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.
