Virginia Historical Society.

The Virginia magazine of history and biography (Volume 21) online

. (page 27 of 40)
Online LibraryVirginia Historical SocietyThe Virginia magazine of history and biography (Volume 21) → online text (page 27 of 40)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

your true liegeman, Robert Boiling, in the Shire of York, gentilman,
sheweth, that in the Parliament holden at Westminster, the 4th Novem-
ber, in the first year of your Highness's reign, the said Robert was at-
tainted of high treason, and that his lands were forfeited from the 4th
March preceding; that suppliant was never against your Highness in any
field or journey, except on Palme Sunday, in the first year of your most
noble reigne, whereto he was dryven, not of his oune proper wille, nor of
malice towards your Grace, but oonly by compulsion, and by the most
drad proclamations of John, then Lord Clyfford, under whose daunger
and distresse the lyvelode of your suppliant lay."

Notwithstanding that letters of pardon were granted him, Robert
Boiling and his family of ten children were reduced to great straits
from the loss of his estates, but these he subsequently recovered and
added much to them.

Robert Boiling made his will at Boiling Hall, October, 1485, desiring
to be buried before the high altar of Bradford Church, to which he left
benefactions. To Amica his daughter he left 10. The residue of his
personalty, in three parts, one to James, William, Umphrey, Raynbron,
and Troilus, his sons; one for masses for his soul; and a third to Isabel,
his wife. The testator thus disposes of his lands: —


'I have enfeofTed Edward Goldsborough, one of the barons of our Lord
the Kyng, of his escheaur; Ed. Redmanye, one of the esquiers of his body:
Ed. Cresacre, parson, of Arksey; and James Boiling, my son, in the
manors of Boiling, Thornton, and Denholme, and of all the haHendole
of my manor of Haynsworth — to myself for my life. In suffrance, Isabel,
my wyfe, to have all the yerely issue of the halfendole of the landes at
Mikill Boiling, and to have her dower of Haynsworth. I do order a
gyft to Jamys, William, Umfrey, Raynbron, and Troilus Boiling, my
sons of 40s., by the yere out of Thornton, Hethlee, and Sowden; after
their decease to remayne to Trystram Boiling, my son and heir, and the
heires males of his bodie.'

Of two of the sons of Robert Boiling— Tristram and Raynbron — inter-
esting evidences exist. Raynbron, the 3^ounger brother, was bailiff of
the manorial property at Bradford vested in the Duchy of Lancaster,
and held a lease of the manorial mills, &c, which in the 'Rolls Chron-
icles' is set forth in the following terms: — "1448, 8 March. — Lease to
farm by the advice of the Coimcil of the Duchy of Lancaster, for 7 years
from Michaelmas last past before date of present letters, to Raynbron
Boleling, yeoman of the King's Crown, of the cloth fulling and corn mill,
toll, stallage, and agistment of cattle in Bradford Bank, with the per-
quisites and shops beneath the Halls of Pleas of the town and Lordship of
Bradford, Co. York, at an annual rent of ixl. viijd."

In making the most of his bailiwick, Raynbron incurred considerable
odium among the inhabitants of Bradford, and a suit was instituted in
the Duchy Court for extortion and wrongdoing, of which the following
is the substance, extracted from the Duchy of Lancaster Pleadings in
the Record Office: —

'18, Hen. VII. — Richard Tempest and others, freeholders and King's
tenants of Bradford township, and plaintiffs. Raynbron Boiling, the
King's bailiff, and others defendants. Deputed titles to lands, tolls of
markets, partiality of kin, &c.

Contra, Pleading —

"Raynbron Boiling, bailiff of Bradford, and Godfrey Foljambe, Feo-
dary of Tickill Honor, plaintiffs. Rich. Tempest, defendant, and

To the Right Worshipful Chancellor Duchy of Lancaster.

"We, Richard Tempest and Robert Leventhorp, esquires; Thos.
Thornton, Wm. Rookes, John Rookes, Thos. Ellys, John Rawson, John
Feld, James Webster, Thomas Bower, Wm. Bancke, Robt. Ledgard,
Richd. Bancke, and others, freeholders and the King's tenants of the
township of Bradford; John Threapland, John Ellingsworth, Rich.
Hollins, John Whitacre, Thos. Aldersley, &c., freeholders and King's
tenants of AUerton; John Wilkinson, Thos. Roper, Wm. Byrkenshaw


&c., tenants and freeholders of Thornton; Robt. Midgley, William
Mortymer, of Clayton; Richard Broadly, Thos. Stead, of Bowling;
Christopher Sharp, James Sharp, Christopher Thornton, &c., of Horton;
Joseph Thornton, Roger Thornton, &c., of Heaton; William Northrop,
Laurence Ellynworth, William Jowett, Thos. Mortymer, Richard Rodes,
&c., of Manningham, deposed that whereas three f aires have been held
and kept within the lordship which were a great resort of merchants,
chapmen, and others of the King's lieges of divers parts for the purpose
of selling their wares to the great weal of the King's tenants of the said
lordship and to the country adjoining. That Raynbron Boiling, the
bailiff of the said lordship, wrongfully, by him and his deputies, taking
excessive and imreasonable tolls of your said orators and others th'fe
King's tenants and others the King's lieges resorting to the said faires,
the said merchants and chapmen have withdrawn themselves and their
merchandise from the said faires, and that thereby the said faires are
greatly decreased, to the great hurt of all the King's tenants and ter-
mers and freeholders of the said lordship; and also that the said Rayn-
bron Boiling, by reason of levying excessive mulcture at the King's
mylnes to the great hurt of your orators and taking the cattel of your
orators and keeping them in secret places, so that your said orators
cannot gain knowledge of them, and after keeping them a certain time
claiming the said cattel as waifs and strays to his own uses; that in the
16th year of Hen. VII. he caused certain women to shear twenty sheep
of the King's tenants so that they were not known again by their owners;
that he will not suffer any sheep of your orators to be imclipped after
Whit-Sunday, but if there are the said bailiff will take them and cause
them to be clipped, claiming and taking the wool to his own uses and to
the great hurt of the King's tenants; that on the 5th of June, in the 17
of Hen. VII. he took from Ellen, late wife of Tristram Boiling, five ewes;
from Elizabeth Bristowe, two kye; and from William Wright one cow;
that one William Gordon, a Scotch chapman, who was coming from Hal-
ifax with three packs of wool, was waylaid by the said bailiffs upon Man-
ningham Moor, because the said chapman ought to have come through
Bradford and paid toll, and cast him down and beat him, and caused
him to pay 6s. 8d. and above in money.'

Raynbron's answer, which is filed in the Duchy records, states: — 'That
there were two very great faires every year at Bradford, on the day of
the Feast of St. Andrew, and the day of St. Peter in Cathedra, three
days every fair — that he had to attend upon the King's daughter, the
Queen of Scots, into Scotland, and in his absence Sir Richard Tempest
went into the Tolbooth of Bradford and threatened his servants (the
servants of the King's bailiff) if they took toll. That the inhabitants
of Clayton, at the instigation of Sir Richard Tempest, waylaid John
Aldworth, whom the said bailiff had sent to gather toll, and beat him
unmercifully. So that he had been little able to do any work since;
that the said Tempest had ordered all his servants and retainers, and


had encouraged all others, to beat down the bailiff's servants when they
gathered toll, and declared that no man should bear rule in Bradford
but himself.'

This interesting episode is illustrative of the exactions resorted to
by the emissaries of King Henry VII., who made use of them to extort
money and to heap up wealth for his own ends, which was the ruling
object of his existence.

(To be Continued)



Several accounts which are expected from various members of the fam-
ily have not yet been received; but will be printed later.

In the "List of Revolutionary Soldiers" published by the Virginia
State Library in 1912, the following Poindexters appear: Gabriel Poin-
dexter, Jacob Poindexter, John Poindexter, Jonathan Poindexter, Joseph
Poindexter (Captain Bedford Co. Militia), Levil (Lovel) Poindexter,
and Richard G. Poindexter.

James Poindexter, who was bom in Virginia in 1765, married May
Thompson, of Virginia, in 1801. Can any one give the name of his father ?
James Poindexter, has descendants in California.

Miscellaneous Notes.

Deed, dated March 7, 1733, and recorded in Prince William County,
from Thomas Poindexter, house-carpenter, of Hanover County, Convey-
ing land in Prince William County, which had been bequeathed to him
by Rev. James Brechin, late of Westmoreland County, by his will dated
August 19, 1721.

Will of Elizabeth Johnson, dated July 6, 1812, and proved in Louisa Co.
Sept. 14, 1812, names her grandchildren Lucy, Betty and Walles S. Poin-
dexter (their mother was dead) and her son-in-law John Poindexter.

Deed, Goochland County, May 1745, from Jolin Coles, of Henrico
Coimty to Jacob Poindexter, of James City County.

Deed, Goochland County, Feb. 1760, from Thomas Poindexter, of
Goochland, to Robert Jordan of same coimty.

Will of Benjamin Poindexter, of Cumberland County, dated Dec. 28,
1765, and proved June, 1766, gives his friends Littleberry Mosby and
Joseph Carrington his whole estate, including what he was to have from
his wife Sarah as her legacy.

Deed, 1750, from Philip Poindexter, of Cumberland County, to George
Nicholas conveying all of the land in Cumberland where said Poindexter

(To be Continued)




On p. 108 of the January 1913 Magazine, George* Turner should be
9 instead of 5 and Richard* Turner should be 10 instead of 6. By an
accident the numbers of the children of Col. Thomas Turner were con-
fused. The fact that two of his daughters are numbered 8 and 9 will
cause no confusion as their names do not appear again.

9. George* Turner of "Nanzatico" married Caroline Pratt.
Issue: 33. John^, died unmarried, 34. George^, died unmarried: 35.

Thomas^, died unmarried, 36. Carolinus^ (of whom later).

10. Richard* Turner, of "Walsingham," King George Covmty, mar-
ried Alice Fitzhugh Pratt (sister of his brother's wife).

Issue: 37. Albert^, married Elizabeth Cary. Nelson, of Maryland (and
had one son Albert", who never married, and one daughter Elizabeth,
who married Judge Nathaniel B. Meade of Alexandria) ; 38. Richard H.^,
(of whom later); 39. Virginia Anne, married Charles Tayloe of "Oaken-
brow," King George Coimty (an estate once the property of Thomas Tur-
ner, of "Kinloch;" but sold to one of the Tayloe family); 40. Caroline,
married Drury Fitzhugh, of "Navarino," King George County; 41. Jane
Columbia, married Lt. William Taylor Smith, U. S. N., of "Canning,"
King George County, (a fine estate of 4000 acres); 42. George^, of Wal-
singham, married in 1870 Jane Charlotte Washington Fitzhugh, of "Mill-
bank," King George County; 43. Mary Louise married her first cousin,
Dr. John M. Robb, (whose mother was Maria Pratt) and had a number
of children; 44. Thomas^, never married.

11. Thomas B^. Turner of Jefferson Cotmty, married first Augusta
Brockenbrough (who died without issue), and secondly in 1827, at "White
Hall," King George County, Fenton, daughter of Gustavus B. Wallace,
and thirdly Lucy Buckner. Issue: 45. Thomas", C. S. A., killed in battle
46. Frances, married Dade; 47. daughter married Morton.

14. William Fauntleroy^ Turner, of Jefferson County, member of
the House of Delegates, 1843, 1844, 1845. He married first in 1845, Ellen,
daughter of Andrew Beime, of Monroe County; and secondly, Sydney
Patterson, of Baltimore (a niece of Madame Jerome Bonaparte).

Issue: (1st m.) 48. Ellen Beime, married John S. Saunders of Norfolk,
Lieutenant Colonel C. S. A., later of Baltimore; (2nd m.) Daughter,
married Donald Swann, of Baltimore.

24. Shirley Carter^ Turner, of Charleston, S. C, bom at "Shirley"
Feb. 21st, 1806, married Sarah Bascombe. Issue: 50. Selina; 51. Caro-
line; 52. Willaim8;53. Shirley"; 54. Lavinia.

25. Thomas Turner^, bom at "Marengo," Dec. 23rd, 1807, appointed
Midshipman U.S. N., 1825, Lieutenant 1835, Commander 1855, Captain
July 1862, Commodore December 1862, Rear Admiral 1868. During his


long service in the navy he displayed much skill and gallantry. He mar-
ried Fanny Palmer and died at Glen Mills, Pa., March 24th, 1888. There
is a notice of him in Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography.

Issue: 55. Angela, married George W. Toland; 56. Julia, married Osgood
Wellsh; 57. Edward Palmer 2nd lieutenant 10th Cavalry, U. S. A., Dec.
18, 1871, resigned June 25, 1878; married his cousin Mary, daughter of
Edward C. Turner, and died Jan. 13, 1901, leaving two daughters; 58.
Jessie, married Henry Biddle of Philadelphia; 59. William, Officer U. S.
Marine Corps, married (and had issue) ; 60. Minnie, died in childhood.

26. William FiTZHUGH^ Turner, bom at "Eastern View," Sept. 28,
1809, married Jane Hall of Baltimore. Issue: 61. Marian, married William
Cerere; 62. Thomas 8, died without issue; 63. Lydia, married William
Blanchard; 64. Eliza; 65. William H.e killed in battle 1862; 66. Sophia
C; 67. Henry J. «; 68. Fitzhughe; 69. Horatio W.S; 70. Virginia.

(To be Continued)



Capt. Roger Jones

In Bruce's Institutional History of Virginia Capt. Roger Jones is men-
tioned in a connection which I think does him great injustice. So far
as anything to the contrary appears, the character of Capt. Roger Jones
was above reproach, and there was never a breath of suspicion against
him, except for certain alleged "reports" recited in a letter of July 7,
1692, from Lieut-Gov. Francis Nicholson and seven members of his coian-
cil to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, ten years after the things are
alleged to have occurred, in which the evident purpose is to impair Capt.
Roger Jones' influence with the Commissioners of Customs for the Colony
in London. The letter has every earmark of having been dictated by
the vindictive and dominating spirit of Nicholson and signed by an in-
timidated or too easy acquiescing coimcil. In order to correctly estimate
a paper of this character it is necessary, first and above all things, to
consider the age in which it was produced. We know that this was an
age of intense feeling, of passionate acting, of incontinent and undiscrimi-
nating personal abuse, and governors and councillors, though they be men
of ever so great prominence, are nevertheless not exempt from the frail-
ties peculiar to men of the period in which they live. The letter was
signed by seven members of the council who were all probably, like
Edmund Jennings, partisans of the governor. The point we are making
is well stated by the editor of this magazine (Vol. VII., page 153), viz.:

"Nicholson was utterly unscrupulous in regard to the charges he made
— indeed no great importance should be attached to any defamation of
that period. A characteristic of the seventeenth and eighteenth cen-
turies, which all students of the time are aware of, is the curious absence
of any sense of responsibility or regard for the truth, when an enemy was
to be attacked. Cases occur repeatedly in the court records of the period,
not only in the colonies but in England, where a man would make most
scurrilous charges, and, when brought to trial, promptly and publicly
confess that all of his statements were false."

For a lengthy account of the methods employed by Nicholson to blast
the reputation of those who by any chance incurred his displeasure, see
the petition (Vol. III., pp. 173-182 of this Mag.) which resulted in his


removal, and was presented against him in 1704 by Philip Ludwell, John
Lightfoot, Matthew Page, Benj. Harrison, Robert Carter and James
Blair, all members of the council. Philip Ludwell and Roger Jones were
close friends; in the latter 's will this bequest appears: "I give to my ten
friends hereinafter named the simie of twenty shillings apiece to buy each
of them a ring, that is to say Sr. Richard Haddock, Coll. Philip Ludwell,

The British Public Records Office shows that the following action was
taken on the governor's letter:

"Oct. 11. 2545. Journal of Lords of Trade and Plantations. * * *
Captain Roger Jones attended, and explaining that he intended nothing
against the Government of Virginia, was dismissed." So, the fiasco

The only exhibit referred to in the letter, "No. 1979," is a letter from
Roger Jones to Peter Perry, his agent in Virginia, and reads as follows:

"If the Government of Virginia insist on their duty on skins, and
nothing is done on our behalf by the English Government, order all our
skins to be packed in hogsheads and keep them till further orders.
The Commissioners of Customs have drawn up a very favorable report,
so that we can draw out our goods. Besides they have decided that no
law is in force in the Colony for more than a year without the Royal
Assent being then known, so that presumably all goods shipped after
the expiration of a year from the date of the law will be exempt.' '

In the governor's letter one of the complaints against Roger Jones is
that of "refusing to serve in any office, " which raises the question why
they would offer him other offices if he had been so imfaithful in the only
office he had held. The only possible explanation is their fear that in his
efforts to protect his property, Roger Jones either had, or would induce
the Commissioners of Customs to declare invalid an act designed to sup-
ply the governor and council with revenue, and that all the other things
were lugged in through spite and in the hope of injuring his influence with
the Commissioners.

While the governor's letter alleges but one instance in which Capt.
Jones was "reported" to have struck the King's colors to a pirate. Dr.
Bruce goes even the doughty old Virginia governor "several better,"
and says, in all seriousness: "His device, it appears, was to strike his
colors to the vessels of pirates, his motive in doing so which they soon
came to understand; and it was then their habit to dismiss him with a
great quantity of French wines and other costly goods." That is, the
pirates "got the habit"! All this is supposed to have occurred within a
period of probably not exceeding six months, for Roger Jones' commission
las captain of the sloop is dated May 28, 1683, and it is not probable that
he would sail until legally protected by a commission, and the sloop was
discharged November 29th following.


The letter says that for his various derelictions Lord Culpeper
"tried to bring him to account." Now Roger Jones resided at Green
Spring with Lord Culpeper, during his entire residence in the colony,
from May, 1680, to May, 1685, when he returned to London, where he re-
sided until the day of his death. In the York County records we find this
entry, four months before he left the colony: "These are to certifie whom
it may conceme Y. Capt. Roger Jones & Mr. XXX Chisley intend God
willing for Old England by the first Ships." There was therefore no
conceivable reason why the entire machinery of the law should not have
been put in operation against him at any moment. If the statement is
true, it can only mean that Lord Culpeper inquired into the reports and
failed to find any evidence to sustain them.

There is reason to believe that Capt. Roger Jones lived in the colony,
as he lived in London both before and after he visited the colony, in such
state as reasonably became a gentleman of rank at the time. He had
his coach or chariot on which were emblazoned his coat of arms quarter-
ing his mother's and impaling his wife's arms. His coat of arms is re-
cognized as that of an ancient Welsh family named Ap John, which was
early seated in Nottinghamshire, where Roger Jones was married and
buried, where they owned valuable estates, and from which family the
College of Arms think he was descended. All the indicarions are that he
was possessed of a competent estate before he came to Virginia, and there
is nothing to indicate that it was enhanced in any extraordinary manner
during his residence in the colony.

Among the published letters of the elder Wm. Fitzhugh are several to
Roger Jones. One, dated Jan. 8, 1682-3, addressed to him at Green
Springs, requests his assistance in procuring for Fitzhugh's friend the
office of sheriff of his coimty. In another letter, after his return to Lon-
don, Fitzhugh acknowledges his indebtedness to Roger Jones for the fact
that he and George Brent had been deputed to look after the Lord Pro-
prietor's rents in Virginia. In another letter he desires Roger Jones to
"negotiate" for the office of sheriff "in fee or at least for life." So, it
appears that Capt. Roger Jones was a man of such standing and influence
in Government circles as to be selected by Wm. Fitzhugh as one most
likely to secure for him an appointment to an important office, and his
influence with the Commissioners of Customs might very well have been
feared by a man like Nicholson, and might very well have been the
motive for a vicious attack on him in 1692.

It is not necessary to insist, for the purpose of this contention, that
there may not have been reports concerning Roger Jones circulated by
some evil disposed person — what prominent man has escaped them! —
which were seized upon by the governor and council as a basis for their
representations; but it is contended that no evidence tending to prove the
truth of any report was offered or referred to by them or has since been
found, and that a man like Roger Jones should be deemed to be innocent


even of suspicion until some evidence is forthcoming to call for a suspi-
cion. In the petition against Gov. Nicholson a request is made for a
commission to take proof of its statements, while in the letter against
Roger Jones the statements are not of matters claimed to be within the
personal cognizance of the signers — indeed Nicholson was not at the time
a resident of the colony — and it is not pretended that there was any ev-
idence to be had of the truth of the "reports." Dr. Bruce is asking the
readers of his history to believe, after more than two centuries have in-
tervened, that of which the governor and his coimcil tacitly admitted
there was no evidence on which to found a belief, an admissibn of which
appears to have been confirmed by an investigation conducted by Lord
Culpeper immediately after the things are said to have occurred.

Conceding everything that can be said for Francis Nicholson and the
men who composed his counciil, that he made an excellent governor, that
he was a man of such prominence and probity of character as to have been
twice appointed royal governor of Virginia, which is more than can be
said of any of the others who signed the paper against Roger Jones, and,
in view of the petition presented against Gov. Nicholson by Philip Lud-
well and other members of the council, men of as great prominence and
probity of character as any in the colony, it merely serves the more to
emphasize my main contention that however distinguished and above
reproach in other respects men of the period may have been, their ^ate-
ments concerning the character of those whom they were publicly at-
tacking are not to be trusted. Dr. Bruce is at liberty to chose either horn
of the dilemma. If he will accept as true the hear-say statements of
"reports" concerning the conduct of Capt. Roger Jones, because of the
prominence and character of the men who signed the governor's letter,
he must likewise accept as true the statements of Philip Ludwell and
others of equal prominence and character, as to matters of which they
claimed to be personally cognizant and ready to prove, viz., that, owing
to a peculiar frailty of men of the period, with which students of history
are abimdantly familiar, the methods resorted to by men of such ex-
cellent character as Gov. Francis Nicholson and those who measured up
to the standard of his approval, to blast the reputation of any one who
happened to incur their displeasure, were of the basest, most shameless
and most unscrupulous nature, which leaves Dr. Bruce without a sem-
blance of justification for the attitude he has assumed toward Roger

L. H. Jones.

Edmund Pendleton

Mr. Hugh Blair Grigsby in "The Virginia Convention of 1776," gives

Online LibraryVirginia Historical SocietyThe Virginia magazine of history and biography (Volume 21) → online text (page 27 of 40)