Who were the Giffards of Wiveton, Norfolk?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Brandon

Who were the Giffards of Wiveton, Norfolk?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 18 jul 2007 23:04:46

Back in February, I posted a link to a snippet view of page 208 of a
certain issue of _Norfolk Archaeology_ which mentioned that "John
Gifford the younger of Gloucester in 1651 acquired the estate [i.e.,
some estate in Norfolk] from Edmund ..." See

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZSgSAA ... %22&pgis=1

(The rest of the statement can be read on the results page in Google
Print if you search for "John Gifford the younger of Gloucester.")
This item was intriguing to me, as the two John Giffords (senior and
junior) of the Ironworks in Dean Forest were said at various times to
be "of Gloucester." See, for instance,

http://books.google.com/books?id=VngPAA ... ter&pgis=1

See also the statement in the Historical Manuscripts Commission's
_Seventh Report_, p. 14: "March 10 [1648]. Petition of John Giffard,
of the city of Gloucester, gentleman, for what concerns him in answer
to a petition lately preferred by Thomas Morgan, of (St.) Maughan, in
the county of Monmouth, and others. By ordinance of the 27th of Oct.
1645, the House conferred the iron mills, forges, and furnaces in the
Forest of Dean belonging to Sir John Winter upon Colonel Edward
Massey. Petitioner became partner with him, and the works being burnt
and decayed, they laid out 800l. upon them; these works had always
been held by Sir John Winter, and though the ordinance was for twelve
or thirteen weeks under debate, no objection was raised by any of the
complainants."

Remembering that the specific ref. to "John G. the younger of
Gloucester" was on p. 208 of that issue of _Norfolk Archaeology_, if
you do a search for the place name "Wiveton" in the "search in this
volume" box in the same snippet-view page, you will find occurrences
of "Wiveton" on pages 207 and 208:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZSgSAA ... s=1#search

In the second snippet just above, one can easily make out the sentence
at the top of the snippet: "In 1830 the hall was occupied by
labourers." Compare this with the entry for Wiveton (under Norfolk)
in this list of English halls and manors, arranged by county (not in
strictly alpha order, unfortunately) ...

http://www.r-alston.co.uk/ch_eng.htm

WIVETON nor Wiveton Hall [Norfolk]
Gifford 1653
Occupied by labourers by 1830. Kentworthy-Browne [et al], Guide to
Country Houses, III, 1981.

Notice the statement about labourers occupying the hall in 1830, and
the notation "Gifford 1653," which apparently refers to the date of
the house and the first owner/ builder. Now go back to the _Norfolk
Archaeology_ snippet-view page one last time and enter "Wifton." The
following statements can be seen on the aforesaid page 208:

--"The initial F is that of his wife Frances. His gravestone in the
church records 'he built Wifton Hall.'"

--"There are foundations nearby, which may indicate that the house of
1653 was a reconstruction."

A book on _The Church Heraldry of Norfolk_ mentions the following slab
in the chancel of Wiveton:

I. Three lions passant in pale (Giffard, Gules, Three lions passant
in pale argent.)
"Here lieth the body of John Giffard, late of Wifton, Esqr, who
departed this life 12th of December, 16--."

http://books.google.com/books?id=fq4rAA ... 22+wiveton
Notice that John Giffard's gravestone says he was "late of Wifton,"
and not "he built Wifton Hall," and yet I don't find any other M.I.s
at Wiveton with the actual statement "he built Wifton Hall," as per
_The Monumental Inscriptions in the Hundred of Holt_ ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=dxIHAA ... #PPA148,M1

Furthermore, it does seem this John Gifford of Wiveton had a wife/
widow Frances:

_Index of Chancery Proceedings, Bridges' Division, 1613-1714_, vol. II
[i.e., Lists & Indexes, vol. 42], p. 152:

Plaintiff: Giffard, Frances, widow.
Defendant: Gifford, Thomas, and others.
Date: 1658
Place or subject: Wiveton, Norfolk

The index spells Frances' name "Giffard," and Thomas' name "Gifford."
I don't know if this is a difference that makes a difference. Other
pertinent refs. in this volume include:

p. 150

Plaintiff: Giffard, John.
Defendant: Davies, Richard, Elizabeth his wife, and others.
Date: 1656
Place or subject: Wiveton and Blakeney, Norfolk.

Plaintiff: Gifford, John.
Defendant: Davies, Richard, Elizabeth his wife, and others.
Date: 1656
Place or subject: Wiveton and Blakeney, Norfolk.

p. 192

Plaintiff: Gifford, Thomas.
Defendant: Braddocke, John, and others.
Date: 1683
Place or subject: Wiveton, Norfolk.

Plaintiff: Gifford, Thomas.
Defendant: Towers, John.
Date: 1682
Place or subject: Money [Norfolk].

Plaintiff: Gifford, Thomas.
Defendant: Grocers Company, London, Master, &c. of, and others.
Date: 1682
Place or subject: Money [Norfolk].

Plaintiff: Gifford, Thomas.
Defendant: Carnsew, Susan, widow.
Date: 1682
Place or subject: Money [Norfolk].

Plaintiff: Gifford, Thomas.
Defendant: Towers, John.
Date: 1682
Place or subject: Money [Norfolk].

While on the topic of lawsuits, I might remind folks that I've
previously speculated that two lawsuits in this same volume, viz ...

p. 222:

Plaintiff: Hawkes, Adam, and Anne his wife.
Defendant: Sheene, Edward.
Date: 1657.
Place: Wymondham, Norfolk.

p. 225:

Plaintiff: Hawkes, Adam, and Anne his wife.
Defendant: Sheene, Jermyn, and others.
Date: 1661.
Place: Wymondham, &c., Norfolk.

p. 335

Plaintiff: Hawks, Adam, and Anne his wife.
Defendant: Sheene, Charles.
Date: 1656.
Place: Wymondham, Norfolk.

were initiated by the Lynn, New England, settlers Adam and Anne Hawkes
and may have been handled by John Gifford of the Ironworks on return
trips to England he's known to have made. See
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/ge ... 1125523657
.. It is interesting that Wymondham is not terribly distant from
Wiveton, and that neither place is too distant from King's Lynn,
surely the namesake of Lynn, Massachusetts. Some other things to keep
in mind are (1) my speculation that the elder John Gifford had married
a certain Frances Poyntz, sister-in-law of his associate/ enemy Isaac
Bromwich; and (2) that the arms on the seal of New England John
Gifford were "three lions in pale."

Larsy

Re: Who were the Giffards of Wiveton, Norfolk?

Legg inn av Larsy » 19 jul 2007 16:34:46

While on the topic of lawsuits, I might remind folks that I've
previously speculated that two lawsuits in this same volume, viz ...

p. 222:

Plaintiff: Hawkes, Adam, and Anne his wife.
Defendant: Sheene, Edward.
Date: 1657.
Place: Wymondham, Norfolk.

p. 225:

Plaintiff: Hawkes, Adam, and Anne his wife.
Defendant: Sheene, Jermyn, and others.
Date: 1661.
Place: Wymondham, &c., Norfolk.

p. 335

Plaintiff: Hawks, Adam, and Anne his wife.
Defendant: Sheene, Charles.
Date: 1656.
Place: Wymondham, Norfolk.

were initiated by the Lynn, New England, settlers Adam and Anne Hawkes
and may have been handled by John Gifford of the Ironworks on return
trips to England he's known to have made. Seehttp://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read ... 1125523657
. It is interesting that Wymondham is not terribly distant from
Wiveton, and that neither place is too distant from King's Lynn,
surely the namesake of Lynn, Massachusetts. Some other things to keep
in mind are (1) my speculation that the elder John Gifford had married
a certain Frances Poyntz, sister-in-law of his associate/ enemy Isaac
Bromwich; and (2) that the arms on the seal of New England John
Gifford were "three lions in pale."

from Sept. 1694: "Agreed and Consented that John Hauks ... Is to have
the Dwelling house of his father deceasd to gether with one hundred
Acres of Land ... Bounded Westerly upon the Land of mr Gefford's ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=OSAaAA ... ord%27s%22

Remember also that two of John Gifford's granddaughters, Mrs. Margaret
and her younger sister Elizabeth, married grandsons of Adam Hawkes.

John Brandon

Re: Who were the Giffards of Wiveton, Norfolk?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 jul 2007 16:43:02

from A2A --

Norfolk Record Office: The Bayfield Estate of the Jodrell Family:
Deeds and Papers

Reference: MC 632/19/1-7, 797 x 5
Thomas Cowdesley and Clowdiola Jenkinson to John Allen 1654; John
Allen to John Gifford declaration of trust 1654 and assignment of
mortgage to William Athill 1680; and a declaration of trust William
Athill to Anthony Athill. Labelled 'B Manor of Wiveton Co.'.

Creation dates: 1654-1694

Extent and Form: 1 bundle of 8 parchments

John Brandon

Re: Who were the Giffards of Wiveton, Norfolk?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jul 2007 00:03:01

Paul Gifford's website shows the following details (under "Giffards of
Chillington"):

4 Edward Giffard, of the Middle Temple (1560), of Whiteladies, d. 1
January 1606/7, bur. Brewood, Staffordshire; m. Frances, daughter and
heir of Bartholomew Skerne, bur. 13 July 1625 Brewood, Staffordshire.
Two children:
--John, ?bp. 30 Jan. 1577/8 Brewood (See number 9 below)
--Jane m. Humphrey Sandford, of Rossall, Shropshire

9 John Giffard, of Whiteladies and Boscobel, Shropshire, d. before
1647 in Ireland; m. Dorothy, daughter of Sir John Poyntz of Iron
Acton, Gloucestershire, and widow of John Pennie, of East Coker,
Somerset. Three children:
--Frances, bp. 12 February 1613/4 Brewood, d. after 1654, m. John
Cotton, of Gidding Abbots, Huntingdonshire
--Dorothy, bp. 29 January 1614 Brewood, d. s.p. 1634
--Philippa, d. s.p.

See https://home.comcast.net/~pgifford11/ . See also

http://books.google.com/books?id=kHEuAA ... 22+frances

_Notes & Queries for Somerset and Dorset_, 10:14, may be the source of
the statement that Dorothy Poyntz, widow of John Penne or Pennie,
married John Giffard of Whiteladies and Boscobel:

http://books.google.com/books?id=M0cJAA ... 22+Giffard

The Giffard-Pennie marriage is not in the IGI, and note that John
Pennie died in 1613, while the first child of Dorothy Poyntz by her
second (Giffard) marriage was baptized 12 February 1613/4, which might
be cutting it a bit close. However, I suppose this is correct.

_Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Compounding, &c.,
1643-1660_ has further details on John Gifford of Boscobel and White
Ladies and his wife Dorothy:

1:424:

[March 19, 1650/1. Salop.] 82. County Committee for Salop to the
Committee for Compounding. We have several recusants' estates under
sequestration, and among others that of Humphrey Sandford of the Ile.
We let 2/3 of his demesne lands last year at 40 l. and 2/3 of his
leased rents at 10 l. Upon survey of the demesne lands, we estimated
them, though at a very hard rack, at 50 l., and have posted them, but
the highest rate offered is 40 l. for the demesne lands and 10 l. for
the leased rents, taxes deducted, and this is tendered by John Brayne,
the present tenant; Edw. Tonge bid but 40 l. 13 s. 4 d. for the estate
for 7 years. Particulars of offers for 2/3 of other recusants'
estates.

--[John] Harrington of Bishton, valued at 69 l.; let at 66 l. 15 s.
for 7 years.
--[Dorothy] Gifford of White Lady's, valued at 90 l.---80 l.

3:1771:

[23 Oct. 1647.] SIR ROB. WOLSELEY (late), and LT.-COL. SIR CHAS.
WOLSELEY, his Son, Co. Stafford.
Parliament order that---as the estate of the late Sir Rob. Wolseley,
or Wolseley, is sequestered for delinquency, and as most of it was
before the wars settled upon his son, Sir Charles, who is only 16, and
has always been under tutors, and whereas Sir Charles has discovered a
debt of 1,700 l. due from him to John Gifford, of Bassobel [sic], co.
Stafford, a Popish recusant, who died in Ireland ...

5:3179:

[10 Jan. 1654.] RECUSANTS.

6 Jan. 1654. The following recusants petitioned to contract for
their estates on the Act of 21 Oct. 1653, and were referred to
Reading:--
....
FRANCES, widow of JOHN COTTON, Steeple Gidding, co. Hunts

5:3180:

DOROTHY, Widow of JOHN GIFFORD, Boscobel, Co. Salop.

10 Jan. 1654. Begs to contract on the late Recusants' Act for the
sequestered 2/3 of her estate.

10 Jan. Referred to Reading

26 June 1655. She complains of detention of her thirds of lands in
White Lady's, co. Salop, and Pattingham Rectory, co. Stafford, and
also of spoil on her lands. Begs allotment of a separate third, being
aged and in debt.

26 June. Granted, and other sent to the County Committees of Salop
and Stafford accordingly.

CLAIMANT ON THE ESTATE.

9 Jan. 1655. GEORGE GEERY, of Gray's Inn, Middlesex, complains that
he is obstructed in enjoying two messuages, &c., in Hedgford and
Brewood, co. Stafford, purchased 4 Jan. 1655 for 100 l. for 31 years
of Frances Colton [sic; recte Cotton], sole daughter and heir of John
[and Dorothy] Gifford, but sequestered for Dorothy's recusancy. Begs
reference to counsel.

* * * * *

A few notes on the above:

John Brayne, who was the tenant of the sequestered lands of Humphrey
Sandford of the Isle of Rossall, was probably the same Capt. John
Brayne who was an associate of Capt. John Gifford in Ironworks
undertakings in the Forest of Dean.

See

http://books.google.com/books?id=V_IgAA ... ne%22+iron

http://books.google.com/books?id=kxcEAA ... s=1#search

I don't believe the text can be read as implying that John Brayne yet
enjoyed the lands of Dorothy (Poyntz) (Pennie) Gifford, but Humphrey
Sandford, whose lands he *did* hold, was probably Dorothy's brother-in-
law of the same name (married to Jane Giffard; see extract from Paul
Gifford's website, above).

A number of sources show that Boscobel descended to John and Dorothy
Giffard's only surviving daughter Frances, wife of John Cotton:

http://books.google.com/books?id=C2guAA ... +cotton%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=K1kBAA ... %22+cotton

http://books.google.com/books?id=-HQgAA ... oak&pgis=1

http://books.google.com/books?id=IT8JAA ... itzherbert

Fastforward in this last source past the illustrations of the next few
pages for the statement that "[a] few hundred yards to the south-west
of it [i.e., Boscobel House], in a field commanding a fine distant
view ..., stands the present representative of the Royal Oak, itself a
tree of some antiquity. It was planted many years ago on the original
spot, from an acorn of the parent tree, which soon fell a sacrifice to
the destructive zeal of the loyal during Charles's brief popularity."

http://books.google.com/books?id=MrYBAA ... yal+oak%22

The Royal Oak, of course, was the tree near Boscobel in which Charles
II hid from Parliamentary forces:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KNYBAA ... 2+boscobel

http://books.google.com/books?id=oaMFAA ... bel+cotton

(A little more on the Royal Oak a bit later.)

While is seems certain Sir John Poyntz had a daughter **Dorothy**, who
was married to a John Gifford, I wonder if it is possible he had
another daughter Frances married to a different John Gifford? As Kay
Allen kindly supplied from p. 96 of John Maclean's _Poyntz Genealogy_,
the children of Sir John Poyntz by his wife Grissell were:

1. Frances Poyntz, bap. St. Dunstan's in the West, London, 3 April
1601; ? mar. ... Gifford, Chanc. Proc. Ch. I, Bund. 8, No. 36.

2. Ann Poyntz, bap. at Iron Acton, 29 Aug. 1602; mar. 3 Feb. 1628-29
to Isaac Bromwich of Gloucester, Esq.

3. Mary Poyntz, bap. at Iron Acton, 27 Sept. 1604; mar. at Iron
Acton, (1) 12 May 1636 to John Walter; mar. (2) to Walter Bethell. He
d. 1 Nov. 1686, bur. St. Laurence York. M.I.

4. Nicholas.

After going back and forth in my mind as to reasons why Isaac Bromwich
suppressed the name of Gifford from his pamphlet on ironworking in
Dean Forest, I am not completely satisfied that he would have needed
to suppress the name simply because he was the brother-in-law of
Dorothy (Poyntz) (Pennie) Gifford. Surely there would be enough
"deniability" in the simple recognition of the fact that Bromwich's
enemy Capt. John Gifford was unrelated to his brother-in-law John
Gifford of Boscobel and Whiteladies. If this were the case, all
parties would have known it and he would have been free to mention the
"evil" John Gifford.

If, however, Bromwich was the brother-in-law of both the "good" John
Gifford (of Boscobel) and the "evil" John Gifford of Dean Forest,
Gloucester, etc., Bromwich might have found it simply easier to
suppress all reference to the name Gifford. Perhaps this is tortured
reasoning. But one other fact is worth mentioning, I suppose. See
Louis Jordan's "Chronological Listing of Documents and Events relating
to the Massachusetts Mint,"

http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoin ... chron.html ,

for a discussion (sub 29/30 April 1661) of New England John Gifford's
apparent complaints about the melting down and reminting in New
England of English money:

From October of 1658 through April of 1662 Gifford was in England
bringing suits against just about everyone connected with the

Ironworks enterprise. The summary of the unsigned letter, **attributed
to him**, detailed several problems with the laws of Massachusetts
Bay. This document contains the earliest mention of Massachusetts
coining as an illegal act. The summary of the letter in the Calendar
of Colonial Papers states: "they have acted repugnant to the laws of
England ; they have allowed the King's coin to be brought and melted
down in Boston to be new coined there, by which means they gain
threepence in every shilling, and lessen his Majesty's coin a full
fourth." (Sainsbury, Calendar 1661-1668, pp. 24-26, item, 73-78 and
80, quote from item 78 on p. 26. For Gifford see, Hartley, pp.
139-164 and 215-243).

So apparently Gifford's complaint was that the reminting process in
New England allowed the colonists to end up with more money than they
started with. Read further in Louis Jordan's account for a perhaps
apochryphal account of Sir Thomas Temple *defending* the New England
coinage:

"For in 1662, when our first agents were in England, some of our money
was showed by Sir Thomas Temple at the Council-Table, and no dislike
thereof manifested by any of those right honourable persons: much less
a forbidding of it." Later retellings of this event embellished the
Temple presentation to include the story of Temple telling the King
that the Massachusetts coins displayed the royal oak at Whiteladies,
where Charles had hidden on September 6, 1650 to escape capture
following his defeat at Worcester on September 3rd by Cromwell's
forces.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zRQOAA ... 22+coinage

http://books.google.com/books?id=biEDAA ... 22+coinage

John Brandon

Re: Who were the Giffards of Wiveton, Norfolk?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jul 2007 15:54:41

If, however, Bromwich was the brother-in-law of both the "good" John
Gifford (of Boscobel) and the "evil" John Gifford of Dean Forest,
Gloucester, etc., Bromwich might have found it simply easier to
suppress all reference to the name Gifford. Perhaps this is tortured

One could add to this: "If, however, Bromwich was the brother-in-law
of both the 'good' John Gifford (of Boscobel) and the 'evil' John
Gifford of Dean Forest (and the two John Giffords were brothers-in-
law, as well), Bromwich might have found it simply easier to suppress
all reference to the name Gifford."

John Brandon

Re: Who were the Giffards of Wiveton, Norfolk?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jul 2007 17:01:10

I suppose it would be important to check these from the PCC ...

Sentence of John Gifford of Wiveton, Norfolk 16 February 1661 PROB
11/303

Will of John Giffard of Wiveton, Norfolk 25 June 1661 PROB 11/304

John Brandon

Re: Who were the Giffards of Wiveton, Norfolk?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jul 2007 22:01:03

:> I suppose it would be important to check these from the PCC ...
Sentence of John Gifford of Wiveton, Norfolk 16 February 1661 PROB
11/303

Will of John Giffard of Wiveton, Norfolk 25 June 1661 PROB 11/304

Didn't look at the sentence, but the will proved ... uh, somewhat
disappointing (from my viewpoint, at least). The writing doesn't seem
half-bad, but the photographic reproduction is terrible; many of the
minims are merely slightly-elongated black dots sitting in pools of
white (with little indication of how they connect to the prior and
subsequent pen strokes). But I think I can make out the following:

John Giffard of Wiveton, Norfolk, will dated 1 Dec. 1658

--wife Frances to be executrix, and guardian of his younger children
--son Thomas
--daughter Frances (under seventeen)
--witnessed by Robert Lowde (minister at Wiveton) and his son Robert
Lowde, junior.

Do not see any mention of a son John, unfortunately.

I still think this connection should be looked at, in view of the
mention of "John Gifford the younger of Gloucester"--was he the
purchaser/ testator, or perhaps only an associate or cousin?-- and the
coat of arms (three lions in pale) in the church at Wiveton.

I saw nothing that would indicate a Poyntz connection for wife
Frances. I still think someone should look at Chanc. Proc. Ch. I,
Bund. 8, No. 36, the document which might show Sir John Poyntz's
daughter Frances married to a Gifford. Unless that connection is
proved, however, I have to admit it's more probable there was only one
Poyntz daughter, Dorothy, who married a Gifford. On the bright side,
however, we have pretty much determined that this is the case (i.e.,
that Isaac Bromwich definitely had Gifford in-laws). His reluctance
to embarrass them (the recusant Giffords of Whiteladies/ Boscobel)
must be the reason he played games in his pamphlet on Dean Forest,
failing to mention the name of Capt. John Gifford, whom we know from a
number of other documents was involved, the most telling being
_Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1649-1650_, p. 443:

[19 Dec. 1649.] Report, by [Col.] J. Brownwick [ie, I. Bromwich] and
[Capt.] Geo. Bishop, of the spoils committed in Dean Forest, being
abstracts of certain depositions taken in that behalf, viz: Upwards
of 50,000 trees have been destroyed there since 1641, some of which
were of the best of an ell and a half square. The chief destroyers
are Col. Kerle and Captains Thos. Pury, Gifford, Brame [i.e., Brayne],
Philips, and the preservators of the Forest ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=D9zFoQ ... #PPA443,M1

It seems more and more as if we've established that the unnamed
Libeller in Bromwich's pamphlet must have been Gifford. Now, perhaps
we can figure out the exact meaning of Bromwich's taunt: "Twas not
the cleanly tempering of your Noune Relatives, could disoblige them
from their duty, or the search of your knavery ..." "Cleanly" in this
context means something like "sly" or "unseen,'' and "tempering" is an
archaic spelling of "tampering." There are many examples in this
period of "your own" being rendered "your nown" (is this something
similar to the rule in French that there should not be two consecutive
words beginning with a vowel?) ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=t3E0S4 ... %22&pgis=1

http://books.google.com/books?id=1K8oAA ... ur+nown%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=WuENAA ... ur+nown%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=KNkkAA ... ur+nown%22

So my interpretation of Bromwich's line is "the sly tampering of your
own relatives." This possibly refers to Lady Poole of Sapperton, who
bribed the bailiff in the disputed Cirencester election of 1647 (in
which Bromwich and Gifford were candidates). Perhaps we will some day
be able to figure out how Capt. Gifford was a relation of Lady Poole.

If Charles II only brought up the matter of the Massachusetts coinage
because of Gifford's objections, and Thomas Temple chose this occasion
to jokingly remind the king of another Gifford family (well-known
Catholics) who protected him at Boscobel, does that constitute a slam
at John Gifford of New England? Considering that Gifford's wife was
probably a Temple, could it be that cousins are sometimes the worst
enemies?

John Brandon

Re: Who were the Giffards of Wiveton, Norfolk?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 23 jul 2007 15:18:36

archaic spelling of "tampering." There are many examples in this
period of "your own" being rendered "your nown" (is this something
similar to the rule in French that there should not be two consecutive
words beginning with a vowel?) ...

I was thinking of "liaison" or "enchaînement" in French, which is "the
phenomenon whereby the consonant sound at the end of a word is
transfered to the beginning of the word that follows it."

John Brandon

Re: Who were the Giffards of Wiveton, Norfolk?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 23 jul 2007 17:28:13

W. Noel Sainsbury, ed., _Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series,
America and West Indies, 1661-1668_ [i.e., vol. 5 of the Colonial
series]:

pp. 25-27:

[1661 ?] 76. Proposals by John Giffard. Through 20 years' knowledge
of New England has gained the discovery and knowledge of mines there,
not only of silver, copper, iron, &c., but also of precious stones, of
which he gives an account. _Indorsed by Sec. [of State Edward]
Nicholas_, "Mr. Giffard concerning America."

[1661 ?] 77. Calculation by John Giffard of the expense of working a
copper mine in New England.

{1661 ?] 78. [John Giffard?] to [Sec. Nicholas]. Towards effecting
this discovery [_see previous article_] presents for consideration the
proceedings in 1638 that were taken against the Massachusetts Bay
patent, and the proofs showing how it had been violated; they have
acted repugnant to the laws of England; they have allowed the King's
coin to be brought and melted down in Boston to be new coined there,
by which means they gain threepence in every shilling, and lessen his
Majesty's coin a full fourth. These mines have never been looked
after. Through the motion of Parson Hugh Peters, England contributed
900l. per annum to Christianise the Indians in New England, which
money found its way into private men's purses, and was a cheat of Hugh
Peters. If the King will allow 600l. thereof, and let the other 300l.
go towards the first use, it will in a short time produce effect in
this discovery. _Indorsed by Sec. Nicholas_, "Concerning
Massachusetts Bay in New England, and Hugh Peters' cheats."

John Brandon

Re: Who were the Giffards of Wiveton, Norfolk?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 23 jul 2007 17:31:29

[1661 ?] 76. Proposals by John Giffard. Through 20 years' knowledge
of New England has gained the discovery and knowledge of mines there,

He must have been counting from his first stay in New England, as a
teenager in the early 1640s, when he served Major-General Edward
Gibbons.

John Brandon

Re: Who were the Giffards of Wiveton, Norfolk?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 23 jul 2007 17:41:37

He must have been counting from his first stay in New England, as a
teenager in the early 1640s, when he served Major-General Edward
Gibbons.

Margaret Gibbons' petition to Oliver Cromwell. Our library is missing
this volume--I had always wondered what exactly the reference to
Margaret Gifbbons entailed ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=Va8gAA ... ret&pgis=1



Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»