in the County Carlow, where he married a Miss Rudkin, a lady of more beauty than fortune; by her he left two children, Marmaduke Coghill and Hester.  The former married first a Miss Humphreys, also of County Carlow, by whom he had two or three children that died in infancy, and secondly the daughter of Jacob Warren, Esq., of Grangely, in the County Kildare, a family related to the house of Wellesley.  The descendants of this marriage are Maurice Cramer, who inherits the estate of Beamore under the will of the Countess of Charleville, Captain Cramer of the R.N., and our other cousins residing at Drumcondra.

Hester, the sister of Marmaduke Coghill, was married when very young to Charles Tisdall, Esq., of Charlesfort, in the County Meath, by whom she had two sons; the elder was father of the present Mr Tisdall, of Charlesfort, and of several other children, and her second son, distinguished for more wit than prudence, was for some time in the Army.  He was father of Charles Tisdall, residing in College Green, with whom you are probably acquainted.

Some years after the demise of her first husband, Mrs Tisdall married Sir Nicholas Forster, of the County Monaghan (father by a former wife of the present Sir Thomas); the issue of this marriage were Humphrey, killed in the landing of the British Army in Egypt in 1801, and George Forster, my brother-in-law.

Having thus brought down the posterity of Oliver Cramer to our time, I now return to his brother Balthazar, who had by his wife, Judith Butler, a numerous offspring, of whom only four lived beyond childhood: – John Balthazar, the first Baronet of the family; a second son named, I believe, Oliver, who by the will of his grand-uncle, Doctor Marmaduke Coghill, inherited his Yorkshire property, took the name of Coghill, and settled at Coghill Hall, where, dying without male issue, the estate as regulated by Doctor Coghill’s will, went to his elder brother, who also took the name of Coghill.

The third son, my father [Marmaduke Cramer], was not born till a year after the Doctor’s death, otherwise from his apparent wish of grafting his name on a second branch of our family, he might probably have given him the reversion of the English estates.

The fourth child was a daughter, Catherine, married to the son of Archdeacon Smyth, of Gaybrook, in the County of Westmeath, the issue of which marriage was the late Ralph Smyth Esq., who by his second wife, the daughter of Sir Robert Staples, Bt., was the father of the present possessor of Gaybrook.

My grandfather [Balthazer John] was the last of the family that inhabited Ballyfoyle.  After his marriage, having attached himself immediately to his wife’s family, and his health requiring constant care, he resided almost continually in Dublin, where he had a home in Dawson Street.  He died in 1741, and was interred in St. Andrews Church, the ancient burial place.  His widow inhabited a villa near Rathfarnham, and survived him about eight years.

You, like myself, have probably heard of their eldest son, the first Sir John Coghill, lively, frolicsome, and sportive beyond even the gifts of an Irish gentleman; he sat in several of our National Parliaments, and generally voted with the opposition.  He spoke occasionally, but his elocution was not brilliant, to judge by the pointed satires and lampoons of that day, where he is repeatedly stigmatized as a babbler.

He married the younger daughter of Josias Hort, Archbishop of Tuam, by his wife, a Lady Fitzmaurice, daughter of the 21st or 22nd Lord Kerry; Lady Coghill was thus, by her mother cousin-german of the late Earl of Kerry and the first Marquis of Lansdowne.  I believe my uncle was not a little indebted to the latter for his baronetage conferred in 1788, as was his brother-in-law, the late Sir John Hort, for his title, which dates from the preceding year.  I was even told by the late Sir John Coghill that his father had been offered an Irish Peerage, but declined it on account of the inadequate fortune of his younger children.

In the early years my uncle resided principally at Bella Vista, in the County of Kildare, but after inheriting Coghill Hall almost entirely in England.  Ballyfoyle, long neglected, received from him its final degradation.  Many pleasant groves and extensive woods of fine old timber that yet surrounded it formed a considerable ornament to that part of the County of Kilkenny.  These he unmercifully had cut down, and so complete was the work of devastation that I am assured it would require no little effort of fancy to conceive it possible it ever could have been the noble seat it certainly was in the beginning of the last century.

Sir John Coghill died of gout at Bath in 1790.  He had the mortification in the preceding year, on the death of the Countess of Charleville, of finding all his hopes frustrated of adding her rich inheritance to his other demesnes, expectations he was fully authorised to entertain, both as being heir-at-law, and from her apparent partiality to his children.  However, by her last will she bequeathed her Kildare, Tipperary and Dublin estates to my father and his issue (merely assigning their reversion to him and his posterity), and her land in the County Meath to the late Mr Coghill Cramer, whose son, Mr. Maurice, of Charlemont Bridge, now possesses them.

Besides two sons my uncle left a numerous issue of daughters; of these some are since dead and others remain in single blessedness, and five were married; one to Mr. Mitchell, a clergyman; another to Captain Ottley of the R.N., since dead; a third to Col. Sankey of the Dublin Militia, since dead; a fourth to an English gentleman, since dead, of the name of Hynde; and a fifth to Major-General Sir Charles Doyle, who does or lately did command the military district of Limerick.

Some years after the death of his father [1796], the late Baronet [Sir John Thomas Coghill] sold Coghill Hall to a Lady Conyngham, and with the purchase money bought Randalls in Surrey, which I understand his brother [Admiral Sir Josiah Coghill] has disposed of; he also purchased an immense tract of land on the banks of the Mississippi from Marquis de la Fayette, which it is now thought may prove a more advantageous speculation than his friends originally supposed.

He was one of the British subjects detained as hostages by Bonaparte from 1803 to 1814, but this captivity was not very severe, as he was allowed nearly the whole time to reside in Paris, and even latterly to travel in Italy – a favour granted to no other prisoner, notwithstanding their earnest solicitations to obtain it.  In this tour he acquired a collection of Etruscan Vases, of such exquisite beauty as to have been since engraved with much typographical luxury, forming a costly volume known to the Dilettante by the title of the Coghill Vases.[5]

He died in Caen in Normandy in 1817, and was succeeded in his title and estates by his brother, Captain Cramer of the R.N. [Admiral Sir Josiah Coghill]  By his will be has bequeathed the reversion of all his landed property, in the event of the present Baronet dying without male issue, to his nephew, Hastings Doyle, but with the condition of adopting the name and arms of Coghill.

Shortly after Sir John’s death his brother purchased and settled at Ballyduff, and has thus once more reseated the family in the County of Kilkenny, and terminated its long absenteeship – a circumstance you may recollect that was particularly satisfactory to us all, and for which I shall ever esteem and respect him.  My letters this year inform me his lady has at last given him a son and heir.[6]  This consequently removes every immediate fear of the extinction of our elder branch, which by its aliances can claim a very particular illustration, the present Baronet being through his mother (a granddaughter of Lord Kerry [Lady Elizabeth Fitzmaurice], whose ancestors had frequently intermarried with the house of Thomond, lineally descended from Brian Borough,[7] [Boru, ancestor of the O’Briens] King of Munster and supreme Monarch of Ireland), and through his grandmother, the Honble. Judith Butler, great grand-daughter of Col. Edward Neville, younger son of the sixth Lord Abergavenny, of Gloucester, sixth son of King Edward the Third.

Consequently, Sir J [Josiah] Coghill can claim descent from that Monarch, and through him from William the Conqueror, Alfred and Egbert, also from Philip le Bel, St. Louis and Hugh Capet, Kings of France, and from the Kings of Castile and Scotland.

To complete this genealogical essay, I must now make some mention of my father’s branch of the family, with which you are so well acquainted that a very concise account will suffice.  He was born in 1739, took orders at the age of 23, having the best founded hopes of very high church preferment through the patronage of his cousin, Lord Lanesborough, whose influence with the Irish Government was then very considerable; these expectations from political causes were never realised.

In 1763 he married the daughter of Alderman Thomas Taylor, who had served the office of Lord Mayor of the City of Dublin in 1751, and was father of the late John Taylor, well known for his years on the turf, and who sat in our last two National Parliaments, being extremely attached to the Ponsonby party, and he uniformly voted with the opposition.

About 1768 my father settled at Sallymount, then a very small demesne that had previously belonged to Mr Myler, a Roman Catholic gentleman, and originally formed part of James the Second’s appanage when Duke of York.  By a singular coincidence he some years afterwards inherited the Charleville estate, lying within three miles of the place; and being about the same time promoted to the Chancellorship of Christ Church, he acquired the living of Kilcullen attached to it, which is the Parish Church of Sallymount.

After the Insurrection of 1798 my father principally resided at Dublin, where he died in 1802.  I believe his death was not a little hastened by the uneasiness and agitation he had suffered from the political convulsions of our unfortunate country in the preceding years.

My worthy brother, the Rev. John  Cramer, succeeeded him in his Kilkenny and Kildare estates, and during these last years has entirely resided at Sallymount, which he has considerably improved.  In 1794 he married the daughter of Sir Thomas Roberts, Bart., by whom he has six children now living.  Of these five are sons, all stout props of the family, but not of the name [Cramer], my sister-in-law having in 1801, on the death of her younger brother, Randal Roberts, inherited the Glassonbury estate in Kent, when she and her husband, according to the regulations of the Duchess of St. Albans’ will, took the name and arms of Roberts; but as that estate by her father’s second marriage has again reverted to Sir Thomas’ male issue, I cannot conceive why my brother and his children do not resume their family name, which is indeed a subject of surprise to all their acquaintance.

The task you have enjoined me, my dear cousin, is now completed.  I have transcribed, as accurately as my memory and distant situation will permit, the principal information I have been able to collect relative to the Cramer family.

Much, of course, is extremely vague, and what can be obtained proves little more than that since its establishment in Ireland it has been uniformly respectable, well connected by its alliances, and distinguished through all its branches by men of worth and honour.  In fact, at no period have we heard of any individuals of it being of dubious probity or of an indifferent character.  These my dear cousin, are just causes of honest pride; and though the family with future generations may possibly increase in illustration or opulence, I doubt if we can make for it a better wish than that it may ever preserve its hitherto fair reputation.


Pisa, October 1st, 1826.

(ii)       a note written by Ambrose Cramer in 1828,


Name, Ambrose Cramer, married Susanna Brow, near Middleton, in the County Cork, and I understood had sixteen children.  All I recollect of them was Richard Cramer, a Capt. In the Army and died in Philadelphia; came there from the West Indies for the benefit of his health.  Ambrose Cramer, a lieutenant of a man-of-war.  My father had a large family; many died young.  I was the eldest of the whole family.  Alexander Hamilton Cramer in the British Navy.  Theophilus S. Cramer, a surgeon in Barbadoes, and married a lady of the name of Eliza Swoke, and got a good estate with her; he died young and left three children.  Hugh Cramer went to Georgia in this country [USA], married there, died and left several children.  Mary and Susanna Cramer, two daughters, married and were both widows.  James Cramer a son of my grandfather, his youngest son, went to the West Indies, and died in Dominica there.  All I recollect of my brother Aleck was at the cove of Cork on board Ld. Howe’s Fleet, when he went to relieve Gibraltar; wrote a letter to his uncle Balthazar Cramer and could not find an opportunity to send; threw it overboard, and the person directed to picked it up one day when he was off the Old Head of Bengore, dried the letter and sent it to my father.  I read the letter.

I forgot to mention in its proper place the number of daughters my grandfather had that I recollect.  Catherine Cramer married a gentleman in the town of Newry (Thos. Searer), which place my grandfather was collector of, and here J.T.C.’s [John Thomas Coghill’s?] father lived for at least seven years.  He and I slept in one bed.  Jane Cramer and Elizabeth Cramer both died unmarried; long dead.

 I now give some account of my mother’s relations.  My mother’s name was Elizabeth Smith.  Baron Hamilton and his brother, a bishop, my mother and their brother’s and sister’s children; and my wife’s name, Elizabeth Johnston, whose mother was from the same stock, and by her we were related to the late General Ross, killed at Baltimore.  My grandfather was fifteen years old at the Battle of the Boyne, and lived seventy years after it.  He had a very extensive business at Cork, and built several houses there, and there was a place called Cramer’s Lane, on which he had a good deal of property; very wrong to give up business for a place in the revenue.  He was first made Collector of Lisburn; then after some time he removed to Newry.  My father had a post (revenue) in different places – a poor way of living.  I would rather be an American farmer.

My grandfather sold his collectorship several years before he died, and lived on the interest of his money, and left it to his two unmarried daughters.  Mrs Searer was left eleven hundred guineas by Dr. Coghill, and she lived with him some time.


(iii)   a letter respecting the French family of Cramer, dated 1904

[original French version]


Lorsque mon gendre m’a envoyé votre lettre du mois Octobre dernier je l’ai lue avec grand interêt, mais j’etais absent de mon domicile ordinaire en Suisse et je n’avais pas sous la main les documents necessaire pour vous répondre.

Christian Cramer de Strasbourg, mort en 1622, avait un fils.

Jean Ulrich, médecin né à Strasbourg en 1610, qui vint s’établir à Genève le 29 Mars, 1634, et y épousa Gabrielle fille de Sp. Isaac Caille, docteur médecin, il fut reçu bourgeois de Genève le 10 Novembre, 1668, avec ses fils – Gabriel, Jacques, André, et Jean Antoine (qui fut l’ancêtre de notre branche).  Il y mourut en 1687.

 Sur l’arbre genealogique de notre famille que je posséde il est dit; qu’un autre fils de Christian Cramer quitta Strasbourg pour aller s’établir en Irlande où cette branche existe encore (1816) en la personne de Cramer Coghill, chevalier Baronet, homme de mérite et propriétaire aisè.  D’après vos renseignements ce second fils de Christian Cramer serait le Colonel Tobias qui aurait été reçu Irlandais en 1639, et qui serait incontestablement le frère de notre ancêtre, nous en ignorions le pré nom.

Quant à l’origine de notre famille, nous ne possédons aucun document positif, mais nous la croyons originaire du Holstein et venue s’établir à Strasbourg à une epoque qui nous est inconnu.

Nos armoiries sont: parti, au premier d’argent à la main de gueules sortant d’un nuage d’azur à dextre, et tenant un rameau de laurier de Sinople, au second d’azur à une ancre d’argent mise en pal.  Ces armoiries suivant Galiffe, l’auteur des Genealogies genevoises, Tome iii., page 147, doivent avoir été concedées pour quelque grand exploit naval.

Quant au renseignements que nous posédons sur Christian Cramer père de notre ancêtre et de celui de votre mère, un de mes oncles, Auguste Cramer ancien Syndic né en 1795, mort en 1855, a écrit dans un manuscrit de notes et de souvenirs ce qui suit: – “Le document suivant, don’t l’original doit être chez Mr. Cramer Ashton en Angleterre contient sur Christian Cramer auteur de notre famille des particularités interessantes.  (Je l’ai copiée sur l’original en 1830 chez M. Cramer Pietet qui m’a dit plus tard l’avoir confie à son dit neveu).”

L’original est en Allemand je vous en donne la traduction faite par mon oncle: – “Nous Christophe Wauner, Tribun, Echevins et Consul de la louable Tribu des Maréchaux en cette ville libre Royal de Strasbourg sur le Rhin, reconnaissons et faisons ce qui suit.

“Il y a longtemps que Christian Cramer qui faisait un commerce de metaux en étains et autre marchandises, a été nomme de notre dit Tribu et d’une charge à l’autre, il a été élu successivement juge, puis en 1620, échevin et en 1622 Tribun, charge dans laquelle il est mort la même année.  Et comme maintenant Monsieur son fils et Messieurs ses petits fils ont demandé par écrit à nous Tribun Echevins et Conseillers de la Tribu un document sur ses emplois et sur sa conduite honorable et que nous n’avons aucun motif de la refuser, biens au contraire le désir d’acceder à leur demande.  Nous declarons sur notre obligation comme Tribun Echevins et Conseillers de la Tribu, et avec l’agrément de nos gracieux Magistrats de cette ville; que feu Christian Cramer a rempli les dits emplois honorifiques avec distinctions en sorte que si Dieu lui avait accordé une plus longue il aurait été sans doute promu et elevé à des emplois plus distingués encore.

“Nous Tribun, Echevins et Conseillers de la Tribu des Marichaux avons delivré la present en temoignage de vérité et y avons appliqué notre sceau suivant l’usage.  Donné à Strasbourg, lundi 24 Avril, l’an de grace 1684.”

Mon oncle ajoutait: – “On sait que l’Alsace a été réunie à la France par la traité de Munster en 1648, mais que la ville de Strasbourg re l’a été qu’en 1681; ses inhabitants etaient presque tous Lutherens à cette époque depuis pres d’un siecle.

“J’ai fait demander par un ami en 1842 quelques récherches dans les archives des Tribu ou autre dépots Municipaux à Strasbourg afin de constater davantage les droits de bourgeoisié de notre famille.  On m’a repondu que les registres et archives des Tribu sont entàpes en désordre dans un des combles de la Mairie, et on m’a envoyé la copie d’une piece des Archives de la Tour aux Pfennings qui est une reconnaisance de Christian Kremer fondeur et bourgeois de cette ville, datée Strasbourg 1e Mars, 1612, portant: que dans la Maison don’t il est propriétaire Grande (Langestrasse) contigue par derriere au Muntzhof, il a obtenu à bien plaire de Messieurs les intendants des Batiments de la Messieurs les Tribuns de la Tour aux Pfennings la permission d’ouvrir des jours sur la Muntzhof qu’il s’engage à supprimer à première réquisition.  L’archiviste qui à la copie authentique de cette piece y a joint la facsimile de la signature de Christian Kremer et son sceau qui est un écu on l’on reconnait distinctement une montagne dans le bas et au depuis deux mains tenant celle de droite un ancre celle à gauche une branche; au depuis de l’écu les initiales C. et K.; entre deux une grande étoile et des deux côtes une petite.”

Le Cramer Ashton dout parle mon oncle et entre les mains de qui devait se trouver l’original du document ci depuis cité, descendait de Gabriel Cramer, un des fils d’Ulrich notre ancêtre qui a formé une branche qui s’éteint dernièrement à Genève en la personne de Henri Cramer fils de Cramer Pietet mais qui a des descendants en Angleterre.  Cramer Ashton etait le fils de Noble et Spectable Jean Antoin Cramer, professeur en droit en 1757, mort en 1817, qui avait épousé Henriette Courtet, don’t il eut trois fils reconnus Anglais.

John Henri né en 1796.  Louis, officier de marine né en Angleterre en 1794, mort aux Indes en 1828.  Jean Antoine né en 1792, mort en 1848, professeur á Oxford, doyen de l’église de Carlisle, marié à Henriette Ashton, dout il eut trois fils sur lesquels vous porriez avoir des renseignements ou sur leurs descendants, ils ont hérité il y a quelques années de la fortune assez considerable de leur cousin Henri, mort sans enfants à Genève.

Le No. du journal le Graphic du 24 Novembre, 1900, donne le portrait et la biographie de Major Jocelyn Henry Cramer qui venait de mourire de la fièvre à Prahsu, Afrique Occidentale, et qui très probablement est un des descendants de Jean Antoine, professeur à Oxford.

D’après votre lettre la descendance de Tobias Cramer ne ressort pas clairement.  Sa fille Hester épousa le chevalier Sir John Coghill, don’t elle eut 4 enfants et sa fille Hester I., épousa un Oliver Cramer, quel est il?  Si vous pouvez me donner la descendance exacte de Tobias vous me seriez plaisir.

Notre famille a toujours occupé une place honorable dans le governement de la republique de Genève tant qu’il etait aristocratique, et d’apres Galiffe: “a produit un nombre singulier de savants don’t quelques uns ont été fort distingués et surtout le grand Mathematicien” (Sp. Gabriel Cramer, né en 1704, mort en 1752).

La branche ainée d’étant éteinte il y a quelques années par la mort de Henri Cramer, il ne reste plus a Genève que celle à laquelle j’appartiens.  Mon père avait 4 frères, tous morts que leurs femmes, je reste le seul survivant male de ma generation, mais il reste encore survivants males fils de mes cousins germains, et j’ai de plus un fils qui à 3 enfants don’t 2 garçons. La femme de mon arrière grand père etait fille de Abraham Wesselowsky, noble russe aide de camp de Pierre le Grand, refugié à Genève, il eut 3 autres filles qui se marrièrent en Angleterre et devinrent Mesdames Clason, Simpkinson, et Jack.

Je souhaite que ces details sur notre famille puissent vous interesser, et si vous en desirez d’autres je suis tout disposé à vous completer.

                                                                                                                    Bien à vous,   


[English Translation by Julian D S Lyon]


When my son-in-law sent me your letter of last October I read it with great interest but I was away from my usual residence in Switzerland and I did not have to hand all the requisite documents to be able to respond to you.

Christian Cramer from Strasbourg who died in 1622 had a son:

John Ulrich, a doctor, born in Strasbourg in 1610, set himself up in Geneva on 29th March 1634 and married there Gabrielle, daughter of Isaac Caille, medical doctor; he was received as a citizen of Geneva on 10th November 1668 with his sons, Gabriel, Jacques, André and Jean Antoine (who was the ancestor of our branch).  He died there in 1687.

On the family tree in my possession it is mentioned that another son of Christian Cramer left Strasbourg to set himself up in Ireland where that branch still exists today (1816) in the person of Cramer Coghill, knight baronet, a man of merit and free property.  According to your information this second son of Christian Cramer was the Colonel Tobias who was accepted as Irish in 1639 and who was indisputably the brother of our ancestor and whose given name we did not know.

With regard to the origin of our family we do not possess any positive documentation but we believe the family originated in Holstein and moved to Strasbourg at some time we know not when.

Our coat of arms is:[on the first part, Argent (silver) with a hand (of mouths/muzzles/heads) emerging from an Azure (blue) cloud to the right and holding a Sinople (green) laurel branch; on the second Azure (blue) with an Argent (silver) anchor ‘mise en pal’ (two sections divided vertically ‘in pale’].  These arms, according to Galiffe, the author of the (Genevan genealogies) Volume iii, page 147, must have been awarded for some great naval exploit.

According to the information we possess in respect of Christian Cramer, father of our ancestor, and that of your mother, one of my uncles, Auguste Cramer former Syndic (member of the Syndicate), born in 1795, who died in 1855, wrote the following in a manuscript of notes and memories: – “The following document, the original of which must be with Mr Cramer Ashton in England, contains interesting details in respect of Christian Cramer, founder of our family. (I copied this from the original in 1830 which was with Mr Cramer Pietet who told me later he had given it to his above-mentioned nephew).”

The original is in German; I am giving you the translation made by my uncle: – “We, Christophe Wauner, Tribune, ‘Echevins’ and Consul of the worthy Tribunal of Marshals in this royal free city of Strasbourg on the Rhine, recognise and enact the following:

“It is a long time ago that Christian Cramer, who ran a business of tin/pewter metals and other merchandise, was nominated to our afore-mentioned Tribunal and from one role to another, he was elected successively judge, then in 1620, (échevin) and in 1622, Tribune, in which position he died the same year.  And as now his son together with his other young sons have requested in writing to us, Tribune, (Èchevins) and Counsellors of the Tribunal, to provide a document in respect of his employment and honourable conduct and as we have no reason to refuse, indeed on the contrary we are pleased to accede to their request.  We declare according to our duties as Tribune, (Èchevins) and Counsellors of the Tribunal and with the consent of our gracious magistrates of this city; that the late Christian Cramer occupied the said honourable roles with distinctionof a kind whereby if God had accorded him a longer (life) he would without doubt been promoted and elevated to even more distinguished works.

“We, Tribune, ‘Echevins’ and Consul of the Tribunal of Marshals have delivered this document in testament of truth and have applied our seal hereto according to custom.  Granted at Strasbourg, Monday 24th April 1684.” [perhaps this should have read 1634?]

My uncle added: – “We know that Alsace was reunited with France by the treaty of Munster in 1648, but that the city of Strasbourg (did not join?) until 1681; its inhabitants had almost all been Lutherans at this time for almost a hundred years.

“I asked through a friend in 1842 for some research to be done in the Tribunal’s archives or other municipal stores in Strasbourg in order to establish the advantage of our family’s rights of citizenship.  They replied to me that the registers and archives of the Tribunal are in a state of disorder in one of the basements of the Town Hall and they sent me the copy of an item from the Archives de la Tour at Pfennings which is a recognition of Chistian Kremer, founder and citizen of this city, dated Strasbourg 1st March 1612 stating that: in the House of which he is the proprietor Grande (Langestrasse) and fronting to the rear onto Muntzhof, he obtained at the pleasure of the Messieurs the Inspectors of Buildings of the Messieurs the Tribunes of the Tower at Pfennings permission to open during the days onto Muntzhof which he undertook to abolish at the first time of asking.  The archivist who authenticated the copy of this item also added a facsimile of Christian Kremer’s signature and his seal which is a shield whereon one can distinctly identify a mountain at the bottom and above it two hands holding, in the right hand an anchor and in the left a branch; above the shield the initials C. and K.; between the two a large star and at each side a small one.”

The Cramer Ashton to whom my uncle refers and in whose handsthe afore-mentioned document should be found, was a descendant of Gabriel Cramer, one of the sons of Ulrich our ancestor who formed a branch in Geneva which was finally extinguished in the person of Henri Cramer, son of Cramer Pietet but who has descendants in England.  Cramer Ashton was the son of the noble and respected Jean Antoine Cramer, professor of law in 1757, who died in 1817 having married Henrietta Coutet with whom he had three sons recognised as English.

John Henri, born in 1796.  Louis, naval officer born in England in 1794, died in the Indies in 1828.  Jean Antoine born in 1792, died in 1848, professor at Oxford, doyen of the church in Carlisle, married to Henrietta Ashton with whom he had three sons in respect of whom you could have information or in respect of their descendants; some years ago they inherited the sizeable fortune of their cousin Henri who died without issue in Geneva.

The issue of the journal le Graphic of 24th November 1900 gives a portrait and the biography of Major Jocelyn Henry Cramer who had just died of fever at Prahsu in East Africa and who was probably one of the descendants of Jean Antoine, professor at Oxford.

According to your letter the descendancy of Tobias Cramer is not clear.  His daughter Hester married the knight Sir John Coghill by whom she had 4 children and her daughter Hester I., married an Oliver Cramer, who is he?  If you could give me the exact descendancy from Tobias you would give me great pleasure.

Our family  always occupied an honorable place in the government of the the republic of Geneva whilst it was aristocratic and, according to Galiffe: “produced a singular number of wise men of which some were highly distinguished especially the great Mathematician”. (Gabriel Cramer, born in 1704, died in 1752)

The branch having been extinguished for some years by the death of Henri Cramer, there is no other Cramer branch in Geneva except the one to which I belong.  My father had four brothers, all dead as are their wives, I remain the only surviving male of my generation, but there remain male sons of my (paternal) cousins and I also have a son who in turn has three children of which two are boys.  The wife of my great grandfather was the daughter of Abraham Wesselowsky, the noble Russian aide de camp of Peter the Great who was exiled in Geneva; he had three other daughters who married in England and became Mrs Clason, Mrs Simpkinson and Mrs Jack.

I hope that these details of our family are of interest to you and if you would like any more I would be pleased to oblige.

Best wishes


(iv)     a letter respecting the American branch

                                                                                                                301, Erie Street

                                                                                           Chicago, Ill., Nov. 15th 1895


I received your very kind letter, and was very much interested by it.  Mr J. H. Coghill, of New York, very generously sent me a copy of his Coghill Family. It is a very valuable book, and reflects great credit upon the compiler.  I hope at some future date to see Mr. Coghill.  He resides at New York, about 24 hours’ journey from here.

I should very much like to see the portraits you speak of, as a good many of their names most likely have been told me when a lad at my grandfather’s knee.  My grandfather, A. M. C. Cramer, [Ambrose Marmaduke Coghill Cramer] was a most enthusiastic warm-hearted Irishman, and delighted in gathering his children about him and relating tales of Ireland and his father and people, and we took great pleasure in these tales.  He has been dead many a year, and all his brothers.

I do not know exactly where my relationship comes in with you, and think it remote.  My branch starts with Tobias Cramer, brother to Balthazar and Hester Cramer, who married Sir John Coghill, and your branch starts with Balthazar.  It is the same blood.  My name Ambrose is first heard of in our family record in 1724, Ambrose Cramer, Mayor of Cork.  Since that date there had always been one named Ambrose.  I know the family is German, and not very long ago had a notice sent to me, “That for saving the Church of Polycarp at Smyrna from the Turks, Ambroise Herman de Cramer, Austrian Consul at Smyrna in 1799, was created Chevalier of the Order of Christ by Bull of Pope Pius VII.  March 5th every year a Mass is celebrated to his memory”.  I have no doubt on account of the similar name that our Cramer family that went to Ireland was of the same extraction.

I wish to know all I can relative to my family.  Mrs Homan’s book would be invaluable to me in making up my Cramer book.  I have heard of Mrs Homan, I think, in a letter dated Pisa, 1826, from Thomas Cramer.  He says “my sister, Homan”, and at some time speaks of “our cousin the late Mrs Forster”.  Most likely some of Mrs Homan’s descendants are living and have the book.  I would not wish to bother them by enquiries; but if I knew where to locate them, I would write to some one in the place and try to have a copy made.  It is very kind of you to offer to have a copy made if yours comes to light, and I assure you I appreciate it very much.  Under ordinary circumstances I could not accept your going to any such trouble, but I know of no other way to get information that I really desire.

I note position and occupancy of the various places I wrote of as being vaguely connected in my mind with our family.  It is too bad that they have slipped away.  In this country it is much easier to make than to hold.  I suppose your good uncle must have been a friend of Sir Richard Boyle[8] and acted upon his precept of “What shall I do for posterity; posterity never did anything for me”.

I am,

        Yours sincerely

                                AMBROSE CRAMER

To Sir John J. Coghill, Bart.,

            Glen Barrahane, Ireland

[1] Perhaps it should be mentioned that the footnotes to this letter are mine, and not Thomas Cramer’s [the square bracketed notes are by Julian D S Lyon made (July 2001) in transcribing these texts for his own purposes]

[2] He is mentioned in several places in “The Bellingham Diary[written by Colonel Bellingham in the 17th Century], where it is stated that “he was Master in Chancery in Ireland.  He was the seventh in decent from John Cockhill, of Cockhill, who was in the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV living at Russesborough”.

[3] See letter (iv) and “tree” (v) of this branch at end.

[4] This house, in which many of Sir J. Coghill’s children were born, is now St. Patrick’s Training College for Teachers.  It contains one of the finest eighteenth Century inlaid mantel-pieces in existence, and I have little doubt that this was erected by that very distinguished connoisseur, Sir John Coghill.

[5] Sir John was a man of some note on the Continent, and a most interesting and amusing account of one of his journies with Mdme. Recamier will be found in her life. The “Coghill Vases” is a handsome volume, now extremely difficult to obtain.  What became of the priceless collection of vases themselves is a mystery which has never been cleared up.

[6] The late Sir John Jocelyn Coghill of Glen Barrahane, Catletownshend, Co. Cork.

[7] Sic.

[8] Sir Boyle Roche

Cogs and Cogware

The origins of the name Coghill have been a mystery.  One supposition by Willliam Wheater (1907) is that the origin is from Cogs, which he described as coarse cloths, which may have been died and set out to dry on a hill, hence Cog Hill, and furthermore, that the first Coghill may have simply been [John] of Cog Hill some time in the fourteenth or fifteenth century.

Here are some background pieces on Cogware:

Wiktionary has the following definition of COGWARE as at 4th October 2013:


Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
cogware (usually uncountableplural cogwares)
  1. a coarse cloth of the fourteenth century
    • 1964, L.F. Salzman, English Industries of the Middle Ages, p. 207:
      The better quality was used for ordinary cloths, and the worst was made up into coarse cloth known as cogware and Kendal cloth, three quarters of a yard broad, and worth from 40d. to 5s. the piece. The term cogware seems to have sprung from its being sold to cogmen, the crews of the ships called cogs; but whether for their own use, or for export is not quite clear.


A coarse woollen cloth made from the worst wool and used for clothing the very poor of London and other towns.

The fabric is mentioned in a Statute of 13 Richard II (1390) as not being subject to the Statute of 1328 which fixed a minimum length and breadth of each piece woven (to be measured by the King’s Aulnegar (fn. 1) and if found short forfeited for the Royal benefit as follows:—“Item, although it be ordained by divers statutes, that all manner of Cloths of Ray and Colour shall be of a certain Length and Breadth comprised in the same Statutes; nevertheless, for as much as it hath been a common custom to make certain cloths in divers Counties of England, called Cogware and Kendal Cloth, of the breadth of three-quarters of a yard, whereof some be of the Price of 40d. and some 5s., and sold to Cogmen out of the Realm and also to poor and mean People (fn. 2) within the Realm, of the which Cloth a great Part is made of the worst Wool within the Realm that cannot well serve for any other Cloths; It is accoran to make such manner of Cloths of the Length and Breadth aded and assented that from henceforth it shall be lawful to every ms it hath been used before this Time, notwithstanding any Statute made to the contrary; Provided always, that the Makers and Workers of such Cloths shall not make them of any better Wool than they were wont to do.

In the Parliament of 5 Henry IV (1403/4) the Commons prayed the king “that as of your special grace there was granted to all liege subjects within the realm of England, in the Parliament held at Westminster in the first year of your reign, that of no cloths called Kendale-cloth, nor any other cloth whereof the dozen shall not exceed the value of 13s. 4d., even if it has not been sealed with any seal great or little nor any subsidy should be taken of it for three years ensuing, the which are now passed; And now those who are the Auneours within your aforesaid Realm constrain the poor Commons to pay for the seal of each dozen 1¼d. for those of which the dozen does not exceed the value of 4 or 5 shillings. May it please your very abundant grace to grant in the present Parliament in relief of all the lieges within your aforesaid Realm, that no cloth from this day forward called Kendale-cloth, nor any other cloth, narrow or wide, the dozen of which does not exceed the value of 13s. 4d. within your aforesaid realm should be sealed with any seal little or great and that no subsidy should be taken upon it, and that no forfeiture should fall upon it considering that the first imposition of the aforesaid subsidies from the aforesaid cloths, the sealing of the same, commenced in the time when Waltham was Treasurer of England.” Response:—Let the matter be committed to the Council to do with it what seems best to them by authority of Parliament. Rolls of Parliament, m. 4, n. 70; printed Rot. Parl. iii, 541.

By the Statute of 9 Henry IV, c. 2 (1407) it is ordained and established that no cloth called Kendale Kersey, Frieze of Coventry, Cogware, nor any narrow cloth, nor remnant of cloth of England or cloth of Wales, of which the dozen does not exceed the value of 13s. 4d. should be sealed with any of the king’s seals nor aulnage great nor little to be paid for the same. And that the owners might freely sell the said cloths unsealed without forfeiting anything to the king for the same, notwithstanding any statute or ordinance made to the contrary Rolls of Parliament, m. 6, nos. 34, 35; printed Rot. Parl. iii, 614.

In the Parliament of II Henry IV (1410) the Commons informing “our very excellent Lord the King” that as in the case of cloths of colour there is a custom or tax called Cocket, (fn. 3) and that the Auneours who bear the seals to seal cloth exact the cocket and payment for the seals from the poor lieges of the Lord King upon cloths called Kendales, Kerseis, Narrow backs, Cogware, Coventry ware, Friezes of Ireland and Wales of which the dozen does not exceed the value of 13s. 4d., which cloths were never wont to be sealed nor to pay any such custom called Cocket in the times of your very noble progenitors formerly Kings of England whom God ‘assoile.’ May it please the King to consider the great poverty of his poor lieges and the unbearable charges and losses which they bear from one day to another insomuch that they cannot longer endure them; and to grant in the present Parliament by Statute to be made that none of the poor lieges of our Lord the King from this day forward shall pay any custom nor pay for the seal little or great on such cloths called Kendales, Kerseys, Narrow backs, Cogware, Coventry ware, cloths of Ireland and of Wales, nor for any remnant of two, three or four verges, (fn. 4) if the dozen of such cloths does not exceed the value of 10s. Response:—May it be the custom as in the past. (Rolls of Parliament, m. 3, n. 64; printed Rot. Parl. iii, 643).

In 1579 the Aldermen and Burgesses of the Burgh of Kirkbie Kendall “Ordeyned that none of the head burgesses or of the xxiiij Assistants (beinge no shearmen) shall for one year nexte make any woolen clothes but suche as they shall sell rowe (raw-cloth) excepte it be for ther owen wearinge Karseys (course stuff woven from long wool) white or blak cottons or Kelters (kilt, course woollen stuff) save Cnapmen Salters or comon dryvers of clothes w[hi]ch may make so muche as they can sell in ther ordynary walks and not otherwise and save to Mr. ffox (an Alderman) libertie to sell suche ffrece and cottons as he shall make in his howse when he will . . . . . And that every Inhabitannt (not beinge a shearman) makinge clothe shall dight all ther flrece by some freman shearmen at his shopp or howse and not otherwise vpon payn to lose vis. viijd. wheroff to the Chamber iijs. iiijd. and to the company (of Shearmen) iiis. Iiijd”. K. Boke of Recorde, 118.

By the Statute of 7 James 1, c. 16, “for the encouraging of many poore people in Cumberland and Westmerland, and in the townes and parishes of Carptmeale, Hawkeshead and Broughton, to continue their trade of making Cogware, (fn. 5) Kendals, Carptmeales and course cottons, whereas by the Statute of 9 Henry IV it was enacted (as above). Sithence the making of which statute the sayd Kendals and other course things of like nature and made of the like course wooll and differing in name onely, called Cogware, course cottons and Carptmeales, have been made in such sort as the parties which made the same were able, and as best might please the buyer, without being limited to any certain weight, or to any assyze of length or breadth, and were never searched nor sealed with any seale nor subject to any penaltie for the not sealing thereof nor any subsidie nor aulnage payed for the same, until of late that certaine evill disposed persons, contrary to the true meaning of the said law, have by colour of a late statute made in the 39 yere of the Reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, intituled an Act against the deceiptfull stretching and taintering of Northerne cloth, endevoured to make the said Cogware, Kendals, Carptmeales and course cottons subject to search and have demanded for the same divers severall summes of money for the seale of the collector of the subsidie and aulnage, to the great vexation and trouble of the sayd poore people. Be it therefore enacted by the King’s most excellent Majestie etc., that from henceforth all Cogware, Kendals, course cottons and Carptmeales, which are, or hereafter shall be made within the sayd Countyes of Cumberland and Westmerland, or within the sayd townes and parishes of Carptmeale, Hawkeshead and Broughton, whereof the dossen shall not exceed the rate and price of 13s. 4d., shall be made in such sort, as may best please the buyer; and shall not be searched nor sealed with any of the King’s seales nor with any other seale nor any subsidie or aulnage great or little paid for the same. But that the owners of such Cogware, Kendals, course cottons, and Carptmeales may freely sell the same, not sealed, as they have been accustomed, without forfeiting anything to the King for the same, any lawe or statute or any branch or clause of any lawe or statute heretofore made to contrary notwithstanding.”

Cornelius Nicholson in his Annals of Kendal says that the plant genista tinctoria or Dyer’s Broom was brought in large quantities to Kendal from the neighbouring commons and marshes. This plant, after being dried, was boiled for the yellow colouring matter it contained. The cloth was first boiled in alum water, for the mordant, and then immersed in the yellow dye. It was then dried and submerged in a blue liquor extracted from woad, which combined with the yellow, produced the solid green so much celebrated.

Among other allusions to Kendal cloth in English Literature (fn. 6) are the following:—

Lydgate. 1425. “On his head he had a threadbare Kendal hood.”

Barclay. 1524. “His costly clothing was threadbare Kendal green.”

Sir Thomas Moore. 1532. Confutation of Tyndale. “Tyl he doe of his gray garments and cloth himself cumley in gaye Kendal greene.”

Discipline of Commonwealth. 1550 “A serving man is content to goe in a Kendall cote in summer.”

Shakespeare, Henry IV. 1598. “Three misbegotten knaves in Kendal green.”

Coryat’s Crudities. 1611. Panegyric to the Mayor of Hartlepool. “Put on’s considering cap and Kendal gowne.”

Scott, Rokeby. 1813. “A seemly gown of Kendal green.”

1                       Anne or ell-wand to measure fabrics.

2                       “But as the devil would have it, three misbegotten Knaves in Kendal green came at my back and let drive at me.” Shakespeare

3                       Cocket is a seal belonging to the King’s Custom house, or rather a scroll of parchment sealed and delivered by the officers of the Custom house to merchants as a warrant that their goods are customed.

4                       Measurement by a stick or rod; a verger carries a wand.

5                       The name Cogware must surely come from Cog. a broadly built cargo-ship, and the ware such as was largely exported to the North American markets

From: ‘Records of Kendale: Further records’, Records relating to the Barony of Kendale: volume 3 (1926), pp. 56-79. URL: Date accessed: 04 October 2013.



Devant le grant conseil.                                                               Before the great council.

Pur draps appellez cogware.                                                     For cloths called cogware.



A nostre seignur le roi et a son bon conseil; monstrent les communes de les contees d’Essex et de Suff’: qe par la ou en l’estatut fait l’an .xlvij. me du regne nostre seignur le roi q’ore est, ordeigne fust qe touz draps de colour qe serront faitz en Engleterre vendables serroient de la longeure de .xxvi. aulnes mesurez par le dos, et de laieure de .v. quarters au meins; et demy drap de longeure et de laieure solonc l’afferant, sur forfaiture de mesmes les draps. (fn. 92) 142. IIII XX III.

To our lord the king and his good council; the commonalties of the counties of Essex and Suffolk declare: that whereas, in the statute made in the forty-seventh year of the reign of our present lord the king [1373], it was ordained that all coloured cloths made for sale in England would be 26 ells in length measured by the back, and at least 5 quarters in width; and half cloth of the length and width according to the rate, on forfeiture of the same cloths. (fn. 92)


Plese a nostre seignur le roi et a sa tresnoble conseil granter a voz dites communes voz graciouses lettres patentes, et par ycelles declarer en ce present parlement, qe les draps appellez cogware et kerseyes faitz es ditz contes, et autres tieux estroites draps y faites et en autres paiis auxint, q’eles ne soient compris en dit estatut, en aide et relief del dite commune.

May it please our lord the king and his noblest council to grant to your said communities your gracious letters patent and to declare by the same in this present parliament that the cloths called cogware and kersey made in the said counties, and other such narrow cloths made there and in other regions also, should not be included in the said statute, in aid and relief of the said commonalty.


[editorial note: Responsio.]                                                       [editorial note: Answer.]


< Le roi voet q’ils eient tielles lettres par les quelles soit declarree, qe les estreites draps appellez cogware et kerseyes, acustumes d’estre faites es dites contees, ne doivent mye estre entenduz pur estre compris en dit estatut, ne souz la paine d’ycelle. (fn. 93) >

The king wills that they should have such letters in which it should be declared that the narrow cloths called cogware and kersey, usually made in the said counties, are not intended to be included in the said statute or under the penalty of the same. (fn. 93)

92                      SR , I.395 (c. i)

93                      See Appendix no. 20


From: ‘Edward III: April 1376’, Parliament Rolls of Medieval England. URL:;strquery=cogware Date accessed: 04 October 2013.


April 15 1297
To Thomas de Snyterton and Thomas de Seggeford. Order to restore to brother James called ‘Copyn’ of the order of the Hospital, the envoy of the king of Denmark, all the money [arrested] by Nicholas de Holm and Robert de la Roche, keepers of the port of Holm and Hunstanston, co. Norfolk, in the hands of the said James in a cog (coga) of Denmark, which lately arrived in the said port of Holm on account of stress of weather (per maris intemperiem), which sum was delivered to Thomas and Thomas by the said keepers.

To Nicholas de Holm and Robert de la Roche, keepers of the ports of Holm and Hunstanston, co. Norfolk. Order to restore to the said James and to certain merchants of Flanders and Almain all the goods and wares lately arrested by them in the aforesaid cog in the hands of James, the envoy of the king of Denmark and of certain merchants of Flanders and Almain, and to restore to them also the cog.

To the treasurer and barons of the exchequer. Order to cause Hugh de Mortuo Mari to have respite until the coming parliament at Lincoln for the 347l. 7s. 2d. due to the king at the exchequer from him for the debts of his ancestors, as the king has granted him this respite in order that there may then be done what he shall then cause to be considered by his council. By K.

To the bailiffs of Ravenesere. Order to restore to Dodinus, citizen and merchant of John, count of Holland, the king’s son, of Staveren (Stauria), his ship called ‘Cog Godyer,’ which lately came to Scarborough together with certain other ships and was afterwards taken to the port of Ravenesere by the king’s licence, and to restore all its tackle. The king makes this order at the count’s request. By K


From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward I: April 1297’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I: volume 4: 1296-1302 (1906), pp. 24-28. URL:;strquery=cog Date accessed: 04 October 2013.



Jan. 30 1384
To the sheriffs of London and Robert Forde their searcher or serjeant. Order not to trouble the commons of Essex and Suffolk or any of them contrary to the late king’s will and declaration made at their suit in the parliament holden in 50 Edward III, and to give up any strait cloths of theirs arrested contrary to the same; as by petition presented in that parliament, shewing that in a former statute it was ordered that all coloured cloths thenceforward made in England for sale ought under pain of forfeiture thereof to be 26 ells in length measured by the back, and five quarters at least in breadth, and the half cloth in proportion, and for their relief praying a declaration that all cloths called ‘cogware‘ and ‘kereseys’ and other strait cloths there and elsewhere made are not included in that statute, which declaration the late king there made, and by letters patent of 14 December 50 Edward III exemplified their said petition and the endorsement thereof.


From: ‘Close Rolls, Richard II: February 1384’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Richard II: volume 2: 1381-1385 (1920), pp. 353-363. URL:;strquery=cogware   Date accessed: 04 October 2013.


April 1 1393
To the sheriff of Kent. Order upon sight etc. to cause proclamation to be made in the county [court] and in cities, boroughs, market towns, fairs, markets etc., that all who henceforward will make for sale any rayed or coloured cloths shall under pain of forfeiting the same make rayed cloths of 28 ells measure by the list in length and five quarters in breadth, and coloured cloths of 26 ells measure by the fold and six quarters in breadth at least, and half cloths of proportionate length and of the same breadth, and shall cause them to be sealed with the alnager’s seal before they be exposed for sale, according to divers statutes published in time of the late king and of the king, whereby it is ordered and agreed that such cloths made in England shall be of the measure aforesaid, that any cloth or half cloth exposed for sale which is not of that measure shall be forfeit to the king, and all exposed for sale before being so sealed shall likewise be forfeit; but it is not the king’s intent that cloths made by people for their own use and for their household, or cloths made for sale by poor men be forfeit, though they be not of that measure, or cloths of ‘cogware,’ and ‘Kendalecloth,’ provided these be made of the worst and weakest wool of the realm, and exceed not the value of 40d. or 5s.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Richard II: March 1393’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Richard II: volume 5: 1392-1396 (1925), pp. 128-135. URL:;strquery=cogware Date accessed: 04 October 2013.

C14 Close Rolls

The earliest mention I have found of Coghill or Coghull in Yorkshire is in the 1344 Close Rolls, although this does not suggest the family name:

April 22 1344
To the treasurer and barons of the exchequer. Order not to intermeddle until further order with the manor of Brustwyk in Holdernesse, with the manors of Rymeswell, Elwarby, Beghun and its other members in cos. York and Lincoln; the castle of Caresbrok with the manors of Bouecombe, Wroxhale, Neuton, Whitefeld, Penne and Thorueye and the rents, ferms, pleas and perquisites of Neuport, Breredyng and Ermuth in the isle of Wight, and the bailiwick of the hundreds of Estmedeine and Westmedeine and the custody of the forest of that Island; the manor of Cosham, co. Wilts, the manor of Kirkeby in Kendale with its members and other appurtenances in co. Westmorland; the manor of Mourholm with Kerneford and Lyndeheved; a moiety of the manor of Waresdale; a moiety of the town of Ulvereston, co. Lancaster; a certain parcel of land in Thornton in Lonesdale called ‘Coghull,’ with appurtenances in co. York; the castle of Radenore with its members and other appurtenances; lands of Wartrenon, Penbregge, Prestemede, Kyyghton, Norton, Knokelas, Pulhid with la Whiteleye in Monelith and with lands in Kery and Beytir in the lordship of Dolveryn in Wales with the appurtenances, which belonged to Ed[mund] de Mortuo Mari, the manor of Brompton with appurtenances in co. Somerset; the manor of Stoktristre with appurtenances in the same county; the manor of Brok with appurtenances in the isle of Wight; the manor of Yeshampsted with appurtenances in co. Berks, and all the lands, fees and advowsons which belonged to John de Molyns in England and the ferms of the priories of Burstall in Holdernesse, of Caresbrok, Appeldercombe, St. Helen’s and St. Cross in the isle of Wight and of the rectory of Wyppyngham in that island, which priories and rectory are in the hands of aliens by the king’s commission, or with the keepers, fermors or others who intermeddle with the same, or with the escheators in Holdernesse and the isle of Wight or with the receivers of victuals in Caresbrok castle, from the 9th year of the reign, as the king has reserved the said castles, etc. to his chamber. By letter of the secret seal called ‘Griffoun.’

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: April 1344’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 7: 1343-1346 (1904), pp. 298-311. URL:;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

October 20 1347
To the collectors of the custom of wool, hides and wool-fells in the port of London. Order to pay to John de Coupland 95l. 2s. 8d. of 190l. 5s. 3¾d. for Michaelmas term last, as in consideration of John’s services and his vigour in the battle at Durham, where God granted victory to the king’s lieges in the North against the Scots, where he took prisoner David de Bruys, who styled himself King of Scotland, and freely delivered him to the king, and wishing to reward him for such faithful service, the king placed him in the estate of a banneret, and to maintain him therein granted that he should receive 500l. yearly, to wit: 400l. of the issues of the customs in the port of London, and 100l. of the issues of the customs in the port of Berwick upon Tweed, until the king should provide him with 500l. of land or rent yearly, in a suitable place; and the king granted to John the manor of Coghull, co. York, a moiety of the manor of Kirkeby in Kendale with its members and other appurtenances in cos. Westmorland and Cumberland, and a moiety of the manor of Ulreston, co. Lancaster, which belonged to William de Coucy, and which escheated to the king by his death, to the value of 231l. 8s. 9¼d. yearly, at which they are extended, in part satisfaction of the 500l. of land and rent, saving to the king the separable park and wood upon le Bradewode, a wood in the island of Wynandermere, a moiety of a wood called ‘Richemerfeld,’ the wood of Crosthwayt called ‘Brendewode’ and wood of Aynerholm, and the knights’ fees and advowsons which pertain to the said manors, until further order; and the king also granted to John the manors of Morholm, Warton, Carneford and Lyndeheved, co. Lancaster, which belonged to the said William, and which escheated to the king at his death, to hold at will, at ferm, to the value of 18l. 5s. 11d. yearly, in part satisfaction of the said 500l., which the king wishes to be allowed to him yearly, until further order, and the king wishes John to be satisfied for the remaining 190l. 5s. 3¾d. and has granted that he shall receive that sum of the issues of the customs in the port of London.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: October 1347’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 8: 1346-1349 (1905), pp. 324-334. URL:;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

April 24 1348
To the collectors of the custom of wool, hides and wool-fells in the port of London. Order to pay to John de Coupeland 95l. 2s. 7¾d. for Easter term last, as in consideration of his service in taking David de Bruys, styling himself king of Scotland, in the battle of Durham, and delivering him to the king, he created John a banneret, and granted to him 500l. to be received yearly, to wit, 400l. of the issues of the customs in that port and 100l. of the issues of the customs of the port of Berwick upon Tweed, until he should provide him with 500l. a year of land or rent, and the king granted to John the manor of Coghull, co. York, a moiety of the manor of Kirkeby in Kendale with its members and other appurtenances in cos. Westmorland and Cumberland, and a moiety of the manor of Ulreston, co. Lancaster, which belonged to William de Coucy, and escheated to the king after his death, to the value of 231l. 8s. 9¼d. yearly, at which they are extended, in part satisfaction of the 500l., saving to the king the park and separable wood above le Bradewode, the wood below the island of Wynandermere, a moiety of the wood called ‘Richemerfeld,’ the wood of Crosthwayt called ‘Brendewod’ and the wood of Aynerholm, and the knights’ fees and advowsons pertaining to the said manor and moieties, until further order, and the king also granted to John the manors of Morholm, Warton, Carneford and Lyndeheved, co. Lancaster, which belonged to the said William and escheated to the king, to hold at will, at ferm, to the value of 78l. 5s. 11d. yearly, which the king wishes to be allowed to him yearly in part satisfaction of the 500l. until further order, and wishing to satisfy John for the remaining 190l. 5s. 3¾d. the king granted that he should receive that sum of the issues of the customs in the port of London.
To the collectors of customs in the port of Newcastle upon Tyne. Order to pay to John de Coupeland or to his attorney 50l. for Easter term last, in accordance with the king’s grant to him of 100l. for his good service with twenty men at arms, of 100l. to be received yearly for life of the issues of the customs in that port.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: April 1348’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 8: 1346-1349 (1905), pp. 441-454. URL:;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

July 26 1348
To the collectors in co. York of the aid of 40s. for making the king’s son a knight. Order to supersede until the quinzaine of Martinmas next the demand made upon John de Coupeland by reason of the manor of Coghull in that county, so that after deliberation thereupon the king may cause justice to be done, as on 10 August last the king granted the said manor to John with certain other lands in cos. Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancaster, which belonged to William de Coucy and escheated to the king at his death, to the value of 231l. 8s. 9¼d. at which they were extended, in part satisfaction of 500l. of land and rent granted to him by the king, and John has besought the king to order the demand made upon him for the aid by reason of the said lands to be superseded, as they were in the king’s hand at the time when the aid was granted, and the king wishes to be more fully informed upon the premises. By C.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: August 1348’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 8: 1346-1349 (1905), pp. 552-556. URL:;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

Further mention of the Manor of Coghull in 1350:

April 15 1350
To the fermors of the customs and subsidies due in all the ports of England, or to their mainpernors or their attorneys in the port of London. Order to pay to John de Coupeland 295l. 7s. 11d. for Easter, Michaelmas and Easter terms last, as in consideration of his service in war and of his vigorous action in the battle at Durham, where he took David de Bruys, self styled king of Scotland, and freely delivered him to the king, the king created John a banneret and to maintain that estate granted to him 500l. to be received yearly, to wit, 400l. of the issues of the customs in that port and 100l. of the issues of the customs in the port of Berwick upon Tweed; and the king granted to him the manor of Coghull, co. York and a moiety of the manor of Kirkeby in Kendale with its members and other appurtenances in cos. Westmorland and Cumberland, and a moiety of the manor of Ulreston, co. Lancaster, which belonged to William de Coucy and came into the king’s hand as escheats after his death, to the yearly value of 231l. 8s. 9¼d. at which they are extended, in part satisfaction of the said 500l., saving to the king the park and separable wood upon le Bradewode, the wood in the island of Wynandermere, a moiety of the wood called ‘Richemerfeld,’ of the wood of Crosthwayt called ‘Brondewode,’ and of the wood of Aynerholm, and the knights’ fees and advowsons pertaining to the said manor and moieties; and the king also granted to John the manors of Morholm, Warton, Carneford and Lyndeheved with appurtenances, in co. Lancaster, which belonged to the said William and escheated to the king, to hold at ferm at the king’s will, to the value of 78l. 5s. 11d. yearly, in part satisfaction of the 500l., and the king wishing John to be satisfied for the remaining 190l. 5s. 3¾d., granted that he should receive that sum yearly of the issues of the customs in the port of London, until the king should provide him with 190l. 5s. 3¾d. of land and rent yearly, in full satisfaction of the 500l.
To the fermors of the customs and subsidies in all the ports of England or to their mainpernors or to their attorneys in the port of Newcastle upon Tyne. Order to pay to John de Coupeland 150l. for Easter, Michaelmas and Easter terms last, in accordance with the king’s grant to him on 20 January in the 20th year of the reign, for his good service and for his stay with the king with twenty men at arms, of 100l. to be received yearly for life of the issues of the customs in that port.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: May 1350’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 9: 1349-1354 (1906), pp. 175-183. URL:;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

Further mention of the Manor of Coghull in 1352:

June 28 1352
To William Basset, Thomas de Fencotes, Thomas de Seton and Roger de Blaykeston, justices of assize in the county of York. John de Malghum has besought the king to provide a remedy, as he lately arramed an assize of novel disseisin before the said William, Roger and Thomas de Fencotes, then justices of assize in that county, against William de Coucy and William de Wasshyngton and others contained in the original writ, concerning tenements in Thorneton in Lonesdale, complaining that he had been disseised of 16 messuages, a mill, 8 bovates and 60 acres of land, 80 acres of meadow and 12d. rent with appurtenances, which assize was discontinued by the death of William de Coucy; and John afterwards arramed another assize against John de Coupeland and the said William de Wasshyngton concerning those tenements, which remains to be taken before the said justices; and John de Coupeland as tenant of those tenements, pleading in that assize, alleged that the tenements were the manor of Coghull, and the king had granted that manor to him by charter, together with certain other lands which belonged to William de Coucy, and asserting that he ought not to answer John de Malghum thereupon without the king, upon which pretext the justices have hitherto delayed to take the said assize; the king therefore orders the justices, if such process has been taken and that John de Malghum arramed the first assize as aforesaid, then to proceed to take the assize now pending before them concerning the said tenements, notwithstanding the said allegation, so that they do not proceed to judgment without consulting the king. By p.s

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: July 1352’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 9: 1349-1354 (1906), pp. 432-438. URL:;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

Further mention of the Manor of Coghill in 1354:

April 20 1354
To the collectors of the custom of wool, hides and wool-fells in the port of London. Order to pay to John de Coupeland or to Robert Wendout his attorney 95l. 2s. 7½d. for Easter term last, as in consideration of his action at the battle of Durham, where he took David de Bruys, self-styled king of Scotland, and delivered him to the king, he created John a banneret and granted him and his heirs 500l. to be received yearly to maintain that estate, to wit, 400l. of the issues of the customs in that port and 100l. of the issues of the customs in the port of Berwick-upon-Tweed, until the king should provide him with 500l. of land or rent yearly, and to give effect to that grant the king gave him the manor of Coghull co. York, a moiety of the manor of Kirkeby in Kendale with its members and appurtenances in Westmorland and Cumberland, and a moiety of the manor of Ulreston co. Lancaster, which belonged to William de Coucy, and escheated to the king after his death, to the yearly value of 231l. 8s. 9¼d. in part satisfaction of the 500l. of land and rent, saving to the king the park and several wood upon le Bradewode, the wood in the island of Wynandermere, a moiety of the wood called Richemerfeld, of the wood of Crosthwayt called Brendewode, and of the wood of Aynerholm, and the knights’ fees and advowsons pertaining to the said manor and moieties, until further order, and the king granted to John the manors of Morholm, Warton, Carneford and Lyndeheved co. Lancaster, which belonged to the said William and escheated to the king after his death, to hold at will, at ferm, to the value of 78l. 5s. 11d. yearly, in part satisfaction of the 500l. of land and rent, and the king has granted that John shall receive the remaining 190l. 5s. 3¾d. of the issues of the customs in the port of London.
To the collectors of customs in the port of Newcastle upon Tyne. Order to pay to John de Coupeland 50l. for Easter term last, in accordance with the king’s grant to him on 20 January in the 20th year of the reign for his stay with the king with twenty men at arms, of 100l. to be received yearly for life of the issues of the customs in that port.
To the sheriff of York. Order to pay to Walter Whithors, the king’s yeoman, what is in arrear to him from 15 May in the 17th year of the reign of such wages as Hugh Treganoun deceased used to receive for the custody of the water of Fosse, and to pay him such wages henceforth, as on the said day the king granted that custody to Walter to hold for life, in the same manner as Hugh held it, receiving the like wages.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: May-July 1354’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 10: 1354-1360 (1908), pp. 15-29. URL:;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

Further mention of the Manor of Coghill in 1364:

April 12 1364.
To William de Reygate escheator in Yorkshire. Order not to meddle further [with] certain tenements in Thornton in Lonesdale, taken into the king’s hand by the death of Mariota daughter of Robert son of Gregory de Burton, and by reason of the fees which were of William de Coucy in Yorkshire and are in the king’s hand, delivering up any issues thereof taken; as the king has learned by inquisition, taken by the escheator, that Mariota, who died on 3 December in the 36th year of the reign, at her death held the premises to herself and her heirs as of the manor of Coghill as of the fees aforesaid by knight service and by the service of 12d. a year, and that William de Burton her cousin is her next heir and of full age; and on 21 May in the 29th year of the reign the king granted the said manor to John de Coupland (now deceased) and Joan his wife (yet living) for the life of either of them, together with the knights’ fees thereto belonging.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: April 1364’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 12: 1364-1369 (1910), pp. 6-11. URL:;strquery=coghill Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

Followed in May the same year by:

May 9th 1364
Indenture made between Sir Ingelram lord of Coucy and Joan who was wife of John de Coupeland whereby, in presence of William de Wykeham keeper of the privy seal and others of the council, acknowledging her estate to be for term of her life in the manor of Coghull co. York, a moiety of the manor of Kirkeby in Kendale with its members in Westmorland and Cumberland, a moiety of the manor of Ulreston, the manors of Mourholm, Warton, Kerneford and Lyndheved co. Lancaster to her granted by charter of the king with the fees, advowsons etc. thereto pertaining, and power for her, her assigns and tenants, to take of the parks and woods thereof for building, burning, making and enclosing parks and hays, ‘housebote and hayebote’ and other needs without impeachment of waste, provided only that they may not give or sell the same or any parcel thereof or trees growing therein, and acknowledging likewise her estate to be for life in all the lands which were of Sir Robert de Coucy in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Westmorland, the fees and advowsons excepted, and which she holds by another charter of the king, rendering to him 100 marks a year at Easter and Michaelmas by even portions, which yearly sum, fees and advowsons the king has by charter granted to Sir Ingelram and his heirs for ever, and by the same charter has granted to him and his heirs the reversion of the manors, moieties and lands with the appurtenances aforesaid after her death, the said Joan attorns tenant to Sir Ingelram for the manors, moieties and lands aforesaid, as heretofore to the king, and has done fealty, saving always her estate aforesaid; and for this attornment Sir Ingelram confirms the premises to her for life with warranty thereof, to hold of him and his heirs, rendering to them 100 marks a year, and grants that she and her heirs shall not be impeached for waste but only for gift or sale as aforesaid, the said Joan promising to sue to the profit of Sir Ingelram any others who shall make waste in the said parks, saving to her reasonable costs in such suit. One part remaining with the king sealed by both parties, another with Sir Ingelram sealed by Joan, the third remaining with Joan sealed by Sir Ingelram. Dated London, Monday before Whitsuntide 38 Edward III. French.
Memorandum of acknowledgment by the parties, 9 May, in the chancery at the Whitefriars (apud mansum fratrum ordinis beate Marie de Monte Carmeli).
Indenture whereby Sir Ingelram lord of Coucy grants that, whereas Joan who was wife of John de Coupeland, by charter of the king made to her said husband and to her, holds for life all the lands that were of Sir Robert de Coucy in Lancashire, Westmorland and Yorkshire, rendering 100 marks a year at Easter and Michaelmas by even portions, which yearly sum with the reversion of the premises has by charter of the king been granted to Sir Ingelram and his heirs for ever, the said terms shall be postponed and changed to Whitsuntide and Martinmas, and Joan or her assigns shall not during her life be compelled nor distrained to pay the same but only at the terms last mentioned; and Joan binds herself to pay the said sum every year at London at Whitsuntide and Martinmas by even portions, provided she or her assigns be not compelled nor distrained to pay at the other terms aforesaid, with power to Sir Ingelram and his heirs to distrain if the same be in arrear at any time. Dated London, Wednesday before Whitsuntide 38 Edward III. French.
Memorandum of acknowledgment by the parties, 9 May (as the last).

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: June 1364’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 12: 1364-1369 (1910), pp. 57-68. URL:;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

Further reference to the Manor of Coggill was made in the Court Rolls of 20th July 1375:

30th July 1375
To John de Sayville escheator in Yorkshire and Westmorland. Order to deliver to Ingelram de Coucy earl of Bedford and Isabel his wife the king’s daughter the manors and moiety hereinafter mentioned, with the knights’ fees, advowsons of churches and other appurtenances, taken into the king’s hand by the death of Joan who was wife of John de Coupland, together with the issues thereof taken since her death; as lately of his favour the king by letters patent granted to the said earl and Isabel and to the heirs of their bodies the remainder of all the manors and lands held for life by the said Joan with remainder to the king, and the knights’ fees, advowsons of churches, hospitals, religious houses, vicarages and chapels, the parks, forests, chaces, woods, warrens, fisheries, moors, marshes, turbaries, meadows, feedings, pastures, services of tenants free and neif, liberties, escheats, wards, marriages, reliefs, commodities, profits etc. thereto belonging, which by virtue of the said earl’s charter ought to have remained to the king; and now it is found by inquisition, taken by the escheator at the king’s command, that the said Joan held for life the manors of Thornton, Coggill and Midleton co. York, the manor of Wynandermer with the members and appurtenances, namely the hamlets of Lageden, Loghrygge, Grysmer, Hamelsate, Troutebek, Appilthwayt, Crosthwayt, Strikelandkell and Hoton, the manor of Castirton and a moiety of the manor of Kyrkeby Kendale co. Westmorland, with remainder as aforesaid, and that the manors of Wynandermer and Castirton and the said moiety with the members are held in chief by the service of the moiety of one fee of barony (unius feodi Baronie (fn. 1) ), the other manors of others than the king; and the king has of his favour respited the homage and fealty of the said earl, who is dwelling over sea with the king’s licence, until his return to England. By K.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: July 1375’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 14: 1374-1377 (1913), pp. 141-154. URL:;strquery=coggill Date accessed: 02 October 2013.


John Coghill began the Irish Coghill line when he became Lord Chief Justice of Ireland in 1699.  he had been educated at Magdalen Hall, oxford:

Coghill, John gent. Magdalen Hall, matric. 10 March, 1656-7, bar.-at-law, Gray’s Inn, 1661, as of Coghill Hall, Yorks, gent.

See Foster’s Judges and Barristers. From: ‘Chocke-Colepeper’, Alumni Oxonienses 1500-1714 (1891), pp. 274-303. URL:;strquery=&quot;coghill hall&quot; Date accessed: 02 October 2013.


The Coghill family are since the mid Eighteenth Century really Cramer (Parliamentary Rolls of 1756-7):

Cramer, Leave for a Bill to take the Name of Coghill:
Upon reading the Petition of Oliver Cramer Esquire, praying Leave to bring in a Bill to enable him and the Heirs of his Body to take and use the Surname of Coghill, and to bear the Family Arms of Coghill:
It is Ordered, That Leave be given to bring in a Bill, according to the Prayer of the said Petition.
Bill read.
Accordingly, the Lord Willoughby of Parham presented to the House a Bill, intituled, “An Act to enable Oliver Cramer Esquire and the Heirs of his Body to take and use the Surname of Coghill, pursuant to the Will of Marmaduke Coghill Esquire, deceased; and to bear the Family Arms of Coghill.”

From: ‘House of Lords Journal Volume 29: December 1756, 11-20’, Journal of the House of Lords volume 29: 1756-1760 (1767-1830), pp. 12-20. URL:;strquery=coghill Date accessed: 02 October 2013.