a random addition

I do mean to keep going but it could be a full time job, so if there are daily posts you'll know I've finally fully retired, I have managed to get work down to 3 days per week...

Anyway I was looking through some random trawling of the ether I'd done a few year ago and thought this would be of interest, I've lost the link so apologies...

John

1766

29 May Deed of Transfer of Borough of Enniscorthy between Vesey Colclough of Tintern Abbey and Adam eldest surviving son of Caesar Colclough of Duffry Hall dcd. by which Adam surrenders his burgessship to Vesey as also do Rev Thomas Colclough brother of Adam, Richard, also brother, and Caesar eldest son of Adam; and Vesey is put into quiet and peaceable enjoyment of the .Borough of Enniscorthy by Adam for the sum of £3,000. Witnesses included Thomas, Henry & Richard Colclough. By the above deed the Borough was transferred from the Duffry Hall branch of the Colclough family to the Tintern Branch who disposed of it to Lord Lismore and Sir Wm. Gleadows for £13,000 in March 1800 The sale is mentioned in a letter from John Colclough to his brother Caesar dated March 1800. For dealings in pocket boroughs see Lecky, vol. iv. Some account of the Duffry branch of the Colclough family connected for so many years and by so many members of the family, with this town may be acceptable. The extent and bounds of The Duffry do not appear to be precisely known. As far as we can make it out it was an extensive district lying between the Rivers Urrin & Glasha, including most of Monart with parts of Templeshanbo and Killan, and the Northern part of the forest of Killoughrim.. It was bounded in the North by Mount Leinster and in the South probably included the site of the Anglo-Norman town of Enniscorthy, which was the high land on the right bank of the Slaney. It did not pass to the other side as the river was its boundary to the east. Sir Thomas Colclough of Tintern appears to have been the first of the family to acquire land in this district. The following is an extract from some mss of the late Caesar Colclough " The Duffry estate appears to have been acquired partly by private purchase and partly by grant from the crown. In 1603 Sir Thomas purchased several townlands from Sir Geo. Carew, Kt. On 20 March 1627 Sir Dudley (son of Sir Dudley) had a confirmation from the crown of right and title to the Castle, town and lands of Moynart and divers other lands in the Duffrie, all of which had been previously acquired by Sir Thomas, paying to the Crown a yearly rent of 15s and on 15 Dec. 1685 Patrick (son of Sir Dudley) got a grant of about 40 townlands for ever at a. yearly rent of £60.00 (note 40 townlands about 7,800 acres). Whether this comprises the whole of the Dufrrie or only the part held by the Colcloughs or whether it describes all that the Colcloughs possesses in the Duffrie is uncertain. Duffry Hall close to Kiltealy in Templeshanbo Parish is marked on the O.S. map. The Urrin River separates them. Under the heading Irish Life 120 years Ago notices of this place and the Colcloughs who lived there appeared in The People, a local Wexford paper, in July 1899 and December 21 1901. An Evening in the Duffry in the same paper August 16 & 30 1902 and Nov. 28 1903 also describe it. It is stated 'to have been built early in the 17th century for the heir of Tintern to reside there while waiting to succeed to his inheritance. A fine massive mansion with accommodation for a large family beside a great number of guests with their servants and attendants. It could not have been built before 1655 or it would have been shown on the Down Survey map. It may have been built after 1685 when Patrick Colclough got his large land grant. and was probably intended either as dower house for Tintern or as a separate residence for the Mocurry branch of the family.

Another letter

The internet is sporadic to say the least where I am at present but I will try posting this John 30 January 1795. Letter from John Colclough, Dublin, to Caesar Colclough, Lausanne, Switzerland. He expresses relief that the reports that Caesar Colclough has been executed in France were unfounded, and goes on to discuss Enniscorthy borough. ‘...I am happy to find what was done at Enniscorthy pleases you, particularly the appointment of Rock. You may guess I did nothing without the approbation of my mother and all my uncles, though there was one of your burgesses who did not approve of filling up the vacancies at all, to whom I had written (in answer to a most extraordinary letter of his) my reasons, which were unanswerable; and I think, that his own judgment be what it was, he should have admitted to the united wish of my mother, my uncle and myself at a juncture when yours could not possibly be known. But this however he did not think proper and though he would not be at the trouble of attending himself, send his veto by Pat Colclough who, with the most consummate assurance and villainy, proposed the Councillor, who was rejected by a majority of seven. I have deferred mentioning the name of the burgess who sent his veto because I know it will hurt you to find the world so deceitful. It was no other than William Harvey in whom all your friends join me in opinion that you were deceived but I trust will be for no longer-at least it shan’t be my fault if you are. In addition to his extraordinary conduct as above, I must inform you that, though even Portrieve, he never attended but once (as well as I recollect) since you left this kingdom. ...’he adds that Harvey, as well as being a false friend, is an incapable lawyer. ‘... I have been thus elaborate on this subject, lest you might think it extraordinary my employing Waddy to dissolve the custodiums and do some other necessary law business for you, consequent to my father’s death. I had tried him before, and find him exceedingly clever, expeditious, cheap and successful. He is now esteemed one of the first attorneys in Dublin, and though not of the same political interest as us, he does not pretend to be so, and you will find him a much more moderate man than the other. Out of 38 custodiams, he got consents to dissolve 34... William Sutton... you may truely call a friend and you may thank for now having the borough of Enniscorthy, as will you find hereafter. I pay Waddy 50, which went but a little towards dissolving the custodiams, for each of which I should have told you there was 10 shillings a year King’s silver paid off of the estate, which is now done away, beside no rents could be received or anything done till they were all dissolved. I sent two bills, one to Copenhagen, the other to O’Reilly at Basle in Switzerland, for your use, that amounted to £65. The reason I sent so little was because I was certain they would never reach you, and I believe I conjectured right. I paid my mother £100. I sent last Sunday to Stuck(?) Scimon (?) for Morres’s £108. I paid for my father’s funeral (by his dying request I was obliged to bring him to Tintern) and for his debts contracted for the necessaries of life during the four last months of his life (for, having sold his employment, he must have starve) £240, and there are still some unpaid. This is only a rough sketch. The items are too many to be contained in a letter, But, however, when you come over, you can see this account along with all others since our last settlement before you left this, and then you will find that that unfortunate unpunctuality was not entirely owing to me, and I trust that for the past, present and to come and you will find me not an unfaithful steward. I do not recollect whether in a letter sent by Copenhagen I mention my father’s having made a will some short time before he died, which was kept a profound secret from me till afterwards. The worthy Counsellor was the person who had it drawn. I am left £8,000 on the particular condition that I should not hinder or prevent the other bequests, which were £1,500 to Mrs Harrington and to the boys, £500 to Parson Dudley. But this you know is all fudge. The rental of the estate at present is but £1,600. You see, you must therefore live with prudence and economy for only two years, then I will engage, if you will be guided by me, to increase it £1,200 per annum, and every tenant who lives on the estate have their land cheaper that what they now pay for it to those beasts, middlemen, who have always been the destruction of this country (perhaps you would hardly believe that Richards has set Ballyvoane at 20 shillings and 6 pence an acre all round-your rent is 4 shillings and 3 pence- and the man he has set it to has set the greater part of it for 30 and the remainder of it for what he pays himself, 2 shillings and 6 pence(sic). In what a state must these wretched under-tenants be, you can very well imagine. In such a case as this (and there are many such on your estate) it is a duty you owe your tenantry and yourself to break such leases. Dear Caesar, you must be landlord of your own estate, and suffer no one to intervene between you and your tenants. You can then serve them: at present you cannot. As these were always your sentiments, and I believe you have not changed them, I hope you will not be displeased at my having led off the dance with Mr Richards, having served him with ejectment prior to the receipt of your letters. I am sure he will bring it to a trial next Assizes, when there is not a shadow of doubt of your succeeding, and he is cast, I think all the rest will submit at discretion. So that if I had said one, instead two years, I don’t think I would have been much out. This one farm will rise your rent roll £200 per annum and abate the rent £60 per annum to the under - tenants by which means 15 or 20 poor families will be able to live in comfort. The other farms that are to increase £1,200 are circumstanced exactly similar, and you must allow it would be unreasonable not to punish those rascals whose carriages have been so long oiled with the sweat of your poor tenantry, and therefore, my dear Caesar, you must not prevent me from finishing the task I have began, and for God’s sake, don’t let a word of your dislike to law escape you. If it did, you would be involved in litigation all your life. Leave these matters to my management. You shall have no trouble, nothing to do but re-set your lands. I will attend terms and see everything done right. All I ask is for you not to hinder me, and that you leave the conducting of the business to me; and therefore when there are applications made to you (of which there will be millions) both for your lands and law business, you will refer them to me. I will take all on my back. You know you are unacquainted with the situations of your affairs, and let them apply to me, which is I think a much better answer than Uncle Corneys, ”I’ll consider of it”. Now as I have already engage in less that 2 years to increase your income to £1,200, so I will now engage the same conditions that you never shall be involve in any law suit in which you will not succeed. You may think I speak with too much confidence, but you will find I do not... There can be no rent received out of the estate till after next Easter term, when there will be an agent appointed by the Court of Chancery, to which my mother and I applied for that purpose last November. This is much better than an agent of your appointment to act, because your agent’s receiving would confirm leases, etc, etc. The Chancery you are in no way answerable for. The rents I can hand over to you... ‘ He urges Caesar Colclough to stay away and leave everything to him, and on no account to trust anything to Harvey. John Colclough is also to be watched carefully, for though a good fellow he now has nearly as good an income as Caesar Colclough himself. John Colclough (the writer of the letter) has given a small sum of money to Mrs Harrington, to keep the boys and her from want, and will continue to do so unless Caesar Colclough countermands the order.

fanad

On my annual pilgrimage to Fanaid having some time to read in the soft wet Donegal rain. Here looking out over Mulroy I can see over to the woods where the long un-lamented William Sydney Clements (look him up!) 3rd Earl of Leitrim (1806-1878) met his demise, maybe it was not his fault, contemporary evidence would in these times be taken as signs of mental ilness, low self esteem, paranoia and megalomania, this gentleman set up groups of baliffs, under baliffs and bum baliffs to watch the locals and each other. Every April he would issue eviction notices to all, yes all his tenants, this saved him time as after 6 months he could scatter anyone with a notice. A local schoolmaster Hugh Dorian documented an invaluable piece of social history of Fanaid (The outer edge of Ulster) in the mid to late 19th century, Clements would be a divisive but unignorable figure of this time.
What has this got to do with Colclough's? Well it's to do with half of me, and there was a schoolmaster, folklorist and social historian Patrick Kennedy, among other books produced Evening's in the Duffrey 1875, which as I noted earlier painted a kinder picture of landed gentry, but I'm willing to bet the16th century Cavanagh clan might not have been so complementary.

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.