Some connections to the Pigott name

In belated response to some comments:

 Sir Thomas Colclough’s daughter  Martha, married John Pigott  eldest son of Sir Robert Pigott of the Dysert, Queens County, Knight she had  issue.

So the Pigott name remains close to Colcough in 1684 Sir Caesar Colclough of Tintern Abbey, third and last Baronet of this family who died unmarried at Tintern September 22nd  1687 (no will proved or administration, obtained in Ireland). He was succeeded in his estates by his sister, in 1687 Margaret Colclough, who became heiress to his fortune. She married, 1st marriage licence, Ferns 2nd October 1673, Robert Leigh of Ballybrittas alias Rosegarland Co. Wexford Esq., and afterwards of Tintern in right of his wife. He took the name of Colclough, and dying without issue, May 1695. Margaret Leigh Colclough married secondly 1696, as second wife to her cousin Councillor John Pigott of Kilfenney, Co Limerick, who also assumed the name of Colclough. He died 8th May 1717 and was buried in Saint Paul’s in Dublin where a Tablet erected to his memory by his widow may yet be seen. His will was proved 7th June 1717.   Margaret Pigott Colclough died without issue the 23rd April 1723. Her will was proved in Dublin 2nd June 1723, and she was succeeded in the Manor of Tintern by her cousin and male heir Caesar Colclough of Duffry  Hall Co. Wexford, (Col Caesar)

All the above is taken from Beauchamp Colclough’s documents discovered by Bernard Colclough and collated by Gay Conroy.

Easter

Happy Easter.
Last time I had some thoughts on documents, their availability and their purpose. For the Colclough family there were not inconsiderable lands, prestige and dare I say it money! Proving lineage was of great profit potentially. Thus family trees produced by both Patrick Sarsfield and the defence are valuable sources, as are letters produced in the Rossborough Colclough efforts. Hore's four volumes use primary sources it seems. The papers discovered by my mighty Uncle Bernie in Dublin written or rather collated by Beauchamp Colclough give a fascinatng insight into early mid Victorian morality and politics, the undercurrent of all the landed Wexford Colclough's spreading their largesse and genes among the locals could be turned into a film, a film which would certainly have been banned in 1940's, 50's, 60's or 70's Ireland on the sayso of the Dublin castle bishops.
John

underway again

I have been neglecting my blog, so to reinvigorate it and me, here I go again. I think our names are our memories, fundamental to who we are, is that stating the obvious? So my mother and father married, a Kelly to a Colclough, tradition has it that the eight of us, the product of that union are, were Colclough's, the two girls are now a Webb and a Kinder their children are diversifying there is aready an Ellison, a name appearing in my nineteenth century Colclough documents. Tradition gives me my name, but names as I noted are what we are, our identity, it doesn't seem a great leap to move from say: John son of John, to John son of John from Stafford, to John son of John with red hair from Stafford, to want to create a short hand and a surname in English. The ancient languages are better adapted to lineage, witness 'Mac' 'O' 'Ap' etc. Part of my fascination is where Colclough which you might see as 'col-cluff' is really 'coke-lee'.
     How to find out?
The requirements of the industrial age, increasing populations, taxation, wars and the general need for order means that births, deaths and marriages have been recorded for almost everyone for 150 years. So as the digital age matures and the Irish diaspora searches, more records are becoming available, I can find good information on my Logue, Kelly and Arrigan ancestors and relations but looking much earlier than 1800 is difficult, things like the hearth tax and flax growers lists help but can be arcane.
Looking at my Colclough ancestors is a little easier now I know where to look. It's easier because documents exist. Documents are available from Tudor times because Colclough's had land, land meant manpower, meant money, meant influence, meant power. Preserving all this needed provenance from the dead, but also needed continuity and heirs from the living.
The interest in this blog shows the exponential nature of families, over 4000 page views, views from over 20 countries and from every continent, all Colclough's? It's a source of amazement to me...
Get in touch if you can, if you want to...

More to follow, more history too.
John

Some more offerings

A few more offerings to peruse, and because this is done through the ubiquitous 'Google' I thought I would try a Colclough Family community in 'Google' which in a flash of inspiration (notwithstanding this centenary year of Dylan Thomas' birth) I have called the...
Colclough Family



From original letter, Sarsfield Colclough to the Beauchamp Henry Colclough...
       Castlelawn Douglas, September 24, 1851.   
My dear Beauchamp,                                   
I received your letter and lose no post in answering it. I give you an extract out of a pedigree I have of our family, and will add a few remarks of my own.  “Henry, (your great great grandfather) married Margaret daughter of John Beauchamp of Ballyloughan, Co.Carlow Esq., subsequently, wife of Caleb Barns, Co.Carlow, her third Husband. She was sister of Mr. James Harvey of Killane Castle, Co. Wexford, and of Mr Walter Bagenal of Dunleckney, Co. Carlow. She had 4 sons and 1 daughter. 1st Dudley, died unmarried, 2nd Beauchamp married Bridget Mc Carty, and had 2 sons and 1 daughter, 1st Henry married Anne and 2nd Beauchamp married Catherine, Daughters of Crawford Esq. and nieces of Lord Dorchester. Henry’s other 2 sons were Patrick and Caesar.”  There appears a kind of contradiction about your great-great grandmother. She is in the first place stated to be Miss Beauchamp of Ballyloughan, 2nd to be sister of Mr. James Harvey of Killane Castle, and 3rd of Walter Bagenal. That she was and that nearly related to them all I have no doubt, and believe her maiden name was Beauchamp, that she was married three times also- 1st Henry Colclough, 2nd Coll . Harman, 3rd Caleb Barns. That she was nearly connected with Harvey I know from this reason your grandfather's brother Henry got some property somehow I don't know how, but he had to divide it with some of the Harveys, also that she was closely connected with the Bagenals for my Father in law and the late Beauchamp Bagenal were I believe first cousins, but by the above I think you can ascertain what you wish to know. Xxx  I know of no other way any of the Colclough family were connected with the Beauchamps, and it is by your branch of the family the connection arose, yours still retaining the name. If this is not sufficiently clear, let me know and if I can make it more so I will. The girls not at home, at Col. Cox’s.                               
  Yours very sincerely,  Sarsfield Colclough.
 P.S.  It strikes me, Mr. John Beauchamp had two other daughters beside Margaret, one married to Walter Bagenal, and the other to James Harvey, Esq., both brothers in Law to Margaret wife of Henry Colclough, a younger brother of Col.Caesar Colclough of Duffry Hall - she married Henry Colclough in 1729, and I believe was alive as Mrs Barnes up to about the year 90.  I hope you are progressing favourably, and successfully.                 
Sarsfield Colclough. Beauchamp Colclough Esq.  Care of Captain Colclough, County Inspector, Wexford.
Note (1870's by BHC) JC 2014: Margaret Beauchamp was only married twice: 1st to Caleb Barns and 2nd to Henry Colclough, after whose death, and with the object as I suppose of distinguishing her from her daughter in law Mrs. Beauchamp Colclough of Bohermore, she was known in the family as Mrs Barnes, hence the mistake as to her. I think her son Bartholomew Barnes married a daughter of Colonel W. Harman. 



 Leading order of 31st January, 1852, for trial of issue.   Lord Chancellor.
Between John Thomas Rossborough and Mary Grey Wentworth Rossborough his wife.   Plaintiffs. and Thomas Boyse and Jane Stratford Boyse otherwise Colclough, his wife, Defendants.
This cause coming on, on the 13th day of January 1852, and this present day to be heard and debated before the Right Honourable Lord High Chancellor of Ireland in the presence of Counsel learned on both sides, and the pleadings in the cause being opened, upon debate of the matter, and hearing the original will of Caesar Colclough, bearing date 6th day of August 1842 (Depositions of sundry witnesses).  The wills of said Caesar Colclough bearing date 5th August 1842  and the 8th of July 1824. (Depositions of sundry witnesses) and what was alleged by the Counsel on both sides, (and the  defendants Counsel not objecting)  His Lordship doth order, that the said parties do proceed to a trial at law, and accordingly that a writ of summons pursuant to the provision of the Act 8th and 9th Victoria, entitled, “An Act to amend the law concurring Gaming and Wagers “ be sued out of one of the Courts of law in Ireland, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, to which the defendants at law are forthwith to appear gratis and admit all matters of form, so that the parties do proceed to a trial by a special jury of the County of Wexford at the next Summer Assizes, to which end the Sheriff of said County of Wexford is forthwith to lay before Edward Litton Esq., the Master of this Court in rotation, the Grand Panel of the said County, and he is therefore to name 48 and thereupon each party, plaintiffs and Dependents, are to be at liberty to strike out 12, and the remaining 24 are to be the jury upon the trial of the following issue, namely, whether the paper writing in the pleading mentioned, bearing date of the 6th August 1842, is or not the last will and testament of Caesar Colclough deceased in the pleadings named, and it is further ordered that the defendants in this cause be plaintiffs at Law, and the plaintiffs in this cause be defendants at Law, and that depositions of any witnesses examined in this cause who shall on such trial be proved to be dead or unable to attend to be examined, be read at the trial, and it is further ordered that the judge before whom such trial shall be had, is to certify to this Court the verdict which shall be had upon such issue, and on the return of the judges certificate, such order shall be made as shall be just.   
  (Signed)  1st June 1852 H. Sugden A.R. 

Extracted from “The Wexford Independent” July 10th, 1852.    
Great Will Case, Record Court, Wexford. July 1st.  The Court opened shortly after 10 o'clock before Baron Penefather, when the important case of Boyse v Rossborough was called on. This great and important trial was a subject of intense interest in the County, and during the five days that it lasted (from Thursday morning to Tuesday evening) the Court was crowded to excess in every part, including the gallery, which was set apart for the exclusive accommodation of Ladies, and was fully occupied on each day by the female rank and fashion of town and county. The case was an issue from the high Court of Chancery, to try whether “the paper writing bearing date 6th August, 1842, is the last will and testament of Caesar Colclough” and the following special jury was impannelled to try the case. John Colly Pounder, Foreman, Richard Owen, Solomon Richards, William Toole, Edward Turner, William Bolton Jr, Robert Tyndall, Robert Doyne, Loftus A Brogan, Henry H Jones, John Whitney, and Henry Bolton Esqs.   The property staked on the issue of the trial was very large, the rental of the estate so stated by the agent being £7000 a year, besides which the personal property in estimated to be worth £4000 to £5000 more per annum. Mr. Lawson opened the pleadings for the Plaintiff. Mr. Brewster followed on the same side, and the examination and cross examination of witnesses for Plaintiff having closed. The Solicitor General (Mr.Whiteside) addressed the Court on behalf of the Defence and the examination and cross examination of witnesses for the defence having closed, and Mr. Martley having been heard in reply, his Lordship proceeded to charge the jury  “The jury retired, and after remaining in deliberation for about two hours returned a verdict for the defendant with costs thus invalidating the Will, and transferring the Colclough Estates to heir at law.  Counsel for Plaintiff,  Brewster Q.C. Martley Q.C. Lawson, Penefather, and Reeves. For defendants, the Solicitor General, Rolleston Q.C. Lynch Q.C. Armstrong, and Ryan.

Warrant, page 180. By the Lord Lt.General and General Governor of Ireland. 
St. Germains.
In pursuance of HM letter bearing date the 3rd June 1853, these are to direct and require you to register and record in your office, HM’s  Royal Licence and Authority unto John Thomas Rossborough of Tintern Abbey in the Co of Wexford Esqr., and Mary Grey Wentworth, his wife, that they and their issue may take the name of Colclough, in addition to, and after that of Rossborough, and bear the Arms of Colclough in the first quarter of their Armorial Bearings. Provided that H Majesty's concession and declaration be recorded in the Office of Ulster King of Arms in Ireland, to the end etc.,   Given at H Majesty Castle of Dublin this 13th of June 1853.  By her Excellency’s Commission.        
 Signed,  Larcom. To Ulster King of Arms in Ireland. 
 
Grant Book E.  page 430      
 To all and singular to whom these presents shall come, I Sir William Betham, Knight attendant on the Most Illustrious order of St. Patrick, Ulster King of Arms, and
principal Herald of all Ireland, send greetings,  Whereas, (Recites Queen’s Letter 3rd June, inst. and his Excellency’s Warrant 13th June, inst.)  Know ye that I the said Ulster King of Arms, in obedience to said Warrant, have caused the said Royal Licence to be Registered and recorded in my Office accordingly, and by the authority to me given by H Majesty's Royal Letters Patent, under the Great Seal of Ireland, and by authority of the same, do by these presents grant ratify exemplify and confirm to the said John Thomas Rossborough and Mary Grey Wentworth Rossborough his wife, now John Thomas Rossborough Colclough  and Mary Grey Wentworth Rossborough Colclough, and their issue, the Arms following, that is to say,  Quarterly 1st and 4th Argent 5 Eaglets displayed in cross sable, for Colclough, 2nd and 3rd Azure on a Chevron, or, 3 Roses Gules, seeded on barbed vert, for Rossborough, For Crest 1st A Demi Eagle displayed Sable, gorged with a ducal Coronet, or, for Colclough, 2nd on a Dexter Hand in fess, a Dove Close, with a branch of olive in his beak proper, all for Rossborough. For motto---Blank--- The whole as above is more clearly depicted, to be born(e) and used by the said John Thomas Rossborough Colclough, and his said wife and their descendants for ever, according to the laws of Arms without the let, hindrance, molestation or interruption of any person or persons whatsoever.   In witness whereof I have subscribed these presents, and affixed hereto my official Seal this day of June, in the 17th year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lady Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, and so forth in the year of our Lord 1853.        
 W. Betham, Ulster.


Extracted from  original letter Richard A. Colclough to BHC     
 Montgomery, Alabama. February 10th 1854.
My dear Cousin Beauchamp,                            
 Your truly welcome and highly esteemed communication of the 14th of December last reached me a few days since. I assure you it was welcome with heartfelt gratitude, exiled and expatriated from my infancy as I have been from all collateral kindred, and feeling in my present dissolation something akin to the “Poor Sparrow on the House Tops” in perusing the affectionate sentiments yours contained- I welcomed it as the “Cool spring to the thirsty traveller in the desert”.  I may say I have almost lost the last years practice in the time and attention I was compelled to give to my father's family, but I am truly gratified to think that as it never again will be in my power to contribute to the dear departed objects of my love, it was my happy privilege while they were living with me, to be able to provide them with every possible comfort.  You say you are a Canadian- in your next letter will you please state if you are the grandson of Major Beauchamp Colclough who emigrated to Canada, or the son of Henry Colclough his brother. The South Carolina family referred to – the Junior members of it who I have spent some time with, were unable to give me much information respecting their ancestry who emigrated. There was but one, of three brother's living named John, who was the son of a John Colclough who came to this Country shortly after the Revolution. He had a brother named William, who died without issue-this old man possesses some of the family characteristics for eccentricities, is very wealthy, and sometimes very crossy, had three sons, two of whom have died, one named Ashby, and the other, Henry, has a natural son now living, named William. They all insisted that there was no doubt as to my being a near relation of theirs. While I have been writing, I have been several times disturbed by the unwelcome hard fisted Democracy of our land, enquiring after their cases, etc., I trust you will make all due allowances and write me soon- be sure to give me all particulars you have in relation to the Rossborough  Colclough suit, how it progresses etc. Sister Catherine sends her affectionate love to cousin Mary and says she will soon write, and unites with Martha and myself in our most affectionate love to you,                                                               R A Colclough.



Extracted from the Kilkenny Journal February 22nd 1854. Rolls Court Wednesday, Kenny v Colclough, (Patt)
  Mr. Deasy  Q.C. applied on the part of the defendant, that the receiver in this case might be discharged, he having been appointed contrary to good faith, and being an unfit person to fill that office. It appeared that the bill in the case was filed in 1847, for the purpose of raising an annuity of £100 a year, granted to the plaintiff by the  defendant, Patrick Sarsfield Colclough, who was tenant for life of the lands charged with the annuity. It affected only his life estate, and the inheritance subject to that life estate was vested in his son (Adam Vesey Colclough) -no proceedings was taken in the cause until January 1852. When a decree pro confesso was pronounced, and by that decree it was refined to Martin Lyle to appoint a receiver for the payment of the arrears of the annuity then due to the plaintiff, and Mr. William Corbett was appointed receiver after some opposition on the part of the defendant. On the 26th April 1853 the defendant served a notice of motion for his discharge, which appeared to be grounded on his alleged unfitness for the office. The Master of the Rolls then delivered judgment. He said he had no difficulty in refusing the motion with costs. If there was any bad faith in the matter, which he did not believe all the circumstances were within the knowledge of the defendant in the month of September. He was perfectly aware in that month, that Mr. Mooney, his Solicitor, with whom he was in communication, had proposed his own son (Adam) as receiver on the 20th August, and it appeared by his letter of the 20th of September that he knew of the order of the 25th of June for the appointment of the present receiver, yet he now came forward to set aside the appointment as contrary to good faith, though there were, even according to his statement, upwards of two years annuity due to the  plaintiff.  It was as singular a case as ever came before the Court. He did not understand the motion at all.  The foundation of it was to discharge the receiver on the ground that he was not a proper person to be appointed, but Mr. Deasy had prudently and very wisely declined to go into that part of the case. The affidavits in relation to the objection made to the receiver personally were not opened and he was satisfied that they were not opened because they ought not. Mr.Colclough sought to throw the costs on the estate, but he could not do that, for the effect might be to put the amount out of Mr Kenny’s pocket, if Mr. Colclough died before they were paid. He repeated it was a most singular case, Mr Colclough must be labouring under some strange delusion. He changed his Solicitor every day, and probably he would have another tomorrow. If Mr.Ferguson did not consent to take the affidavits off the file, he also might be changed, but parties should recollect that there was such a thing as an action for malicious proceeding, they should consider that before they make such an application. He would discharge the motion with costs.  

Early Colclough - Cokeley

Because my surname is pronounced 'cokely' and by common consent this is the pronunciation of that branch of the family connected to Wexford, here are a few miscellanea...

John

Full text of "The manors of Suffolk; notes on their history and ... WA Copinger.…amongst Abbreviation of pleas in 1292 is a judgement in favour of William de Cokeley on finding that he had not ‘disseised’ … Robert de Ludham ( owner of Cookley Manor noted at least in 1285) for a meesuage  including land, woodland, meadow and pasture…

The History of Framlingham, in the County of Suffolk: Including Brief ... p337. Robert Hawes, Robert Loder

William de Cokeley was anciently owner of Cokeley  in the manor of Framlingham Suffolk.

 

 https://archive.org/stream/cu31924092579550#page/n47/mode/1up   accessed 04/01/14

November 10^th 1389

Grant with the assent of the great council for 800(shillings?) paid for the kings use to John de Hermesthorp one of the chamberlains of the Receipt of the Exchequer, by John bishop of Salisbury, George de Felbrigge knight, Thomas More, clerk, Robert de Asshefeld, Robert Grigge, Thomas de Wroxham and Thomas Fulmere to them their heirs and assigns, of the reversion of the manor of Huntyngfeld Co. Suffolk with the avowances of the priory of Mendham abd the churches of Huntyngfeld and Cokely, Co Suffolk…

  http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/r2v4/body/Richard2vol4page0157.pdf Accessed 04/01/2013.

    'Index of Entries: S', Petitions to the Pope: 1342-1419 (1896), pp. 728-739.

Maximo, Francis de, archdeacon of Suffolk, 294, 303. -, Paulo, Baldwin de, knt., ..... Sterman, William son of William, alias de Cokely, 54. Sternfield, Sternefeld

The under-written clerks. For the office of notary public:—Richard, son of William Lerveton, of Tykhull, in the diocese of York. Stephen de Marthingho, alias de Combemartin, in the diocese of Exeter. Robert de Skipton, in the diocese of York. Roger Fraunceys, of the diocese of Salisbury. Robert de Swalfield, in the diocese of Lincoln. William de Neuton, in the diocese of Lichfield. Robert son of Richard de Torphankere, in the diocese of Lincoln. Nicholas de Wharroum, of Wartre, in the diocese of York. Adam de Hilton, in the diocese of Lichfield. Conrad Trowrede, of Kingston-on-Hull, in the diocese of York. William, son of the late William Sterman, of Walpole, alias de Cokely, in the diocese of Norwich. John Bronclade, of Coliford, in the diocese of Exeter. Geoffrey Jolif, of Canoligi, in the diocese of Exeter. Granted, if they be found sufficient. Avignon, 14 Kal. June. From: 'Volume V: 2 Clement VI', Petitions to the Pope: 1342-1419 (1896), pp. 54-75.

 URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=92355&strquery=de cokely  Date accessed: 05 January 2014.

More research to connect the above with the below, when I get some time...
 

Colclough’s and 14^th 15^th century MP’s in England

Richard Colclough (d. by 1385) of Newcastle-under-Lyme MP 1360

John Colclough d 1420/1

Eldest son of Richard Colclough (d. by 1385) of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and bro. of William (see below). Married  by Easter 1408, Margery ...

Offices Held

Bailiff, Newcastle-under-Lyme Mich. 1377-8, 1379-81; mayor 1384-5, 1386-7, 1388-90, 1394-5, 1400-1, 1402-5, 1406-7, 1408-9, 1410-11.2

 

The Colclough family enjoyed considerable influence in Newcastle under Lyme in Staffordshire  and its environs From the mid 14th century probably before. John’s father represented the borough in the Parliament of 1360, and subsequently held office as both bailiff and mayor. Over the years he established himself as a local landowner of some consequence, for besides acquiring land in Newcastle and the neighbouring village of Wolstanton, he was able to purchase the Staffordshire manor of Hanley from Sir Richard Peshale. However the manor came with litigaon and Sir Richard Peshale's widow.

 John had served his first term as bailiff of Newcastle in 1377, and on at least four occasions over the next ten years he went surety for his successors in office. At some point before October 1379 he took on the lease of additional holdings in Wolstanton, where he appears to have been farming his father’s property as well. In 1380 (while he was again acting as bailiff) he witnessed a deed for the prior of Trentham, who had strong connexions with the borough, and may, indeed, have been his feudal overlord. According to a lawsuit heard many years later, Colclough paid £15 to one of Thomas Lichfield’s receivers at about this time. No other burgess could rival his record of 12 terms as mayor, which were served over a period of 27 years. His two returns to Parliament were both made when he was in office; and on each occasion he sat with his younger brother, William, whom he engaged in 1393 to be his attorney in his lawsuit with Joan Peshale )see above), and who eventually made him his executor. Even when he was not acting in an official capacity, Colclough played a prominent part in municipal life. In 1396, for example, he ranked as second among the senior members of the merchant guild, and in 1410 he attested the minutes of that body.

Much of Colclough’s time after 1385 was taken up with the administration of his late father’s estate, and, together with his fellow executor, John Keen, he was obliged to bring a number of lawsuits for the recovery of debts owed to the deceased by such persons as the Newcastle burgess, William Thickness, and Joan, widow of Sir John Swynnerton. In 1397 Colclough joined with Roger Longridge  and the influential landowner, Nicholas Bradshaw, in purchasing property in the Staffordshire villages of Walton near Stone and Great Chatwell. Five years later he and Bradshaw obtained a royal licence to settle most of this land on Stone priory. Other endowments were to be made by Bradshaw’s brother, Roger, so it would appear that Colclough was acting as a feoffee-to-uses rather than a direct benefactor of the priory. During the Easter term of 1408 the MP and his wife either sold or conveyed land in Chorlton, Staffordshire, to a local man. That Colclough earned at least part of his income as a farmer is borne out by a case heard at the Stafford assizes in March 1414 involving the theft of two of his oxen. The death of his younger brother at about this time involved him in yet more litigation, notably as defendant in an action for debt brought in the following year by Sir William Newport. Following a long-established family tradition, Colclough’s son, John, was already active in municipal affairs by then, and it was probably he, rather than his father, who became mayor of Newcastle in 1418, and stood surety for John Mynors at the parliamentary elections held there in the following year. Both men were being sued for a debt of £20 by Margaret Delves a surname noted in various Colclough family trees, during the Hilary term of 1420, although since John Colclough the younger was alone ordered to appear in court during the summer of 1421. The elder was probably dead by this time.

Sourced:  History of Parliament

 

 

 

 

Sarsfield continued

On with the introduction of Colclough vs. Colclough, the legal machinations aside, this document gives an insight into the 18th and 19 centuries...

 

 

TITLE.

By indenture of this date, Caesar Colclough, of Mocorry, and Margaret Pigot Colclough of Tintern (the said Margaret being then seized in her own right in fee simple), settled the Tintern Abbey and other estates, to the use of said Caesar (her cousin) for life, with remainder to his sons successively in tail male, with remainders over.

In 1744 Vesey Colclough, who was then the eldest surviving son of Caesar, and heir under the entail, attained his age of twenty-one years, and on April 23^rd 1744, he entered into articles with his father whereby they agreed to settle the estates for the purpose of raising money for the purposes therein mentioned, and for that purpose to levy fines and suffer recoveries, and in case Vesey should marry a wife with a fortune of £10,000 or £12,000, the father and son were to enjoy the disentailed estates in equal moieties. Caesar Colclough, and Vesey, his son, suffered a common recovery of the estates in which Caesar Colclough was vouched, and he vouched over Vesey, who vouched the common vouchee ; but it does not appear that there was any deed expressly declaring the uses of this recovery.

Vesey Colclough shortly afterwards married without the sanction of his father and a fresh arrangement was entered into, and by articles of this date, Caesar and Vesey agreed that Caesar should give Vesey a present maintenance of £400 a year, and that Vesey should have power to raise £2,000 for his own use, and to charge the estates with £3,000 for his younger children's portions, they also agreed that £7,000 should be raised for Caesar's younger children, and that Vesey should join Caesar in raising £2,000 for Caesar's own use, and that on the perfection of proper modes for carrying out this arrangement, all former articles should be cancelled ; but before any settlement was executed Vesey died intestate, leaving his wife enceinte, who was in due time delivered of a son, afterwards named Vesey. ,

An Act of Parliament was passed, whereby, after reciting the above incumbrances, it was enacted that the estates should be vested in Lyons and Bridges, as trustees, to raise by sale or mortgage the sums mentioned in the last articles, and subject to such sales or mortgages, to hold the unsold or mortgaged estates to the use of Caesar for life, and after his decease, to the use of such person or persons, for such estates, trusts, and interests " as he" or they, are now entitled unto, freed and discharged from any provision " heretofore made or intended to be made for the younger children of said " Caesar, by said settlement articles, or any other deed." In pursuance of this Act, the trustees sold some parts of the estates, and mortgaged others, but it is not necessary to give these particulars. It is, however, submitted, that under the recovery of Easter Term, 1744, with no other use declared of it than the somewhat ambiguous one in the above Act of Parliament, the limitation created by the settlement of 1719 was well barred, and Vesey Colclough, afterwards known as Sir Vesey (the son of Vesey and the grandson of Caesar), became tenant in fee-simple of the estates left unsold, or only mortgaged by the trustees under the powers in the Act.

By post nuptial settlement of this date 13^th June 1767, Vesey Colclough (the son of Vesey) settled the estates, to the use of himself for life, remainder to the  use of Caesar Colclough (Vesey's eldest son) in tail male, remainder to the use of settlor's second and other sons successively in tail male, remainder to the use of settlor, and his heirs in fee. And by bargain and sale, enrolled of even date, Vesey Colclough and the mortgagees, and other persons interested in parts of the estate, conveyed same to Carroll, to make him tenant of the freehold,&c., and on date in margin a common recovery was suffered, in which Thomas Colclough was demandant, John Carroll, tenant, and Vesey Colclough, of Tintern Abbey, Esquire, grandson and heir-in-law of Caesar Colclough, late of Mocorry, Esquire, deceased, was vouchee, and he vouched over the common vouchee.

And it is submitted that this recovery effectually barred the entail created in 1719, even if the recovery of 1744 and subsequent Act of Parliament had not done so.

Vesey Colclough, known as Sir Vesey, the settlor, had two sons, Caesar, late of Tintern Abbey, who died 23rd August, 1842, and John, who was killed in a duel in 1807, both dying without issue (both these men had ‘illegitimate’ children as indeed did ‘sir’ Vesey and his father and his grandfather JC 2014) ; and Vesey Colclough fearing that he might die without issue, devised the estates in that event unto his cousin, Caesar Colclough, Esquire (commonly called the Chief Justice), and the heirs of his body, he recommending him to continue the estates in the male line of the family.

(The attention of Counsel is here called, in passing, to the declaration by Sir Vesey in that will, that the Chief Justice was his " cousin"). But by indenture of this date (September 14^th 1807), said Caesar Colclough (Vesey's eldest son and then tenant in tail in possession, his father having died in 1798), conveyed the estates to Peter Burrowes, to make him tenant of the freehold,&c., for the purpose of suffering a common recovery, which it was declared should enure to the use of Caesar himself in fee-simple, and a recovery of this date was suffered, in which James Charles Martin was demandant, Peter Burrowes was tenant, and Caesar Colclough was vouchee, and vouched over the common vouchee.

At the date of this recovery (1807), Caesar Colclough was a prisoner of war in France, and the recovery deed, was executed by him on the continent, in the presence of three witnesses, two of whom saw the deed executed by Burrowes and Martin, and the deed was duly registered in Dublin shortly afterwards. There always has been however, and there still is, an impression in the collateral members of the family, that either from the deed being executed abroad or from some other cause, the entail was not well barred by the deed of recovery. Caesar Colclough having been then abroad, the commission, warrant of attorney, and affidavit of execution of warrant by Caesar Colclough were duly perfected. In 1818, said Caesar Colclough having recovered, by proceedings in Chancery, a grant of the original estate which had been improperly disposed of, under the Act of Parliament, and being about to marry.

 By indenture of this date 2^nd November 1818 (executed in England by all parties) Caesar Colclough conveyed all the Tintern estate (including the newly acquired portion), to the same Peter Burrowes, to make him tenant of the freehold, &c., for the purpose of suffering another recovery, which it was declared to enure, to the use of the said Caesar Colclough, in fee-simple.

A common recovery was again suffered, in which said James Martin was demandant, Peter Burrowes tenant, and said Caesar Colclough was again vouchee, and he vouched over the common vouchee.

 By deed of this date Caesar Colclough, in consideration of his intended wife's marriage portion, conveyed part of the Tintern estate to trustees for the purpose of securing a legal rent charge of £500 a-year to his wife in lieu of dower, with the usual term of years in a trustee for securing same ; Caesar Colclough having thus twice barred all entails in the estate, made his will in 1842, devising all his property to his wife absolutely, but which will was set aside for undue influence, and he was declared to have died intestate, and by consent entered into between his widow as such alleged devisee and the defendant, Mrs Rossborough Colclough, as his heiress-at-law, a decree was made by the Court of Chancery in Ireland to that effect, under these circumstances Mrs, Rossborough Colclough recently claimed and obtained possession of the estates. First—As heiress-at-law of the last-named Caesar Colclough, and secondly, (failing the recoveries of 1807 and 1818) as only surviving child and heiress in tail of Caesar, the Chief Justice who, as above stated, was devisee in tail general, under the will of Vesey (called Sir Vesey Colclough), the settlor of 1767, in the event of Sir Vesey's two sons, Caesar and John, dying without issue male, but after a lapse of nineteen years and eleven months from the death of Caesar Colclough, another claimant has sprung up in the person of the plaintiff, Mr Patrick Sarsfield Colclough, who is understood to claim the estates as next heir in tail male (after the death of Caesar) under the entail created by the settlement of  10th March, 1719, alleging that all the reversions are defective, and that consequently the original entail has never been properly barred, or in the event of the recoveries being held good, then that the Chief Justice Caesar, and Rev. Dudley Colclough were both illegitimate, and that Mrs Rossborough Colclough is also illegitimate, and cannot therefore inherit as heir of the late Caesar Colclough.

Why the several recoveries are alleged to be defective defendants do not learn (the exemplification of the recovery of 1744, and that of 1818, can be produced, and office copies of the recoveries of 1767 and 1807 (the exemplifications not being found), and neither the recoveries nor the deeds making the tenant to the precipe appear to be defective in any particular. Copies of all these recoveries are therefore printed herewith in the appendix, in order that counsel may give particular attention to them ; copy of the family pedigree is also annexed, which shows upon whom the estates have, as it is believed, devolved from time to time under the operation of the documents referred to, and defendants feel confident that upon this point the title of Mr. and Mrs. Rossborough Colclough is unimpeachable.

 

The introduction to the attempt of Patick Sarsfield Colclough to prove ownership of the property and heir to the title of Sir Vesey Colclough

A transcription...

 

WEXFORD ASSIZES, 1863.

BRIEF ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

 STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS' CASE PREPARED FOR ADVISING PROOFS.

Plaintiff's

 Patrick Sarsfield Colclough, Esquire, Felix Fitzpatrick, Michael Murphy and Charles Heniy James, Official Assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Ireland, which said Felix Fitzpatrick, Michael Murphy and Charles Henry James, are Assignees of Patrick Sarsfield Colclough,

 Defendants.

John Thomas Rossborough, calling himself John Thomas Rossborough Colclough, and Mary Grey Wentworth Rossborough Colclough, and others.

 

THIS is an action of ejectment on the title brought by the plaintiff, Patrick Sarsfield Colclough, who has been discharged as an insolvent, in the name of himself and his assignees, to recover possession of the Tintern estate, the property of the defendants.

Four writs of summons and plaint in ejectment have issued, at suit of the plaintiffs against the defendants, one to recover the manor house, and demense, ofTintern abbey ; the second to recover the general lands forming the Tintem estate, situate in the county Wexford ; the third to recover that portion of the estate situate in Carlow ; the fourth to recover the lands of Ballydorough, in the county of Wexford, of which the defendants are not in possession ; but in the first instance the plaintiffs are only to try one of these actions as to the lauds comprised in the summons and plaint.

STATEMENY OF THE DEFENDANTS CASE

Although the official assignees are co-plaintiffs, these actions have been brought not merely without their consent, but against their strong remonstrances, and as they and their advisers are satisfied the other plaintifs have no title, and that the proceedings have been instituted for a purpose not bona fide.

The plaintiff, Patrick Sarsfield Colclough, is the heir male of the late Caesar Colclough, of Tintern abbey, and of the late Sir Vesey Colclough who was father of Caesar ; and the defendant, Mrs. Rossborough Colclough, is the heiress-at-law of same parties, and as such heiress-at-law of said Caesar Colclough and of Sir Vesey Colclough, and also as heiress-at-law of her father, Chief Justice Caesar Colclough, who was devisee of Sir Vesey Colclough, as hereafter mentioned, is in possession of and claims to be owner of the estates in question. The plaintiff, Patrick Sarsfield Colclough, and defendant, Mary Grey Wentworth Rossborough Colclough, are respectively the heir male and heiress-at-law of Adam Colclough, formerly of Duffrey Hall, who was the common ancestor of both.

The defendants have no certain knowledge of the grounds on which the plaintiff rests his claim ; but it is believed the plaintiff will allege that he is entitled to recover on two grounds—1st. That as heir male, even though not heir-at-law, he is entitled, under the limitations, in a settlement dated in 1719, though these limitations were long since barred. 2nd. That if not entitled on that ground, he is entitled to recover as heir-at-law, falsely alleging that Mrs. Rossborough Colclough is not the legitimate child of her father and mother, and even if she be, that she is not heiress-at-law of the Colclough family, as her father, the Chief Justice, was (as alleged) himself illegitimate, an allegation which is of a most important character, and which will be disproved so soon as made ; and in passing, it may be stated that even if defendant, Mrs. Rossborough Colclough, be not heiress-at-law, the plaintiff would not, on that ground, be entitled to recover, as failing her and her issue, the heiress-at-law would be Miss Matilda Colclough, and not the plaintiff, the said Matilda being the grand-daughter of Dudley Colclough, the next brother of the Chief Justice, and next in priority, but to oust her claim the plaintiff also alleges that her grandfather was also illegitamate. There is no reasonable doubt but that the plaintiff has instituted these proceedings to extort money from defendants; nevertheless, it being incumbent on defendants to defend their title, they state that title as follows —

More to follow JC...