STANDISH OF DUXBURY
6.1. Alexander Standish[10A1]
6.1. (40) AS 1623: Inquisition post mortem
Helen Moorwood 2013
N.B. By clicking on the coloured title you can return to the original articles written in early 2004 and placed by Peter Duxbury on A Duxbury Family Website in March 2004, where it still is, under:
N.B. Most of this still stands, but where appropriate the 2004 version is now updated below by interspersed commentary in square brackets and italics. Some reformatting was necessary, and the occasional typo – whether by Peter or myself - has been silently corrected. Asap a shorter narrative version of his biography will appear, based, of course, on all details and documents in this file. Meanwhile, this is part (40) of (1) to (45) AS. [2013 HM]
Lancashire Inquisitions, Lancashire and Cheshire Record Society, Vol. xxiv, No. 56, pp. 397-400
N.B. 1. These investigations and resulting documents were a leftover from a medieval form of death duties. All was to do with money and taxes, of course, but today they are most valuable as a record of the precise holdings of many individuals and a list of their friends or tenants, or whoever else might have been called in by the escheator, the equivalent of today’s Tax Inspector. One finds a varying number of ‘jurors’, as the friends or tenants were called as they all had to swear an oath, but usually somewhere between twelve and twenty-four. Alexander had twenty-four, the first an ‘Esquire’ and all the rest ‘gentlemen’.
N.B. 2. One main reason for including the full text here is to present the number of acres, manors and mills owned by AS in 1622/3, to allow a comparison with the number of the same claimed by Alexander[meanwhile identified as Alexander[11A4]] via lawyer Edward May in 1655. Anyone mathematically minded will be able to work out that the totals in this 1623 Inquisition post mortem and the claim in 1655 add up to more or less the same numbers although not in exactly the same places.
N.B. 3. Some of the most fascinating details in the text lie in the names of the jurors. Three of these were Sum(p)ners, which led to my conclusion long ago that these might well have been relatives of the Sumners of Croston, connected to Captain Myles’s small inheritance there, and perhaps associated in some way with Myles’s first wife Rose. I even made so bold as to propose in one of my articles that, in the absence of any other candidate, and in the light of the family tradition that she was from the Isle of Man, then she might well have been Rose Sumner of the Isle of Man in Croston. I might be completely wrong, of course, but there were certainly no Roses on the large Manx Isle at the time (Kissack), there were certainly Sumners galore in Croston and neighbouring townships at the time (Croston Parish Registers), and there were certainly Sumners in the vicinity of the Isle of Man, Croston during generations before and after this (L.R.O. DDHe - the Hesketh papers). The Standishes had certainly owned lands in Croston on and off over the centuries (Farrer; Standish of Duxbury MSS), and AS certainly had three Sumner friends or tenants in 1623.
N.B. 4. Spellings and italics are reproduced sic from the published version, which is a translation from the original Latin. Underlinings are of the most significant names commented on below.
Alexander Standish, of Duxbury, Esquire
Inquisition taken at Chorley, 11 Sept. 21 James (1623) before Edward Rigby, Esq., Escheator, after the death of Alexander Standish, of Duxbury, Esq., by the oath of Thomas Worthington, of Worthington Esq., Thomas Worthington, of Cromshaw [?], James Whithalgh, John Smith, Thurstan Standishe, Hugh Tootell, William Tootell, Richard Prescott, Thomas Wasley, James Wilkinson, Ellis Sumpner, George Harwood, John Whittle, John Withnell, Thomas Nightgall, James Sumpner, William Haukeshead, Thomas Woodcocke, Miles Sumpner, Richard S . . . dley, Thomas Lowe, George Browne, Richard Lassell, and William Worthington, gentlemen, who say that Alexander Standish long before his death was seised in his demesne as of fee of the manor of Duxbury; and of 13 messuages, 13 gardens, 1 water-mill, 200 acres of land, 50 acres of meadow, 150 acres of pasture, 12 acres of wood, 20 acres of moor, and 12s. free rent in Duxbury; and of the manor of Heapey, and 28 messuages, 28 gardens, 1 water-mill, 400 acres of land, 60 acres of meadow, 240 acres of pasture, 4 acres of wood, 200 acres of furze and heath, 100 acres of moor, and 14d. free rent in Heapey; and of the tithes of sheaves and grain yearly growing in Heapey; and of the manor of Whittle in le Woodes; and of 20 messuages, 20 gardens, 1 water-mill, 200 acres of land, 40 acres of meadow, 100 acres of pasture, 1 acre of wood, 12 acres of moor and 30s. free rent in Whittle in le Woodes; and of the manor of Heath Charnocke, and 12 messuages, 12 gardens, 160 acres of land, 40 acres of meadow, 100 acres of pasture, 12 acres of wood, 30 acres of moor and 27s. free rent in Heath Charnocke. The said Alexander Standish was also seised as of fee of the reversion of the manor of Anlezargh, and of the reversion of 12 messuages, 12 gardens, 1 water-mill, 240 acres of land, 30 acres of meadow, 130 acres of pasture, 8 acres of wood, 500 acres of furze and heath, 200 acres of moor, 100 acres of marsh, and 3s. free rent in Anlezargh, after the death of Alice Countess of Derby , who holds the said manor and other the premises in Anlezargh for life; the said Countess is yet living at Anlezargh. And the said Alexander Standish was also seised in fee of 1 messuage, 1 garden, 6 acres of land, 3 acres of meadow, 7 acres of pasture, and 5 acres of moor in Standishe; 1 messuage, 1 garden, 30 acres of land, 5 acres of meadow, 15 acres of pasture, 2 acres of wood, 12 acres of moor in Worthington; and 1 messuage, 1 garden, 20 acres of land, 3 acres of meadow, 20 acres of pasture, 2 acres of wood, and 15 acres of moor in Langtree; and 3 messuages, 3 gardens, 6 acres of land, 2 acres of meadow, 12 acres of pasture, and 5 acres of moor in the town of Lancaster; and 3 messuages, 3 gardens, 8 acres of land, 2 acres of meadow, 10 acres of pasture, and 6 acres of moor in Scotforth; and 1 messuage, 1 garden, 6 acres of land, 1 acre of meadow, 9 acres of pasture, and 3 acres of moor in Burrowe; and 2 messuages, 2 gardens, 10 acres of land, 2 acres of meadow, and 8 acres of pasture in Longton; and 2 messuages, 12 gardens, 80 acres of land, 10 acres of meadow, and 30 acres of pasture in Gousenargh; and 1 messuage, 1 garden, and 3 acres of land in Chorley.
Being so seised, 31 March, 20 James , he made his Will, whereby he gave the premises in Standishe, Langtree, and Worthington by the name of the capital messuage called “Bradlehall,” and all his hereditaments thereto belonging, and all his hereditaments in Standishe, Langtree, and Worthington to Thomas Standishe, then his son and heir apparent, and his (Thomas’) assigns for the term of his life; and after his decease, to one Anne Standishe, lately deceased, then wife of the said Thomas, for her life; and after her decease, to the heirs male of the body of the said Thomas Standishe; and in default, to the heirs male of the body of himself the said Alexander Standishe; and in default, to the right heirs of himself the said Alexander Standishe for ever. And further, by the same Will he gave all the said premises in Duxbury, Heapey, Whittle in le Woodes, Anlezargh, Heath Charnocke (except 1 messuage and 8 acres of land in Heath Charnocke lately purchased by him of Thomas Broadhurst, clerk) to the said Thomas Standishe and his heirs male; and in default, to the heirs male of the body of himself (Alexander); and in default, to his right heirs for ever. And further, he gave the premises in Scotforth, Burrowe, Lancaster, Langton and Goosenargh, and also the tenements in Heath Charnocke (before excepted) to Christopher Bannastre, of Gray’s Inn, in the county of Middlesex, Esq., and Thomas Sergeant, of Newton, in the county of Lancaster, gentleman, and their heirs. And he gave to Richard Standishe, Ralph Standishe, and Alexander Standishe, his younger sons, and to each of them for the term of their lives, a yearly rent of £33 : 6 : 8, issuing from the premises in Heapey, Whittle in le Woodes, Heath Charnocke, and Anglezargh (except 36 acres of land in Heapey, formerly in the tenures of James Abbott and Thomas Prescott; 35 acres of land formerly in the tenure of Ralph Leyland; 50 acres of enclosed land of the waste of the manor of Whittle; 8 acres of land purchased of the said Thomas Broadhurst; and except 30 acres of land in Heath Charnocke, formerly in the occupation of one George Croston), to be paid to the said Richard , Ralph , and Alexander [the younger] as therein expressed, as by the said Will, shown to the Jurors in evidence, more fully appears.
Alexander Standish, being so seised, died 18 June, 20 James , after whose death the said Thomas Standishe was seised of the premises so given to him, as required by law. The said Christopher Bannestre and Thomas Sergeant likewise after the death of the said Alexander were seised of the premises so given to them, as required by law.
The manor of Duxbury, and all other the premises in Duxbury are worth per ann. (clear) £5, but of whom they are held the Jurors know not. The manor of Heapey and all other the premises in Heapey (except tithes) are held of the King, as of his Duchy of Lancaster, by knight’s service, but by what part of a knight’s fee the Jurors know not, and are worth per ann. (clear) £6 : 13 : 4. The said tithes of sheaves are worth per ann. (clear) 3s. 4d., but of whom they are held the Jurors know not. The manor and all other the premises in Whittle in le Woodes are held of the King, as of his Duchy of Lancaster, by knight’s service, but by what part of a knight’s fee the Jurors know not, and they are worth per ann. (clear) 40s. The manor and all other the premises in Heath Charnocke are held of the King, as of his Duchy of Lancaster, but by what part of a knight’s fee the Jurors know not, and they are worth (except the tenement purchased of Thomas Broadhurst, which is worth yearly 6 pence) per ann. (clear) 40s. The manor and all other the premises in Anlezargh are worth per ann. (clear) 33s. 4d. The messuages, lands, and other the premises in Langtree are worth per ann. (clear) 30s. 4d. Of whom these are respectively held the Jurors know not. The messuage, lands, and other the premises in the town of Lancaster are held of the King in free and common burgage by fealty only, and are worth per ann. (clear) 3s. 4d. The messuages, lands, and other the premises in Burrowe are worth per ann. (clear) 2s. The messuages, lands, and other the premises in Longton are worth per ann. (clear) 6s. 8d. The messuages, lands, and other the premises in Goosenargh are worth per ann. (clear) 26s. 8d. The premises in Chorley are worth per ann. (clear) 6d. Of whom these respectively are held the Jurors know not.
Thomas Standishe is the son and heir of Alexander Standish, and is aged at the time of taking this Inquisition 29 years and more. Christopher Bannestre and Thomas Sargant have occupied all the premises so devised to them as aforesaid, and have received the issues and profits thereof from the time of the death of the said Alexander up to the day of taking this Inquisition. Thomas Standish has occupied the residue of the manors, lands, and premises, and has taken the issues and profits of the same for the same length of time.
[The real ‘stunner’ here was the section in bold (my bold) concerning Countess Alice, widow of Ferdinando, 5th Earl of Derby (d. 1594) and meanwhile widow (since 1617) of Sir Thomas Egerton, 1st Viscount Brackley, Lord Ellesmere, Elizabeth’s and James’s Lord Chancellor for many years. It is absolutely clear that she was living there in 1623, a year after AS’s death. This has never entered into any previous biography of her. The implications of this are still being researched. 2013 HM]