Many names are mentioned in this (very long) article. I would advise reading some of the other blog-posts relating to the Seymour, Baily and Turner family to understand better how they are linked.
Edward Seymour Evans in front of Whiddon House, presumably late 1800s, early 1900s
In July 1899, Commander Edward Seymour Evans, of Whiddon Park, Chagford, Devonshire, wrote to Charles Turner, a teacher near Horsham in rural Victoria, Australia. They were cousins, though they did not know each other. Commander Evans was concerned about what would happen to Whiddon Park after his death. He was the “heir in tail” of the property after their mutual great-uncle Edward Seymour Baily had left it to his niece, Mary Evans, nee Turner, and her children, for their use during their lifetime.
In his letter, Evans stated that “until lately I have never heard of my Uncle Andrew Turner’s family. You may be aware that this property [Whiddon Park] is entailed & that in due course providing neither my brother or self have issue, will descend to uncle Andrew’s eldest living representative.” He then enquired about his uncle Andrew’s eldest son, called John Bailey Turner, whose whereabouts he wanted.
The letter was also part warning: “My reason for writing is that I think whoever inherits it should be informed of the exact condition of affairs, and on hearing from you I will provide them, there is no doubt that Mr. Baily never wished the place to be sold, but the money he intended (in my opinion) to be left – with the possession of the property has been left elsewhere, and the place is a perfect ‘white elephant’ to anyone without a fair income to keep it up.”
This letter has always fascinated me. Did Charles Turner reply? Did Evans write to others in the family? As Whiddon Park very clearly did not end up in the hands of Andrew Turner’s family, nor any other Turner relatives, what happened to the house and its contents?
Another curiosity to me is that Charles Turner’s father, Andrew Cheape Turner, was not actually the next male in the lineage. Andrew was the youngest son of his parents, the Reverend John Turner and Mary Jane Baily. His older brother Alfred Rooke Turner (my great-great grandfather) had sons. So why were Andrew’s family mentioned as next in line instead of Alfred?
After many years of research, I have found answers to some – but not all – of my questions.
Whiddon Park
Whiddon Park is situated in the Devonshire market town of Chagford, on the edge of Dartmoor, and in the valley of the Teign river. The property, originally consisting of about 300 acres, was named for the Whyddon family, who owned it from around 1570.[1] Some say the house was built by Sir John Whiddon, who died in 1575, but there is a plaque above the door reading “1649,” indicating that’s when it was built, in which case it was probably built by Rowland Whyddon.[2]
I visited Whiddon House in the mid-1990s. I was not able to look inside, nor go around the back, but the owners at the time allowed me to take a few photos. Looking at it from the front, Whiddon House is pleasant-looking large square house made of granite stone. It is also oddly situated, enclosed on two sides by steep slopes.
A 1988 survey by the National Trust described it as built in an L-shape, and three stories tall, with 9 chimneys. The Ground Floor had 2 dining rooms, 2 sitting rooms, 2 kitchens, a stair turret, back lobby, and lavatory. The First Floor had 5 bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms, and one Lavatory. On the Second Floor there was a Playroom, 3 further bedrooms, a store-room, a study, a box room, 2 bathrooms, and a Lavatory. Inside it had dark oak panelling, large granite fireplaces, mullion windows, and decorative plasterwork.[3]
A deer park was created in the Tudor era by Sir John Whiddon (circa 1570)[4], which covered 195 acres[5], enclosed by a high wall made from immense blocks of granite. “The park is wonderfully picturesque, with granite outcrops, groves of ancient oak, ash, and rowan, broom, gorse, bracken and bilberry, and a lichen and invertebrate community that has survived from pre-Neolithic woodland.” [6] A visitor in 1793 called it “a truly romantic spot,” and said that “behind the house, we are presented, at a little distance, with a distinct view of rock and wood, the most beautiful I have observed in the vicinity of the Teign.”[7] Today, the deer park is owned and managed by the National Trust, and there is no public access to the actual woods, in order to preserve the plant and wildlife.
Edward Seymour Evans in the deer park
In 1851, in his handbook for travellers, J. Murray was glowing in his praise for Whiddon Park: “No stranger to this neighbourhood should neglect to visit Whyddon Park, a romantic hill-side at the entrance to the gorse of the Teign, and a short 2m walk from Chagford by a path along the river bank. You will enter the park at the mansion of Whyddon, anciently the seat of the Whyddon family, and now the Bayleys. Here are huge old Scotch and Silver firs to delight you at the threshold; but higher on the hill are scenes and objects magnificently wild, – vistas of beech and aged oaks, chaotic clatters and piles of granite, herds of deer among the ferns and mossy stones, at a distance, the towering tors of Dartmoor.”[8]
From the Whiddons to the Northmores to the Seymours
The Northmores came to possess Whiddon Park, probably through a marriage with the Whyddons.[9] By the early 18th century, William Northmore of Cleve owned it. Northmore was an inveterate gambler, and lost £17,000 in one sitting, on the turn of an ace of diamonds in a card game called putt.[10] The modern-day value of this bet is probably close to £2 million.[11] Whether or not this particular loss led to his financial straits, William Northmore obtained mortgages on a number of his properties. Henry Portman, of Orchard Portman, was one of the men who loaned him money. Portman loaned him over £20,000, with the security being a long list of properties, mainly in Devonshire.
When Portman died, his great-nephew Francis Seymour inherited his vast estates and personal property, including the debt owed by William Northmore, which had not been fully settled in either Northmore’s or Portman’s lifetimes.
When Francis Seymour died in 1761, that same debt owed to Portman by Northmore had still not been fully settled, and was passed down to Seymour’s heirs. The bulk of the real estate went to Francis’ son, Henry Seymour. Henry took it on himself to do something about the Northmore debt, and instituted a number of successful Chancery Court cases to recover it.
Whiddon Park and the Bailys
Portman’s Will had made it clear that the estates were to be entailed on the male line. A controversy arose relating to a Codicil to Francis Seymour’s Will, which is detailed <here>. In summary, the codicil named his daughter Mary, the wife of John Baily, as the heir to her father’s property. However, her brother objected, and took the matter to Chancery Court. The end result was that Henry inherited most of the real estate, but some of the Devonshire properties previously belonging to Notrhmore were settled on Mary Baily.
Married women in those days did not have sole rights to their property. Upon marriage, husband and wife became “one person” under English property laws, and a married woman’s ability to own property on her own ceased to exist. Any property acquired by a wife (such as through inheritance) – unless specified to be for her own separate use – came under the control of her husband. Married women could also not dispose of their property nor write a Will without her husband’s consent.[12]
Family lore has it that John Baily spent his wife’s inheritance, and had to sell off some of the properties to pay his debts. However, Whiddon was not sold. It appears that John Baily did live at Whiddon in the year or so before his death, but I do not know if Mary ever did. John is buried at Chagford, but Mary is not, and they died within a year of each other.
No clues are to be had from Mary’s Will, as it was written and signed in 1774 while they were living in Ramridge house, in Weyhill, Hampshire, and before the Chancery suit relating to her father’s Will and Codicil had been fully settled. The construction of her Will reflects this. She mentions the contingencies should property be settled in her favour, or not. If it were, then her eldest son would inherit the properties. Whiddon is not specifically mentioned.
In his Will, John Baily left his Manor of Dunkeswell in Devonshire, and “all other my Messuages Tenements Lands and premises whatsoever or wheresoever situate” as well as his personal estate, to his “well beloved son” Edward Seymour Baily. Again, Whiddon is not specifically mentioned. Several properties in the parish of Dunkeswell were part of the Northmore properties settled on Mary Baily, and I’m presuming Whiddon fell into the category “all other” properties.
The next person to live at Whiddon Park was Edward Seymour Baily, eldest child of John Baily and Mary Seymour. Edward was born in 1761, a few months before his grandfather Francis Seymour died. ES Baily served in the navy, retiring with the rank of Captain. He did certainly live at Whiddon Park, as is mentioned in numerous letters between the Bailys and their lawyers.[13]
Captain Edward Seymour Baily married Phillis Rooke on the 9 Oct 1790 at Wells St Cuthbert. Per their marriage settlement drawn up between them just days before they married, Captain Baily conveyed Whiddon Park into the hands of Trustees, who would then manage the income derived from the property. After Mr and Mrs Baily died, the Trustees were instructed that their property would be settled equally between any children they would have. They went on to have two children, Mary and Edward.
The Bailys faced financial difficulties, and it is presumed that they no longer held any of the other property inherited by Edward’s mother, as correspondence from their lawyers stated that Captain Baily had no other assets or source of income besides Whiddon. After his wife’s death in early 1832, Captain Baily decided to settle Whiddon Park on his son Edward. Judging from the attorneys’ correspondence, this was not a simple matter. There were questions as to whether the Title to Whiddon was sound and sufficiently comprehensive. Furthermore, the property was subject to a mortgage debt of £1706. In addition, according to the terms of the marriage settlement between Captain and Mrs Baily, if Whiddon was to be settled on Edward, then something had to be settled on his sister, Mrs Mary Turner. Another piece of land, described as a “nominal part” of the estate – a field called “Honeybags” adjoining Whiddon Park – was to be settled on Mrs Turner.[14] One can see that this was not equivalent to being left Whiddon Park, including the house, which no doubt would have been useful for the Turners’ growing family (they ended up having 10 children). According to their lawyers, “Mr & Mrs Turner are very indignant at the intended appointment, & therefore most certainly will not join as they have expressed their intention of using their utmost exertions to prevent the appointment.”[15] Note that Rev. Turner believed the whole of Whiddon was worth at the time £6,000. I doubt the field was worth anything close to that sum.
Regardless of Mr and Mrs Turner’s objections, the plan proceeded. The plan was executed in the early 1830s, and Edward Seymour Baily junior came into possession of Whiddon Park. Captain Baily would pay a nominal rent to his son, and continue to live in the house.
Map of Whiddon Park Estate
Who lived in the house form 1840?
Captain Baily died in 1840, and is buried in the churchyard at Chagford. It seems particularly galling to me (as a descendant of the Turners), that it appears that his son Edward Seymour Baily did not live at Whiddon after his father’s death. Certainly in the 1841 census, there is no entry for Whiddon House in the returns for Chagford, although there is an entry for a farming family by the surname of Webber at “Whiddon.” The likelihood is that their residence was actually “Whiddon Farm. A probate notice in the Exeter Flying Post relating to the Estate of Mary Ponsford Webber makes this clear.[16]
At least Edward did the decent thing by his sister after the death of her husband Rev. John Turner in 1846. Mary and her daughters went to live at Whiddon House for a few years. They were at Whiddon on census night in 1851. By the later 1850s, Mary Turner and her children had left Whiddon. The children were grown up by then, and had gone their separate ways. Mrs Turner spent quite a few years taking turns living with her settled children, particularly Henry in Ireland and Mrs Mary Evans in Surrey. She died in 1876 in Strathpeffer, Scotland, where she had lived for a few years.
Meanwhile, Edward went to live in Reading, Berkshire from at least the 1860s onwards. Per the 1861 census, he was a visitor at 21 Sydney Terrace, Reading, Berkshire, the home of his cousins Ann and Emelia Michell. Curiously, he was also there in 1871, where he is described as “Head cous”, although he is only there with two servants. Perhaps it was the Michell’s home, but they were absent. Finally in 1881, Edward Seymour Baily resided at 67 Castle Crescent in Reading, Berkshire, where he lived until he died. It may be that he rented out Whiddon Park because the income received from this would enable him to live a more comfortable life elsewhere. It may also have been too large a place for a bachelor.
Edward Seymour Baily’s Will
When it came time to write his last Will, signed on the 4 Mar 1879, Edward favoured his niece Mary Jane Evans, even though he had nephews alive. In some ways, this is not surprising. He was geographically close to Mrs Evans and her children, and there are many indications of their friendly relations. Meanwhile, his nephews were scattered across the world (Ireland, Canada, South Africa and Australia).
He devised his property (including Whiddon) to the use of his niece, Mary Jane Baily Evans for her life, and after her death to the use of her eldest son George Bruce Evans for his life, then to his sons successively in order “in tail male”; and if George had no sons, then to his daughters. If George had no children, or they died without issue, the entail then went to Mary’s next son, and so on. Mary’s daughter Mary Emily Evans and her issue were then last in this line.
If none of the Evans had issue, then the estate was to go to Edward Baily’s “right heirs”. In this context, the next in line would be his eldest living nephew, and then that nephew’s issue, with preference given to their sons first, and then on to the next nephew, and the next, etc.
The Evans
Edward Seymour Evans
ES Baily died 15 Feb 1886. His niece Mary Jane Baily Evans, the wife of Captain John Evans, proved his Will. She had possession of Whiddon for only a few years before she died on 9 Jul 1893, but did not ever live there. In the meantime, her eldest son George Bruce Evans had died, on the 15 Mar 1886, without issue. Next in line was her son Edward Seymour Evans, who became the tenant-for-life of Whiddon Park, and receiver of its rents and profits.
from Devonshire Historical Descriptive, biographical 1907 (D –4)
When he wrote to Charles Turner in 1899, ES Evans was 55 years old, and still a bachelor. His elder sister Mary and two older brothers (John and George) had died unmarried. His younger brother William Hunter Evans was the only sibling left. While Hunter had been married, there were no children of the marriage. By this time, it was clear to ES Evans that neither he nor his brother were likely to have children, and he’d better do something to determine who was the next heir.
His two youngest aunts, Frances and Sophie Turner, were still alive, living in London. They had certainly communicated with the families of their colonial brothers, as we have copies of some letters. Evans is likely to have consulted with them about their families. Whether he decided that Charles was the most likely person to ask, or whether he also wrote to others, I do not know.
ES Evans finds another heir
Maybe Charles replied that none of his siblings were interested in claiming an inheritance Evans had labelled “a white elephant”. Alternatively, if the next in line really was Charles’ older half-brother John Bailey Turner, it’s possible that no one knew where he was. In any case, what happened next indicates that ES Evans decided to find a new heir.
This decision was made easier by some changes in the laws regarding the breaking of entails. Prior to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, entailing estates was a common, legally-binding method used by landowners to keep land within the family. Whether declared in a Will, a marriage settlement, or other type of deed, the instruction was that the land was to go to the eldest son for life and then the remainder to pass to his son’s eldest son “in fee tail” (in tail/entailed) and on to their issue. This had the benefit of keeping the property intact (rather than dividing it into smaller and smaller parcels). It also prevented spendthrift and frivolous heirs from selling the land to fund their gambling, debts, or other bad habits, and thus using up the next generation’s inheritance. But there were some serious disadvantages, including the inability to sell the property when it had become uneconomic to run. Sometimes they could not use the land in certain ways that could be considered a “waste” of the resources on that land. This meant that the landowner could not increase their income off the land in new ways. Another problem was that deeds and Wills often included a widow’s annuity and “portions” for the younger children/daughters. These could run to the thousands of pounds, and had to be raised from the profits of the land. It was feasible that the sum given to the widow or younger children would use up the larger part of the income derived from the land, leaving insufficient income for the tenant-for-life, let alone pay for the upkeep of houses and farms.
The Settled Lands Acts of 1882 and 1890 addressed this situation by giving the tenant-for-life greater powers to deal with the property than had previously existed.[17] This meant that Commander Evans was now able to settle Whiddon Park on someone else. In 1912 he signed indentures which reflected his intent that after his death, Whiddon Park would be put in trust for the benefit of his godson, Edward Arthur Craig Fulton. During Mr Fulton’s lifetime and at his request, or after his death, the trustees could sell Whiddon Park, or any part of it. The proceeds of such a sale would be invested for Mr Fulton’s benefit. Mr Fulton could leave the trust to anyone in his Will, and if there was no Will, the trust would be settled upon his children. Commander Evans’ Will also reflected this arrangement. When Evans died on the 20 March 1920, Whiddon Park became the property of Mr Fulton.
Exeter and Plymouth Gazette 26 March 1920
Edward Arthur Craig Fulton
Edward Arthur Craig Rampini was born in Elgin, Scotland in 1888. His father Charles Joseph Galliari Rampini was a barrister and served as the sheriff of Elginshire, and his mother was Annie Burness. Despite the Italian name, Edward’s parents were born in Scotland.
Just how Edward Seymour Evans knew the Rampini/Fulton’s I do not know. As EAC Fulton is described as Commander Evans’ godson, he must have known the Rampini family in the 1880s. They appear to have holidayed together at least once, in 1898 when the Rampinis and Captain Evans stayed at Summerhill House in Strathpeffer, Scotland.
North Star and Farmers’ Chronicle 21 Jul 1898
In the 1901 census, the Rampini family were living in Paignton, Devonshire, not far from Chagford. In 1910, Edward Rampini changed his name to Edward Fulton. It appears that his brother Frederick also changed his name to Fulton, but at this stage I have not learned the reason for this.
Edward Fulton was working as an articled clerk when he enlisted to go to World War I. He served in the 2nd London Regiment, Highland Light Infantry, attached to the 2/4th Gurkhas, from August 1914. He was stationed in Malta first, then France from 1915-1917, and India 1918-1919. He left with the rank of captain.[18]
After the war, he travelled back and forth to the US a few times. In 1922 he married Alice Aldidge in Paignton. She was of a New Orleans family. They lived in New Orleans for a few years. The couple can be found there on the 1930 US Census. It appears they divorced, and Fulton returned to England and married a second time, in 1940 in Devonshire. His second wife was Maud Georgina M. Forsdyke.
What happened to Whiddon?
As it happened, Mr Fulton did sell the property. In 1921, Whiddon Park was sold to Julius Charles Drewe for the sum of £8000. That’s equivalent today to £401,000.[19] Drewe also bought some adjoining land, where he built Drogo Castle. Since then, Whiddon House has passed on to others’ hands, and what was the enclosed deer park is now managed by the National Trust.
The contents of the property were also sold, by auction on Thursday 7th April, 1921 by Arthur Coe and Amery auctioneers. The advertisement below details a long list of furniture, carpeting, bedding, paintings, clocks, bookcases and books, a naval barometer, kitchen items and outdoor effects such as garden seats and lawnmowers.
Western Times 1 April 1921
Edward Arthur Craig Fulton died in 1968. There is no mention of a probate or Letters of Administration on the English probate calendars. It is likely that his estate passed over to his widow. Maud died the year after, in 1969 in Paignton. Her estate was probated and was valued at £10,728. As she was 49 years old when she married Edward, it is unlikely they had any children.
One last question – why was ES Evans looking for Andrew’s children?
Early on, I mentioned the curiosity that ES Evans was looking to his uncle Andrew’s family as the next in line to inherit Whiddon. Of the 10 children of Rev John and Mary Turner, only 3 had sons – Mary Evans, Andrew Cheape Turner, and Alfred Rooke Turner. During my earlier days researching the family history, everything pointed to Andrew being older than Alfred. Based on the ages they gave at the time of their marriages, and on the birth certificates of their children, it looked like Andrew was born around 1826 and Alfred in 1828. Although I don’t know why, maybe their sisters in England (the ones who Evans would have consulted) believed this too. But the reverse is true – Alfred was born first, and Andrew is the youngest of the sons.
Does this mean that Alfred’s children were really the rightful heirs? Maybe, but not if they had to prove their relationship. Today, when an intestate estate is to be distributed to the rightful heirs, especially when dealing with a large family who have spread over the globe, the relationships between the heirs and the Deceased have to be proven with birth, death and marriage certificates and other sources (such as census records, Wills, immigration records, etc.).
I do not know whether this was the standard in the 1920s. However, given how many “next of kin” agents advertised in the newspapers, offering to obtain the relevant records for heirs, I think it possible that “proof of kinship” was required.
The reason it matters in this case is that both Alfred and Andrew had common-law relationships that produced children. But in those days, children born out of wedlock were not entitled. If these “illegitimate” children of either man were required to produce a marriage certificate for their parents, they would not have been able to – and may therefore have been excluded from inheriting Whiddon.
This applies to John Baily Turner, who ES Evans was looking for. He was the son of Andrew Cheape Turner with his first wife, Harriet Hiscox. Although I’m not sure of this, it looks like JB was not raised by Andrew and his legal wife, Grace Rose. John Baily Turner disappears from the records until the early 1900s, when he is found on electoral rolls in Queensland. He died in 1920, alone. Had he been alive to try to claim Whiddon, it would not have worked, if he had to prove his parents’ marriage.
With regards to Alfred, he had a number of children with Mary Ann Eliza Lane, including sons. But he and Mary Lane were not married. Later he was to marry Margaret Devine. There are two children whose birth certificates show Alfred as their father. But the one born after the marriage died before ES Evans died, and had no surviving children. Hence, Alfred’s line legally could not claim the estate – if they had to prove themselves.
So in the end, it is probably Andrew’s line who could legally claim the estate – not John Baily Turner, but Charles and his siblings.
But alas, it was not to be, and Whiddon passed in other hands.
[15] Letter dated 22 Mar 1833 Somerset Archive, DD/FS 40/8/2
[16]Exeter Flying Post 20 Sep 1869. Note also that on the 1851 Census, there is an entry for George Webber and family at Whiddon House, and a separate entry for Mary Jane Turner and her children also at Whiddon House.
[17] From Wikipedia entry on Settled Lands Act of 1882 and 1890
Much has been written over the years about the Tichborne case, involving as it did heartbreak, a shipwreck, a large inheritance, a grieving mother, and a case of identity fraud. There are countless websites recounting the tale, and there is even a play written about it.
Tales of inheritance are my thing, as I have worked for over 20 years as a probate genealogist, and have myself encountered many cases involving missing heirs, and cases where someone tried to claim they were someone they weren’t. But as so much has already been written about the Tichborne case, I wasn’t planning on writing about it myself. But then I discovered a family connection, and so I am adding this tale to my blog.
Coincidentally, my great-great-great grandmother Mary Jane Turner, nee Baily, mentioned the Tichborne case in a letter she wrote to her son Andrew in Australia. She wrote: “Did you ever know anything of the History of this horrid man who is trying to get the Tichbourne Estates? The general belief is that he is an Imposter. I suppose you have seen something of it in any English papers you may see.”
When I first read that letter years ago, I thought nothing much of it, except that the letter from Mrs Turner was undated, and the mention of the Tichborne estates helped to pin down at least a year range when this letter was written.
I am guessing that Mary Jane did not know that she actually had a family connection to the Tichborne, as she did not mention in it her letter. The missing heir to the Tichborne estates was in fact Mary Jane’s 2nd cousin once removed.
Mary Jane’s grandmother was Mary Baily, nee Seymour. Mrs Baily’s brother Henry Seymour had a son also named Henry, born in 1776. The younger Henry had an illegitimate daughter, Henriette Felicite Seymour, who was born in France about 1809. Her mother was Felicite Dailly-Brimont. Hentriette married Sir James Doughty-Tichborne, of an old Catholic English family, with large estates in Hampshire.
Henrietta was Mary Jane Turner’s second cousin. There is the connection. What follows is the tale of the Tichborne Case.
Henriette and Sir James had two sons, Roger and Alfred. Roger, the elder, was born in 1829. As a young man, he fell in love with his cousin Katherine. Sadly for them, this was not a match either family wanted, and he was not allowed to marry her. A heartbroken Roger left England to tour South America. Reports indicated that he had left Rio on the 20th April 1854 on the ship The Bella, sailing for Jamaica. However, 4 days later, one of her long boats was found empty off the coast. This was the only evidence of the fate of the ship, which was presumed to have wrecked at sea off the coast of Brazil, with all crew and passengers assumed to have drowned.
Roger’s mother Lady Henriette Tichborne was distraught, and it appears that she refused to believe he was dead. Rumour later surfaced that a ship bound for Melbourne had rescued the survivors from the shipwreck, which added to her certainty that he was still alive. She was encouraged by a clairvoyant, who claimed Roger was still alive, so Lady Henriette began actively searching for him, advertising widely, including in South America and Australia.
In 1862, Sir James Doughty-Tichborne died. Now added to his widow’s fervent hopes of finding their son alive was added an inheritance to deal with. Had Roger been alive, he would have taken the title and the estates. But as Roger was nowhere to be seen and presumed dead, so his younger brother Alfred was now the heir.
Searching for missing heirs in the colonies was not uncommon. In fact, from the 1860s onwards, there were frequent ads in newspapers looking for missing heirs. Several men who then called themselves “Next of Kin Agents” (and would probably now be called “Heir Tracers”) had set up shop in Australia. One such man was Arthur Cubitt, who established the Missing Friends Office. In 1863, he was contacted by Lady Tichborne, authorising him to announce her husband’s death, and offering a handsome reward to any person who could furnish information about the fate of Roger Tichborne.
Sydney Morning Herald, p. 1, 26 July 1865
Enter the claimant. Thomas Castro, a butcher in the New South Wales town of Wagga Wagga was facing bankruptcy. During the examination, he revealed that he had survived a shipwreck, and claimed to own properties in England. Curiously, it is said that he smoked a pipe engraved with the letters RCT – Roger’s initials. A lawyer who had seen the newspaper ads pressed him, and Castro told him that he was the missing baronet.
Castro wrote to Lady Henrietta, stating that he was her missing son. Henrietta was quite eager to accept his claim, even though his letters were poorly written and a bit cagey. Her second son and only remaining child had died in 1866, leaving an infant son. This may have made her all the more eager to have her son back to claim his inheritance. Castro claimed that he had been rescued off The Bella by the Osprey, which was headed to Melbourne. He said he wandered around Australia, and settled in Wagga Wagga where he took up the occupation of butcher, married, and had a child. Why he did not contact his family earlier was not made clear. Nevertheless, after receiving encouraging letters from Lady Henriette, he made plans to travel to England. The lawyer who “discovered” him encouraged him to make a Will. Curiously, in the Will he referred to his mother as Hannah Frances – though the name is Henriette Felicite. He also mentioned properties that did not exist. In 1866, Castro sailed to England with his wife and baby, ready to claim the title and estates.
To add to the curiosity of the case, it was hard to see how Castro could be Roger. Photos side-by-side or Roger as a young man, and Castro in the late 1860s, do show some similarity in facial features.
But there were glaring differences. Roger in his youth was tall, slender, with a long sallow face, dark, straight hair and blue eyes. His mother described him as having a “delicate” constitution. Crucially, he had a tattoo on his left arm. However, Castro has obese, with a round face and light-coloured wavy hair. And he had no tattoo. A blacksmith on the Tichborne estates remarked “if you are Sir Roger, you’ve changed from a racehorse to a carthorse.”
Despite all this, Lady Henrietta believed him, and settled on him an allowance of £1000 a year! Few others believed him, though he had been able to “remember” some details from his childhood, such as the name of the family dog. Working against him were several factors. For example, his letters were badly written, though Roger had been well-educated. Roger also spoke French fluently, having grown up mostly in Paris – but Castro did not. There were many other “lapses in memory”, which he explained as being the result of the traumatic shipwreck scrambling his memory.
Lady Tichborne died two years later. In 1871, he initiated a civil case to claim the Tichborne estates, then in the possession of Roger’s nephew. The trial lasted more than 3 months, and the court rejected his claim. In the end, the case turned on the fact that Roger had a tattoo that Castro did not have.
He was then arrested and tried for perjury. The trial broke records for its duration (188 days) and costs, and captured the public’s imagination in both England and Australia. Investigators had found many people who identified Castro as Arthur Orton, the son of a butcher in Wapping, England. Orton had sailed to Australia, and at some point took on the name Thomas Castro.
The prosecutors theorised that after seeing the ads looking for Roger Tichborne, Orton/Castro saw an opportunity and took it. By chance, he had come across former servants of the Tichborns while in Sydney making his travel plans. Perhaps he picked up enough information about the family to make his claim hold some water.
But the evidence in the perjury trial was overwhelmingly stacked against him. Aside from the number of witnesses who identified the defendant as Arthur Orton, there was the fact that his handwriting did not match Roger’s. Furthermore, the logs of the Osprey, which did land in Melbourne, did not mention picking up survivors of a shipwreck. Castro was found guilty of perjury and sentenced to 14 years of penal service. He died in 1898 and was buried in a pauper’s grave.
Sources:
“Tichborne versus Tichborne,” Hawke’s Bay Weekly Times, vol 1, issue 45, 4 Nov 1867, p. 272. Accessed on Papers Past website 11 Apr 2021.
Cecilia Kendall “The Tichborne Case – a Case of Identity Fraud?”, 6 May 2020, The Brighton Museum website accessed 10 Apr 2021
The eldest child, and son, of Francis Seymour of Sherborne, Dorset and the Viscountess Hinchingbrooke (Elizabeth, nee Popham) was Henry Seymour, born 21 October 1729 in London. He was educated at Westminster (1739-1747) and then attended New College, Oxford. He was one of the fortunate who could undertake a Grand Tour of Europe as a young man.[i]
In 1752, Henry had courted Lady Diana Egerton, but she jilted him. When asked about this, Henry replied “Di has her caprices”, but the lady herself explained it more fulsomely: that she could not marry him for “the badness of his temper, and the imperiousness of his letters.”[ii]
Despite his earlier bad luck in love, Henry was married twice. The first marriage took place on 24 July 1753 toLady Caroline Cowper, the daughter of William Cowper, 2nd Earl Cowper. Lady Caroline died in 1773, and two years later, he married Louise Therese de la Martilliere, Comptesse de Ponthon, of the Castle of Ragni in Tournay, Lower Normandy. She was the widow of Compte Guillaume.
On his father’s death, he inherited the properties that had been entailed upon the male line by Henry Seymour Portman. This included Sherborne House, in Sherbornre, Dorset, Redland Court near Bristol, Gloucestershire, Knoyle House in Hindon, Wiltshire, and an estate in Northbrook, Devonshire.
Following in his father’s footsteps, Henry entered politics. He obtained the office of Groom of the Bedchamber in 1763. He was a member of Parliament, firstly as a member for Totnes, which he held for 5 years. His half-brother the 4th Earl of Sandwich apparently helped him to establish himself in George Grenville’s administration. He spoke in Parliament frequently, his first speech being in support of the Stamp Act. Lord Sandwich also arranged for him to stand in the seat of Huntingdon in 1767 in return for £800 and a loan of £1000. However, by the time the election was over, Seymour and Montague were on opposite sides of the political divide. Seymour remained loyal to Grenville even in opposition. From 1774 to 1780 Henry Seymour was the member for Eversham. Over time his speechifying became less frequent.[iii]
In 1778, he and his second wife settled in Paris and purchased a property in Prunay, near Versailles. He thus became the neighbour – and then the lover – of Madame du Barry. Du Barry had been born Jeanne Becu, the illegitimate daughter of a woman of low social standing. A reputed beauty, she became the mistress of Compte Jean du Barry, and was thus introduced to Parisian society. Eventually she became a mistress of King Louis XV. As a result of her relationship with the king, she became a wealthy woman, and was given an estate at Louveciennes. [iv]
Henry fled France during the French Revolution in 1792. Madame du Barry was beheaded a year later in 1793. [v] He lost most of his property in France. Back in England, he retired to Knoyle. Over the years, he had disposed of his estates in Sherborne, Redland and Norton.[vi] Most sources state that Henry died in 1805, but the monument to him at Exeter Cathedral in Devonshire gives his date of death as 14 Apr 1807. [vii]
Henry had four children. The first two, both daughters, were his children from his first marriage to Lady Caroline. He at last had a son called Henry from his second marriage. His fourth child was an illegitimate daughter
1 Caroline SEYMOUR (1755-1821) who married William DANBY of Swinton Park, North Yorkshire, the bibliophile and mineralogist.
2 Georgiana Amelia SEYMOUR (1756- ) who married COMTE LOUIS de DURFORT.
3 Henry SEYMOUR b. 10 Nov 1776; d. 27 Nov 1849; m. 27 Jan 1817 to Jane Hopkinson dau Benjamin Hopkinson of Bath and Blagdon Court. Henry was of Knoyle House andbecame the High Sherriff of Dorset in 1835.
Henry Danby SEYMOUR 1820-187? – Magistrate and JP.
Sarah Ellen SEYMOUR 1820-1867; m. 1857 William Ayshford SANFORD.
Alfred SEYMOUR 1824-1888
Jane SEYMOUR b. c.1822; d. 18 Sept 1892; m. 21 Aug 1847 to Philip PLEYDELL- BOUVERIE.
Louisa Caroline Harcourt SEYMOUR 1829-1889
ENDNOTES
[i] Shelagh M. Hill, Sherborne House and Its People, 1996
[ii] Locke, A. Audrey, The Seymour Family: History and Romance, London: Constable & Co, 1911, p. 344.
John and Mary Baily had four children. All bore for their middle name their mother’s maiden surname, in honour of her connection to the Seymour family, the Dukes of Somerset.
Edward Seymour Baily – born 1761 at Sherborne House, Sherborne Dorset
Mary Seymour Baily – born 1765 in Weyhill, Hampshire
Francis Seymour Baily – born 1769 in Weyhill, Hampshire
Sapphira Seymour Baily – born 1771 in Weyhill, Hampshire
The eldest, Edward, was born at Sherborne House, Sherborne, Dorset while his parents were still living with Mary’s father. After Francis Seymour’s death, Mr and Mrs Baily relocated to Ramridge House, in Weyhill (also called Penton Grafton) in Hampshire.
Both John and Mary died in 1785. At the time of their deaths, only their eldest, Edward, was “of age.” The two youngest were in their late teens. Edward was appointed the guardian by the Court of Chancery, of at least Francis, who was to come of age on the 20 August 1790. Although I have no evidence for it, I assume he was likely the guardian of all his siblings.
Edward Seymour Bailey
Edward was born on the 16 August 1761 at Sherborne House, the home of his grandfather, Francis Seymour. It was Francis who chose the name of the child, naming him after Francis’ own father.
As a young man, Edward joined the Royal Navy. He joined the Royal Naval Academy in August 1774, at the age of 13, and passed the Lieutenant’s Examination in 1780 (at the age of 19). He was made Commander in 1782, and spent just over a year as commander of the ship Cameleon, and then the Swan. He was promoted to the rank of Captain in 1809.[1]
After his parents died, the Estate of his grandfather had still not been fully wrapped up. In 1788, Letters of Administration with the Will annexed were granted to him to wrap things up. As part of the settlement, property had been purchased and left to his mother and her heirs. As a result, Edward became the heir of Whiddon House, in Chagford, Devonshire, as well as a handful of other minor properties, including farms.
On the 9 October 1790, Edward married (by licence) Phyllis Rooke, daughter and co-heir of George Rooke, of the Honourable East India company. George Rooke had been dead many years, and as Phyllis was under 21 years of age, her mother, Phyllis Rooke, nee Michell, gave permission for the marriage to occur. One of the witnesses to the marriage was the bride’s uncle Robert Michell. After her mother died in 1793, Phyllis inherited property and trusts from both parents. From her father, she (and her sister Ann) inherited “the Kent Lands”, which included freehold estates in the parishes of Ivechurch (aka Ivychurch), Brookland, and Ashford situated in the county of Kent. Her mother, Phyllis nee Michell, had also inherited, from her uncle Robert Michell.
Of course, in those days, what a woman inherited became automatically her husband’s property upon marriage, unless a specified amount was set aside specifically for her use only. When Edward and Phyllis married, a Marriage Settlement was drawn up. By the terms of that settlement, Edward was to allow £160 per year for Phyllis’ use.
Unfortunately for both Edward and Phyllis, Edward’s property did not generate enough income on its own, and for whatever reason, Edward was in debt. It was also the case that Phyllis’ father George had incumbrances on his estate. A decision was made to sell the Kent lands, partially because they were too far away to manage effectively and also so that the debts could be paid. The law necessitated that Mr and Mrs Baily seek an Act of Parliament to do this. This was sought in 179x. The Kent lands sold for approximately £26,100, which was not a small amount, and shared between Phyllis Baily and her sister Ann Rooke. George Rooke’s debts were paid, and funds were advance to Edward Seymour Baily towards a mortgage he had on Whiddon House. With some of the remaining money, they purchased Elm Farm at Pilton, and a farm in Doulting, both in Somerset, and a house in Devizes, Wiltshire. Later the house at Devizes was sold to pay off more of the mortgage on Whiddon. The remainder of the funds was invested in stocks.
Edward and Phyllis had two children, born quite a few years apart. Mary Jane Baily was born in 1793, most likely at her uncle’s home in Hungerford, Berkshire. Edward Baily was born at Bath 6 years later, in 1799. It appears that Edward and Phyllis separated in about 1802, for reasons I have not yet discovered. More about how this impacted on Phyllis is described in a previous post. It appears that Edward was not very involved with his children in the early years. It is also clear that he did not do what he was legally bound to do in support of his estranged wife. Her family had to appeal to the trustees of their marriage settlement, and threaten to take matters to the Court of Chancery, just to ensure that she was paid the measly £160 a year to which she was entitled. Meanwhile, Edward enjoyed the income from the property she had inherited from her parents. For well over a decade, financial difficulties bedevilled both of them. Both racked up debts, and bitter negotiations were entered into about getting Edward to pay for half of his son’s education, including sending him to university.
For most of their marriage, they lived separately. Edward lived at Whiddon House. While she was still a young woman, Phyllis lived with a companion, sometimes visiting Bath or Lyme, or staying with relatives, such as her maternal aunts and uncles. Eventually, she was “allowed” to set up her own home, renting a house in Devizes. When their daughter, she lived with them for several years. Finally, she settled in Bath, where she lived until her death.
Phyllis Baily died December 1932 in Bath, Somerset. She was buried with the Michell family at Chitterne All Saints, Wiltshire, on the 5 January, 1833. After her death, Edward decided to settle his Estates on his children during his lifetime. He settled Whiddon on his son.
Edward died at Whiddon House, Chagford on the 13 October, 1840, and was buried in the churchyard there. The officiating minister who signed the burial register was his son-in-law, the Reverend John Turner.
Mary Seymour Baily
The second child of John and Mary Baily was christened on the 26 Nov 1765 at Weyhill (aka Penton Grafton), Hampshire.
She married George Evans Bruce on the 18 June 1784 at St Clement Danes church in Westminster, London. Mary was still a minor, and married by licence with the consent of her father. The marriage certificate described her as being of the parish of St Clement Danes. The witnesses were John and Caroline Gawler.
George Evans Bruce was born circa 1757, and was the son of George Bruce (1828-1788) and Mary Evans (1727-1799).
The Bruce (and related Evans family – they seem to intermarry at various junctures) owned land in Milltown Castle, Cork. There were, according to the Irish Landed Estates database, originally a Scottish family who settled in the Bandon area of county Cork in the mid 17th century. Milltown Castle came into the possession of the Bruce family through the 1752 marriage of George Bruce and Mary Evans. Mary was the niece of the 21st Lord Carbery. It is reputed that this Bruce family were descendants of Robert the Bruce.
From a Facebook page of the Charleville Historical Society, we get this information:
“This family are descended of Andrew Bruce of Earlshall Scotland and Helen Gray. Their younger son Alexander Bruce settled in Ireland about 1654 and had a son Saul Bruce. It is Sauls Bruce’s line that settled in the Charleville area. After that we see a series of branches of this line mainly Jonathan’s and George’s.” [2]
G.E. Bruce was a banker, formerly of Limerick in Ireland. One source described him as an “eccentric”, who “lived in style and grandeur” in the finest mansion, called the Hermitage, in Castleconnell.[3] The Hermitage was built circa 1790 for Mr Bruce. It was rumoured that he had made his fortune gambling in casinos in London and Paris.
The Charleville Bank was likely founded in 1803 by Eyre Evans. It is believed that George Evans Bruce took over as the lead partner circa 1806. There are some who say that the Charleville bank was actually a merger of two banks operating in the area, Eyre Evans and Co, and George Evans Bruce & Co. George also established Bruce’s Bank at 6 Rutland St, Limerick. Note that the partners of the two banks are not all the same, so it may be two different banks rather than one bank with two branches. [4]
As banks did in those days, they issued their own bank notes. These are, apparently, now very rare to see.
Unfortunately, there was a bank failure in 1820. Another bank, Maunsell’s Bank of Limerick, failed in May 1820. This led to a run on Bruce’s bank, which was forced to close on the 29th of May. The Charleville branch also closed the same day. The debts of both of George Evans Bruce’s banks were fortunately paid off after the same of some property.
A satirical poem entitled “The Nosegay” was written about George by his neighbour and former friend, Thomas O’Grady, a barrister and man of letters. One account of the souring of their friendship is that O’Grady borrowed £1300 from Bruce’s bank, but the banker called in the debt very suddenly. Subsequently there was much mud-slinging between them. Bruce accused O’Grady of embezzlement and murder. In turn, O’Grady wrote the poem, consisting of rhyming couplets of character assassination, accompanied by a caricature of Bruce. A libel case ensued, and was found in Bruce’s favour. [5]
Caricatures of George Evans Bruce from “The Nosegay”
Mary, it seems, lived at least part of her time in Bath. Mary and George did not have children. However, Mary seems to have played a part in her niece’s early life. Her niece bore the same name, Mary, and was the daughter of Mrs Bruce’s brother Edward Seymour Baily.
Edward’s wife and little Mary’s mother was Phillis nee Rooke. Phillis wrote many letters to her lawyer Mr Broderip, and occasionally mentioned – or complained – about Mrs Bruce.
Little Mary, around the age of 10 or so, was away at school in Bath, at an establishment run by the Miss Whittakers. It appears that Mrs Bruce was frequently taking little Mary out of school to stay with her, and Miss Whittaker complained of the disruption to the little girl’s education. Phillis also complained about the style of living at Mrs Bruces, as she could not afford how Mary lived when staying with her aunt. I presume that means they went shopping too often, or out to the theatre and such. Though it seems that her aunt was also very indulgent, something that Phillis was probably jealous about, as she herself had no money for indulgences. On one occasion, when little Mary was about 12 or 13, she asked to stay with her aunt for the holidays. Phillis wrote to her that she wanted Mary to be with her, “Mrs Bruce has her so often & I did not & also her extravagance of Dress with Mrs Bruce & going to Plays etc was what I could not afford nor did I think so much of it necessary at her age.”
Mary died on the 12 September 1831 in Montpelier, France.[6] She is buried at the Protestant church burial ground in Montpellier. George died several years later, on the 23 March 1837. There is a headstone for him in the churchyard of All Souls, Kensal Green, London. At the time of his death, he was living at no. 2 Wilton Crescent, St George Hannover Square, London. George left his estates to his nephews. It does not appear that Mary left a Will.
Francis Seymour Bailey
His birth date is uncertain. He was christened 20 Aug 1769 at Weyhill, Hampshire, and in a letter to attorneys, his brother Edward, who was his guardian after their parents’ deaths, mentions that he was to come of age in 1790, indicating that he would be 21– so the year of birth 1769 is likely to be correct. However, the marriage licence bond when he married the first time states that he was 21 in 1787, which would mean he was born in 1766. He may not have been truthful about his age when getting married.
Francis was married three times.
At the time of his first marriage, a notice appeared in The Times: while it says nothing about his own father, it described him as the nephew of the Earl of Sandwich and the second cousin of the Duke of Somerset.[7]
The London Times, 26 October, 1787
.His first marriage was to Jemima Harris. The marriage took place on the 12 October 1787 in Netheravon, Wiltshire[8]. They had a child, Francis Seymour Baily (but the middle name spelled “Semer”), christened on the first day of January in 1789.[9] Sadly, the child lived only a few days and was buried where he was baptised.[10] In 1791, Francis was listed as a Gentleman residing in Amesbury, Wiltshire, a stone’s thrown from Stonehenge, and 6 miles from Netheravon.[11] His wife Jemima died in August 1795 and is buried at Netheravon.[12]
He next married Margaret Spratt on the 16 Jun 1798 at Fawley, Hampshire.[13] At this point, nothing more is known about Margaret, where they lived, or where and when she died. However, she must have died, because Francis went on to marry again.
The third marriage was to Martha Ann Miller, on the 13 April 1808, at St James Piccadilly in Westminster.
This is Francis Seymour Baily’s signature on the marriage register at Netheravon:
And on the register for the third marriage:
To date, nothing has been found about his death or burial, and it does not appear that he left a Will.
A possible mention is made of him in the correspondence of Phillis, wife of Edward Seymour Baily, to her solicitor. She wrote that “I received a strange letter from a Woman of Salisbury saying that Mr F Baily had boarded with herself & Husband & had gone off in their Debt she also says that he told her that I allowed him two guineas a month besides the Guinea pr week that Captain Baily allows him… F* Baily has been a lose [sic] time at Salisbury but I believe by the womans letter he has left it as she complains he wore away her Husbands Great Coat & has not returned it.”[14]
It is believed he had no children who survived childhood.[15]
Sapphira Seymour Baily
The fourth and last child of John and Mary Baily was born 22 October 1771, and christened at Weyhill (Penton Grafton), Hampshire.
She married at Drewsteignton, Devon on the 22 June, 1798 to Captain John Taylor Michell of the Royal Navy. John Mitchell was born 4 Nov 1770; and died 6 Jan 1833 aged 62, and is buried at Thames Ditton, St Mary, Surrey.
They lived for a time in France, as is evidenced by where some of their children married.
Sapphira died 30 October, 1837 at East Stonehouse, Plymouth, Devonshire. Sapphira Seymour Mitchell, nee Baily, left her estate to her son Royal Charles Mitchell a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy.
The children of Captain John and Mrs Sapphira Michell:
[8] Marriage record, Francis Seymour Baily and Jemima Harris, 12 Oct 1787, Netheravon, Wiltshire; Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre; Chippenham, Wiltshire, England; Wiltshire Parish Registers; Reference Number: 2093/7; downloaded from www.ancestry.com
[9] Wiltshire baptism index 1530-1917, Wiltshire Family History Society, accessed on www.FindMyPast.com on the 2 Aug 2020.
[10] Wiltshire burial index 1538-1990, Wiltshire Family History Society, accessed on www.FindMyPast.com on the 2 Aug 2020.
[11] 1791 The Universal British Directory (Part 1) : Plan of the Work – Country Part; part of the UK, City and County Directories, 1600s-1900s on www.ancestry.com
[12] Burial record of Jemima Baily 14 Aug 1795, Netheravon, Wiltshire; Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre; Chippenham, Wiltshire, England; Reference Number: 2093/4; accessed at www.ancestry.com on 2 Aug 2020.
[13] “England, Hampshire Parish Registers, 1538-1980,” database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q5WM-2VWX : 3 June 2020), Francis Seymour Baily, 16 Jun 1798; citing Marriage, Fawley, Hampshire, England, Hampshire Record Office, England.
[14] Letter from Phillis Baily to Edmund Broderip, date unclear. It is clearly written as Feb 8, 1787, but she was not married to ES Baily then, so it may be 1797. Somerset Records Office Ref no. DD/FS/41/6/90.
[15] The Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval, Melville Henry Massue. The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal Being A Complete Table of All the Descendents Now Living of Edward III, King of England. London, England: T.C. & E. C. Jack, 1905-1911; Accessed on Ancestry.com. Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2002.
Francis Seymour died on the 23rd December, 1761. He had inherited a large estate from his great-uncle Henry Seymour Portman, which was entailed to the male heirs. However, at the time of his death, his only son had not had male children. While his Will, made earlier in the year, was in line with the entail, a Codicil made the day before he died seemed to overturn it. A lawsuit followed in the Court of Chancery, in which allegations of a concerning nature were levelled against Francis’ daughter Mary and her husband John Baily.
In May of 1761, Francis Seymour invited his London solicitor, John Pierce of Chancery Lane, London, attend him at Sherborne House to draft a new Will. The Will and a duplicate were signed, witnessed, and sealed in the presence of Mr Pierce. By this Will, Francis appointed his daughter Mrs Mary Baily as sole executrix, and Edmund Morton Pleydell, of Milborne St Andrew, esquire, and Samuel Foot of Sherborne, Dorest (a local lawyer), as Trustees for the £6,000 he settled upon Mary, for her own sole and separate use during her lifetime. After her death, the trust moneys were to go to the maintenance and education of her children, until they turned 21. Once each child reached the age of majority, they would inherit an equal share of the £6,000. This sum was separate from the £10,000 settled on Mary per the marriage settlements made when Francis Seymour wed Lady Hinchingbrook. Francis was obliged to set aside that sum for the provision of any daughters and younger children of the marriage. As Mary was the only daughter, and only younger child, she would receive the entire £10,000. In his Will, he also gave his daughter all the household goods, linen, books, plate etc as were in his absolute property “except only such of the said plate as shall– be in my dwelling house at Sherborne at the time of my Decease which I give to my Son as a compensation for such of my late uncle’s plate as I may have Sold or exchanged.” To his son Henry Seymour, he left “all such part of the said Revisionary Estates as were devised to me and my family by the Will of my late Uncle Henry Portman”, and the residue of his estate. These arrangements were also in accordance with an Indenture made at the time of Henry Seymour’s marriage in 1753 ensuring that any son of that marriage would inherit.
Francis was afflicted by an illness that may have lasted a few years. His legs had become progressively weaker, and his bodily strength had begun to decay, and he had tremors in his hands. In the three or four months before he died, it became worse. His ailment made him very peevish and fretful, perhaps alienating his friends and business colleagues. As his daughter told it, he also often drank to excess, which would have made his situation worse. There was, after his death, to be some debate as to whether his mind was also affected.
Ordnance Survey Map of Sherborne, Dorset, circa 1880s
On the day Francis Seymour died, on the 23 December 1761, at Sherborne House, both his children were at his home. His daughter Mary, her husband John Baily, and their son Edward Seymour Baily lived with him permanently. His son, Henry Seymour, with whom it seems there had been a falling out, was nevertheless present on the day of his death. Immediately after their father died, Henry kicked the Bailys out of the house. Despite knowing that Mary was named Executrix in the Will, he said she would not have the direction of their father’s funeral, nor possession of the money found in the house, nor his papers or accounts. With difficulty, they were able to get £300 out of the money in the house to pay tradesmen’s bills and servants wages. The amount found in the house was about £1000 or more. Henry threatened that if they did not leave the house immediately, he would without compulsion force them out. Mary and John, to avoid noise and disturbance, left without her father’s papers, accounts and so on. As a result, they did not know the value of the personal estate or annual rents from the real estate, both bits of information that would have been necessary for Mary to carry out her duties as Executrix of the estate.
After Henry became aware of the contents of the Codicil, he questioned its validity. Early in 1762, he instituted a Chancery suit for the purpose of trying the same. This move prevented Mary from being granted Probate. In the meantime, because the suit was likely to be of long duration, Letters of Administration on the personal estate and effects of Francis Seymour pending the determination of the validity of the Will, and the Codicil, were granted to Francis Newman of Cadbury, Dorset, Esquire. It was estimated the Francis Seymour’s personal estate was valued at about £20- to 30,000, and that his yearly income was perhaps £4000. This is separate from the estates entailed by Henry Portman. However, as accounts varied, it is not clear what the final value was.
There were several questions raised by timing and wording of the Codicil. Was Francis actively ignoring the entail of the estates imposed by the Will of Henry Portman? This is curious, because by law, Francis had no right to devise property inherited from Portman to his daughter. Could it be possible that he did not know this? Did he really mean to devise all of his property, including the Portman estates, to his daughter? If so, why? In addition, there was the question of capacity: was Francis Seymour of sound mind when he dictated and signed the Codicil?
The depositions made by Henry Seymour, Mr and Mrs Baily, and others, did go some way towards explaining the rationales in favour and against the validity of the Codicil. But of most concern were the accusations made by Henry Seymour against his sister Mary and her husband John Baily, that they had conspired with some of Mr Baily’s family to fraudulently prepare a Codicil which would cut Henry out and leave everything to Mary.
Henry Seymour Portman, from who Francis Seymour inherited a large estate – source: http://www.wikigallery.org/
Why the change?
In her depositions to the Court, Mary declared that from about November 1760, her father had come to regard her brother Henry will ill feelings. He had also “threatened to turn him out of Doors and desired never to see him more.” Early the next year, Henry visited Sherborne, but his father “still continued his Resentment and dislike to him.” On that occasion, Francis even tried to conceal himself to avoid seeing Henry. When he was prevailed on to see him, he gave him so cold a reception that Henry was obliged to leave the house within half an hour, even though dinner was about to be served.
According to Mary, Francis would not see Henry again until a day or so before his death, nor did he show or express any regard for him. From November 1760 until his death, Francis Seymour spoke of his son “in Terms of the highest displeasure and resentment and very frequently in discounting him to his Friends and Acquaintance hath called him by many opprobrious names and declared he would never see him more and that he should never have any thing from him.” He also declared to others that his son would never have anything from him that was in his power to give away.
The depositions do not give a reason for what may have happened between father and son, or what behaviour on the son’s part might have elicited such ill opinion, but other sources do point out that Henry’s character and temperament were not well-regarded. Henry, of course, disputed what his sister had to say, but also offered no evidence that his father maintained a good opinion of him.
In contrast to their father’s feelings for Henry, Mary said that their father was very fond of her. She explained that she had constantly resided with her father many years, and he always showed and expressed a great love, tenderness and affection for her, and when speaking to or directing her to do anything he desired, he most commonly called her “my Dear,” and took great delight and pleasure in her company. This love, tenderness and affection “was much observed and taken notice of and is well known to their friends and acquaintances, and to the Servants and others in and about his Family.”
Mary also stated that at the time her father wrote his Will, she was expecting a child. Her father was pleased when he learned that Mary was with child, and became particularly indulgent. He expressed himself very anxious for her safety. She said that her father declared to Mr Pierce, who was to draw up the Will, that if Mary should have a son, it was his intention “to do much better for them that what he had directed to be or had done in the said Will.” When Mary’s son was born, her father expressed great joy, and directed that the child should be christened by the name of Edward, saying that such name was his family’s name. Francis grew particularly fond of the child, and during the time of her “Lying in,” often gave orders for the care of her and her son, and after the birth, he often declared to his friends and acquaintances that the boy would be Heir to all his Estates. Francis would often give orders for the child to be brought to him. His fondness and affection for the child increased more and more over time.
Mary further hinted at another reason for the changes made by the Codicil: that Francis did not trust Henry to do the right thing by his sister. When the Will was drawn up in May, Mary said her father told Mr Pierce that Mary should not be under Henry’s power, because her brother would deprive her of what their father intended for her. Perhaps Francis doubted his son’s honour, or knew there was a lack of affection between the siblings. The unusual step of appointing a daughter (and a second-born child at that) instead of a first-born son, as Executor to the Will, might add credence to this theory.
Francis also expressed his belief that his son would never have a son. Despite having been married for several years, Henry’s marriage had produced two daughters only, and no sons. Meanwhile, Mary had produced a male heir. In December, when the Codicil was written, perhaps Francis thought he was doing the right thing in securing the entail on the only grandson?
In summary, Mr and Mrs Baily argued that there were valid reasons why Mr Seymour added the Codicil. He had developed an antipathy towards his son, feared that Henry would not do right by his sister, and had not provided male heirs, whereas Mary had.
Whereas Mary had provided a rationale for why her father would make such a dramatic change to his Will, Henry argued against the Codicil’s validity for two related reasons: Francis Seymour did not have the capacity to write the Codicil, and John and Mary Baily had taken advantage of this situation by conspiring with others make the Codicil, upon which Francis’ signature was guided by other persons.
Did Francis Seymour have the capacity to make a Codicil?
Henry described his father as a man who had exceedingly good sese and understanding. He also felt it important to state to the Court that Francis Seymour was a man of great pride and height of tempter, who never condescended to any kind of conversation with servants. Yet in his last few months, he did not behave in a manner equal to his pride and social standing.
Henry offered examples, some of which are a bit amusing:
In October of 1761, Francis and his daughter and son-in-law went to his house at Knoyle, Wiltshire, for several weeks. It was during this time that his memory, reasoning and understanding became impaired and decayed so much as to render him totally incapable of conducting business or of judging and distinguishing upon matters that required the least degree of attention or capacity. Just as importantly, Henry stated that John and Mary were aware of the impairments, and made excuses and apologies for his behaviour to any company who visited.
During their time at Knyole, they were visited by the Lady of Alderman Beckford, who lived in the same neighbourhood. Francis was in the room during her visit, and behaved in a “weak and childish manner.” Mary excused his behaviour by representing that her father had “grown quite a Child,” and told Mrs Beckford of many instances of his weakness and loss of capacity.
Mary had also told other people that Francis did not know what he said or did, or words to that effect.
Upon their return to Sherborne, there were further examples of his father’s incapacity. For example, he was “so far lost to all sense and Impression of a Behaviour Suitable to his Station that he conversed with the lowest and meanest of his Menial Servants not only in the most familiar but in the most low and Childish manner at times joining with them in Matters of Amusement and merriment which were the usual Subjects of Entertainment of Children of Seven or Eight years of Age.” Even the servants said he had been reduced to a state of childhood.
Henry related the tale of the pair of breeches which had been hung near the fire to air in Francis’ room. The breeches caught fire while the servant was out of the room, and rather than attempt to extinguish the fire, he merrily watched them burn. When the servant returned, Francis declared great pleasure and amusement.
Knowledge of his weakness and incapacity had become so notorious that people who used to conduct business with him found him incapable of counting the money, and they expressed to Mary their resolution to decline any future attempt to talk to Francis about business. Mary apparently agreed with them that his “melancholy situation” was very bad indeed.
For at least 14 days before his death, Francis was very often “not Sensible of the operations of the Common Offices of Nature nor was able to make the Common Usual and Decent preparations on such Occasions” – i.e., he was soiling himself.
For at least a month before his death, Mary treated her father as a person incapable of conducting and taking care of himself and she frequently directed the servants to put him to bed as early at 7 pm, declaring that he wouldn’t know what time it was anyway.
On the day before he died, he was “so destitute of reason” that his servants couldn’t prevail on him to lie down properly in bed. He would only lie on it cross-ways, instisting on putting his head under the bolster and his feet across the bed!
A quaint example of his derangement was that Francis was “very lavish in the praise of the Beauty of the Cucumber he then imagined he had seen in his Garden” – although it was not the season for cucumbers, and he had not been outside.
The alleged conspiracy
Of equal – if not more serious – concern were the accusations of a “confederacy” to obtain the Codicil fraudulently. Setting the scene for the conspiracy theory, Henry Seymour began by impugning his brother-in-law’s character. He said that his sister Mary had married John Baily of Sutton, Somerset, in secret, and without the approval of her father. He described John Baily as “a Man of no Substance or Fortune in the World and in a very Mean and Low Station of Life greatly beneath and Inferior in Station to the said Mary his Wife. Furthermore, it was only through his own means and persuasion that Francis Seymour reconciled to his daughter Mary and her husband, and admitted them to reside with him. Had Henry not intervened, he said, Mary and John would have been thrown out of the house.
Having established that John Baily was not a man of substance, Henry then accused Mary and John of entering into a fraudulent confederacy with William Baily (John’s brother), and Richard Brodrepp (a second cousin of John Baily’s), whereby they took advantage of Francis Seymour’s lack of capacity by obtaining the Codicil which was in Mary’s favour. The plan, according to Henry Seymour, was as follows.
The next order of business was to find a suitable lawyer to take the instructions for the new Will or Codicil. They knew Mr Pierce was well acquainted with Francis’ deteriorated state and lack of capacity to make any Testamentary Dispositions. Instead they sent for Richard Brodrepp, Joh Baily’s second-cousin. Although had never before conducted law business for Mr Seymour, he conveniently lived nearby, and had a good reputation. On the 21st December, either John, Mary or William wrote to him asking him to come the next day for preparing a new Will or Codicil. Mr Brodrepp came to Sherborne on the 22nd December, and dined at the public house with Francis Newman and William Draper, who were the witnesses to the Codicil. After dining, Mr Broderpp came to the house, where Mary, John or William showed him the Will and communicated to him what the new instructions were. They apparently asked him to be quick, and actively tried to hide their intentions and actions from the servants. They then sent for Draper and Newman to be witnesses, who were still at the public house. John Baily, so as to create the appearance that he was not privy to the goings-on, had left the house saying he was going out of Town, but actually had gone to the Inn to await word from Mary. He told the messenger not to tell the family that he was there, in the company of Draper and Newman.
Henry then made the grave allegation that John, Mary, William or someone at their direction, guided the hand of Francis Seymour in signing the Codicil. For, according to Henry, Francis was so weak and incapacitated that he could not understand the contents of the Codicil, nor could he sign it. His strong belief was that Francis Seymour was utterly incapable of even giving instructions on it.
Henry Seymour’s signature
The Counter-evidence
Mary and John Baily, along with Richard Brodrepp and William Baily, provided affidavits setting forth their version of events, including explanations about Francis’ physical and mental condition, as well as what happened in the lead up to the day when the Codicil was written and signed. All four denied entering into a confederacy.
According to their statements, about 3 years before her father’s death, Mary married John Baily. They admitted that she kept this fact concealed from her father. At the time of the marriage, she lived with her father in his home, Sherborne House, and continued to reside with him. When her father heard about the marriage, he was only a little displeased by it, and in the end offered for her to continue living with him. A bit later, he asked to meet Mr Baily and then said that he too could come live with them. What’s more, he offered them £300 per year to live with him. Mr and Mrs Baily then resided with her father until his death. John and Mary argue that they do not believe that Henry had anything to do with any reconciliation with her father. Mary further stated that her father became fond of John Baily’s company and usually expressed uneasiness when he was away.
During her pregnancy, John Pierce of Chancery Lane, London came down to Sherborne and spent several days with them. During this visit, he took directions from Francis Seymour to write his Will. At this time, and for some years before, Francis had expressed a great dislike to his son Henry, and so at first gave instructions to Mr Pierce to disinherit him and give everything that he was entitled to either in possession or Reversion to his daughter and her issue. The Will and a duplicate were drawn up, and signed in the presence of 3 witnesses, and then Mr Pierce sealed them up. Francis instructed Mary to take care of them, and said something to her to the effect that the Will was altogether for her benefit. However, she had some conversation with Mr Pierce who acquainted her with the contents of part of the Will, that Henry was to receive the residue of the estate.
Three months later, Mary gave birth to a son. Francis directed the naming of the child, christened Edward. He took every opportunity to express his great joy to everyone, and grew very fond of the child. He told people he had done everything in his power in favour of Mary and her son.
In the summer of that year, 1761, it became obvious to everyone that Mr Seymour’s body had very visibly decayed and that the weakness of his nerves with which he had been afflicted for many years had increased, and his whole body, hands and feet were in continual tremor. He felt cold even in summer. This deteriorated state of health put him under the necessity of being in frequent attendance and assistance of his servants, which when he had been healthy, he would have disliked. This made him fretful and peevish, and so people who visited or waited on him for business could not please him. But contrary to what Henry claimed, their father’s understanding was not impaired. Although his memory was not as strong as before, his reason and understanding for managing his own business affairs was fine, though his tremors prevented from writing letters (and this had been going on for a year or two already).
The family did go to Knoyle in October of 1761. In general, during their time at Knoyle, Francis entertained and enjoyed his friends in that neighbourhood to whom he commonly sent invitations as he had done before, and conversed with them on various subjects, behaving sensibly and rationally. Mr Alderman Beckford’s lady did visit and stayed an hour. They amused themselves talking of the dress at the last coronation, but Mary didn’t remember what else they talked about. She didn’t believe that her father behaved in any other manner but with civility as always, and was as cheerful as could be. Mary returned Mrs Beckford’s visit and some of the conversation did relate to her father. Mrs Beckford had noticed he was much weaker in his limbs and that he was altered in his temper, being more fretful, and Mary did concur with these observations. Mary said that “he behaved so rudely to his Visitors that few people chose to come to his House” to which Mrs Beckford replied he was not the best bred man in the world but “imagined his Behaviour was not now much regarded as he was become almost Childish”. She said his temper had always been bad, and grew worse as his infirmity increased. But Mary denied that she ever said that “the Principals of Civility and Decency demanded an Apology from her on Occasion of her father’s behaviour”, or that she had represented him to Mrs Beckford as grown quite childish, nor any instances of his loss of capacity. While she admitted that she may have spoken of his weakness, she meant only the weakness of his body and limbs. She denied that she ever said her father did not know what he said or did otherwise than when she might be giving an account of his fretful disposition, his hasty temper and the violent passion.
When they returned to Sherborne on the 30 October, it was true that Francis could not find his way to his chamber, not because of his incapacity, but because he had drunk too much. This was the explanation as to why he would lie across his bed. And it was true that she would sometimes put him to bed at 7 pm and declared he would not know the time. Mary and John also countered Henry’s other points:
Mary refuted allegations regarding his behaviour in the presence of servants, or any childish behaviour. Rather, his physical deterioration necessitated him needing more attendance and assistance from his servants, which made him very peevish and fretful. He never made himself familiar or conversed with “the lowest of any of his servants in a childish manner or joined with them in any acts of merriment the usual entertainment of young children.”
Regarding the incident with the breeches, her father was not able to move out of his chair, therefore could not rise to put them out when they were burning. In fact, it was the servant who laughed at the incident, and Francis cursed the servant, but afterwards he may have laughed at the incident. His not preventing breeches from burning was entirely owing to his weakness, especially in his legs, as he could not at that time rise from his chair without assistance.
She disagreed that her father’s understanding had been reduced to a state of childhood. In fact, one of the servants said a day or so before he died: “Poor Man how wildly he talks but I think ‘tis a happy thing he retained his Senses ‘til he took to his Bed.”
In December, Mr Steele (his steward) came to transact some business, and gave Francis some cash, which he then counted in the same manner he had usually done; and that later when talking to Mr Steele he made no comment to her about any loss of reason or understanding; if he ever did make any comment, she is sure it related to his weakness of body and crossness of temper.
In general Mary didn’t believe that people had stopped conducting business with her father, and maybe only on the days he’d taken “physick” did he decline seeing or conversing with anyone.
She admitted that Francis was commonly insensible to the “operation of one of the common offices of nature,” but had been so for 10 years or more. The explanation lay in the fact that Francis took a “physick” of his own preparation twice a week, and frequently drank to excess. As his nerves became weaker and he was less able to assist himself, he did sometimes stain his breeches, but Mary believed this was common in older people; and that his “involuntary operations of nature” proceeded from the sudden operation of the medicine he took and not from loss or reason or understanding; and that he lacked the agility and strength to get up from bed when needed.
Mary also said that her father was still able to give directions for dinners, and conduct matters of business and received friends and acquaintances, and talk of every topic “with great Perspicacity and Correctness without the least Appearance of any Loss of his Intellects.”
In December, Mary said in her affidavit, her father often talked about his Will, and would say that he had done everything in his power for her and her son. But she and her husband discussed that this was in contrast to what Mr Pierce had told her, which was that Francis Seymour had made her his Executrix and her brother the residuary legatee. They resolved that the next time her father spoke of his Will, Mary would let him know the mistake.
Signatures of John and Mary Baily
John Baily said that some time before the 22 December, he spoke to Mr Foot, the attorney in Sherborne. He mentioned that Mr Seymour intended to make an alteration to his Will, and asked Mr Foot if it was then best to destroy the old Will and make a new one, or what other method was best. Mr Foot advised that the old Will ought not be destroyed and that a Codicil in a few lines would suffice. He added that Mr Seymour should make sure to get the most creditable witnesses. Mr Baily did not recall asking Mr Foot about whether if a Codicil was set aside, the Will would stand. He said he had no intention of discovering Mr Foot’s sentiments regarding Mr Seymour’s capacity for making a Will, and he did not recall Mr Foot saying anything about Mr Seymour’s incapacity, nor declaring any resolution to cease further business with Mr Seymour.
According to Mary, her father again spoke about how he had taken care of her in his Will, at which point she took the opportunity to tell him that Mr Pierce had told her something to the contrary. Francis became angry, and declared that Mr Pierce had not followed his instructions, and admitted he had not read the Will before signing it because he depended on Mr Pierce doing everything correctly (in this case, leaving Mary everything he was legally able to do). He asked her to remind him of it soon, but not to “make no noise about it” (presumably meaning not to talk about it to others). He added that Henry was sufficiently provided for by his marriage settlement. Around the 18th December, Francis asked his daughter to get the copy of the Will which he had placed in her possession. On reading it, Mary found it to contain what Mr Pierce had told her. Her husband walked into the room then, and she gave it to him to read (they were careful to specify that he only read the parts he thought proper to read). Mary then copied out the residuary clause so that she could read it to her father. Then she enclosed the duplicate Will in its previous cover, and no one else saw the duplicate until she delivered it to her father on the 22nd of December. She gave the copied-out residuary clause to her husband so that he could read it to Francis when he next asked about it. John stated that this was the only time he read any part of the Will. Later, his father-in-law asked about the Will, and John took the copy of the residuary clause, and read it to him. Francis declared “a perfect dislike” of the clause, and declared he would send for Mr Pierce to make another Will, then changed his mind and declared he would get Councellor Brodrepp to do it, as he “is an honest man and everyone knows him to be so”. Mary pointed out that Mr Broderpp had never done business for her father, and why did he not send for Mr Foot? He replied that he would not employ “a mere country attorney” on a matter of such consequence. He asked Mary to write to Mr Brodrepp, but she demurred because she had not seen him for 3 years and didn’t know where to write to him, so John offered to write the letter, and Francis agreed that he should. Both Mary and John denied that they endeavoured to represent to Francis Seymour that Mr Pierce had imposed on him. On the contrary Francis was the one who declared Mr Pierce had not followed his directions.
In their affidavits, Mary and John Baily, along with Richard Brodrepp and William Baily next described the events of the 20th, 21st and 22nd December. I have amalgamated their separate testimonies in order to avoid duplication.
On the morning of Sunday 20 Dec, John Baily wrote to Mr Brodrepp, and sent it by John Ladd, his servant. The letter read to this effect:
“Dear Sir, Mr Seymour has discovered a Clause in his Will appointing his son residuary Legatee which he says was inserted absolutely against his Consent or Knowledge and has directed me to beg the favour of you to give him your assistance in the alteration of it. This Will was made by a Londoner concerned for a certain person [presumably referring to Henry Seymour] and I have all the Reason in the world to believe vastly different from what was intended, Mrs Baily is made sole Executrix but that Clause disbars her of any Thing more than her Fortune before settled. Mr Seymour can live but a very short space of Time, perhaps a few Days only, wherefore do give me leave to joyn him in his very pressing desire that you would be kind enough to come here either tomorrow or Tuesday at farthest, & I can’t Say but I greatly wish it might Suit you to do us the favour tomorrow, which will for ever with the greatest Gratitude be acknowledged as such by your most obliged and obedient Servant John Baily Sherborne Sunday Morning 4 o’Clock. P.S. I could wish You to come to the New Inn as usual but as private as possible I will be there in waiting for you about One”.
Mr Brodrepp replied that he could not come the next day (a day he set aside for his business as a JP), but he could come on the 22nd, and that he could only really prepare a common form of Codicil.
John and Mary said they knew Mr Brodrepp’s “extraordinary abilities” as a Barrister were well-known and very much exceeded those of a “every Gent of the profession of the Law either in or near the Town of Sherborne or in that neighbourhood.” They explained that Mr Seymour usually used Mr Steele, his steward, for most of his country law affairs, and had on a couple of instances employed Mr Foot; and sometimes Francis Newman, but none of these other men were selected in this instance by Mr Seymour, and it had nothing to do with anything they (John and Mary) had advised.
Around the same time, John Baily also wrote to Francis Newman with words to this effect: “Dear Sir, Mr Seymour hath discovered a Mistake in his Will which he is determined to alter in favour of Mrs Baily, I should be glad if you could come over to Mr Seymour’s as usual [being the Vicars House of the Town of Sherborne and father in law to Mr Newman] so soon as possible you can, for your assistance may possibly be necessary, the Time you appoint to be there will wait on You”. Mr Newman sent an answer “Dear Sir to convince You and your wife how ready I am to Serve you or any of the Family will endeavour to be at my Father in Laws as desired”. John Baily admitted he sent for Francis Newman to be a witness, should Mr Seymour approve of him.
John’s brother William Baily was a frequent visitor to Sherborne House. He often came to stay for 2 or 3 days, and when the family went to Knoyle in October of 1761, William stayed with them for 5 or 6 days. During that time, he said, Francis Seymour as cheerful, but with a great weakness of nerves and a tremor throughout his body, along with a loss of strength. This impacted on his ability to transact some aspects of business such as writing; but his understanding, reason and so forth were the same as he’d known over the previous 2 years or so that William had known him. William had been invited to visit again in December. He arrived at Sherborne House on the 21st December. He spent much of his time with Francis during his visit. Mr Seymour mentioned his intention to ask Mr Brodrepp to alter his Will, but William said he paid little attention. He knew of Mr Brodrepp but had never met him. Nevertheless, he had heard he was a sensible man and bore “an extreme good character.” Francis told William that Mr Pierce had made a blunder in his Will, contrary to his intention, and seemed angry about it. He said he intended to leave Mary all that was in his power, but that Mr Pierce had made his son the residuary legatee; and he had sent for Mr Brodrepp to set the matter right. Francis said he’d be a villain – after he had made such a Settlement as he had done on his son – not to leave his daughter all he could. He told William how very pleased he was that Mary had a son, and declared to William that his whole Estates were settled on the little boy if Henry should die without a son of his own.
On the morning of the 21st of December, John Baily admitted that when he left the house, he might have declared that he was going to Town, and said it was his intention to have taken a walk to the house of William Helliar, at Lewiston, about 2 or 3 miles from Sherborne on some matter of business. However, after he left the house, he doubted whether he would be able to return in time to meet Mr Newman and Mr Brodrepp for dinner at the Inn, and therefore did not go ahead with his plan. Instead, he called on Mr Newman, and they went together to the Inn. He believed he did tell the servant to take no notice of him, but claimed he said this because he did not want Mr Seymour to know he had been dining at a public house, knowing Mr Seymour would be displeased, and it was no more than he would have said on any other occasion.
Mr Brodrepp came to Sherborne on the 22nd of December. By his own account, he rode around the town of Sherborne to avoid the smooth pavement of the street, and arrived the Inn at about 2 pm. John Baily & Francis Newman were already there dining, and Mr Brodrepp thought it proper to dine with them, and then afterwards wait on Mr Seymour. He enquired of Mr Baily why he had asked him to arrive in the town “privately” (presumably meaning secretively), who which Mr Baily replied that he didn’t want their meeting to be a matter of speculation for the town.
He then asked John how his father-in-law was. Baily answered that he thought he could have died a few days ago but was better that day, though it would be impossible for him to hold on long. Next, he asked about Mr Seymour’s intellects, and got the response that he was sensible. He asked who was home, to which John replied that Mary was, and Will Baily, and the servants. They then spoke about the size of the estate and circumstances of the “mistake” in the Will made earlier in the year. Mr Brodrepp said he thought the estate was valued in the thousands. John agreed but said he didn’t know if even Mr Seymour himself knew the value, as he had always been negligent or indolent in his business concerns.
The party then spoke about witnesses, and Mr Brodrepp told John that they should not be servants. John suggested Mr Newman, who was there present. He mentioned that Mr Newman frequently visited Mr Seymour, and sometimes conducted law business for him He also suggested Mr Draper, a Clergyman who also was well-known to them both. They sent a short note to Mr Draper asking him to come to the Inn, where he and Mr Newman would wait with Mr Baily until called for by those at Sherborne House.
Mr Brodrepp left around 4 pm to meet with Francis Seymour. Mary Baily had been sitting with her father in his chamber when Mr Brodrepp arrived and asked to speak with her. He asked how her father was, and she replied that his health was indifferent and that he would not live long. Mr Brodrepp then told her he had come to wait on Mr Seymour in relation to the alteration of his Will, as per the letter Mr Baily sent, and asked about Mr Seymour’s senses, to which Mary replied he was very sensible. He also asked if Mr Seymour still wanted to alter his Will, to which Mary answered that she believed so, but was unsure because the day before he had talked of delaying it until he could get to London.
Mrs Baily and Mr Brodrepp also spoke about needing credible witnesses to the Will. At first Mary said she couldn’t think of anyone nearby, because of “her father having disobliged by his Peevishness all his Acquaintance in the Town”. Mr Brodrepp mentioned Mr John Wickham and Samuel Foot, but she said she was certain Mr Wickham would not choose to come as he had not visited them for a long time, and she thought Mr Foot was in London. She suggested Mr Fookes the attorney. They agreed they would suggest the names Draper, Newman and Fookes to her father. Mary then went to let her father know Mr Brodrepp was there. Her father told her he was still desirous of making the alteration but that the next morning would be the best time. But Mr Brodrepp said he was obliged to return home as early as he could the next day. She told her father this, and he asked to see Mr Brodrepp immediately to attend to the alteration of the Will.
After an exchange of compliments, Mr Seymour told him the lawyer Mr Pierce had not done the Will as he intended “for that he had thereby given all the Residue to his Son whereas he intended the whole that he had the Disposal of for his Daughter and reflected a good Deal on Mr Pierce’s Conduct therein” and also expressed “the greatest Dislike to his Son” and seemed particularly desirous of doing everything in his power for his daughter and her own son Edward. During this exchange, William Baily was present and could confirm what had been said. Mr Seymour then gave Mary the key to his bureau and asked her to retrieve the Will. After she returned, Mr Broderpp told Mary it would not be right for her to stay in the room, so she left.
With Mr Seymour’s permission, Mr Brodrepp opened the Will, and finding it long, looked only for the residuary clause & read it out loud. He did not read the entire Will. As Mr Brodrepp read, Mr Seymour “at once spoke out with a great deal of energy” saying that was the clause he wanted to alter. Mr Brodrepp asked how he wanted the residuary clause to go, and Mr Seymour said “Molly (meaning … Mary Baily) must have it first, and after her then to her Son,” and then any of her other children. Mr Brodrepp suggested “supposing Sir you was to give it to your Daughter for Life, and to be disposed of by her to and amongst her Children as She should think proper, and if She should leave no Child, to be totally at her own Disposal”, and Mr Seymour said “why then let it be so”. He did not recall whether Mr Seymour expressly mentioned the words “real estate.”
Mr Brodrepp said he did not prepare many Wills himself and it was necessary an attorney should be sent for. Mr Newman was mentioned, and Mr Seymour said that he was a sensible man and understood his business. However, he thought he was not in town, but Mr Brodrepp reassured him that he had just dined with him. Then they discussed witnesses, aside from Mr Newman. Mr Seymour also approved of Mr Draper. They sent for Mary to send word to the Inn. The servant, Joseph White, was despatched to the Inn to say that Mr Seymour required Mr Draper’s and Mr Newman’s company. The two men left the Inn and arrived at the house probably around 6 pm. Meanwhile, John Baily stayed at the Inn.
Upon the arrival of the two men, Mary and William Baily left the room, leaving Francis Seymour, Richard Brodrepp, Francis Newman and William Draper. Mr Seymour reiterated his intentions, and Mr Brodrepp dictated to Mr Newman, who first wrote the proposed Codicil in his pocket book, and then read it over to Mr Seymour, who declared it was right. It was then written on the backs of the existing Will and the copy of the Will, and then read again; Mr Brodrepp declared he only received instructions from Mr Seymour, and that Francis Seymour signed by his own hand without assistance from any of them. He believed Francis Seymour understood what he was doing and vouched for his capacity to make the Codicil. He added that Mr Seymour “well understood that what he had given to his said Son … in and by the Residuary Clause in his said Will, he had taken from his said Son by the said Codicil, and thereby given it to his said Daughters and to her Children”.
And what, in their opinion, did Francis Seymour believe was in his power to give to Mary? In other words, had he truly intended to give everything he had to his daughter, and disinherit his son? According to them, Francis Seymour did understand that he had the right to do so – to devise the whole of the lands that Francis Seymour died seized of – including the Portman estates. They termed this the “right of Disposal of the Reversion in Fee on failure of Issue Male of his son.” They reiterated that Francis has developed so ill an opinion of his son Henry that when he gave instructions to Mr Pierce for the Will written in May, he had told him that his son had behaved so ill to him, and was not deserving of any kindness from him. In contrast, they said Francis was so fond of his grandson [Mary’s son], and that he had told Mary and John that little Edward would inherit the whole estate because he believed Henry would never have a son.
But Mr Brodrepp was at pains to point out that at no stage did he think that Mr Seymour was disposing of real estate in this Codicil. He added that he did not hear until after Mr Seymour’s death, that his capacity was in question. He had sat with Mr Seymour for many hours and his behaviour showed no deficiency in common sense. He also did not know, nor have any reason to believe, that the real estate devised by the said Codicil to Mary was over the yearly amount of £5000. And finally, he had also heard that “John Baily was but in very indifferent Circumstances” when he married Mary Seymour, and that he married her against the approval of her father.
By 1763, the matter was still not settled, and Henry Seymour made another deposition, dated the 1 July. This deposition included further allegations of misconduct, particularly on the part of John Baily. He began by stating that two days before their father died, Henry happened to be at Sherborne, at a time when he was not expected by his sister Mary, who seemed surprised and uneasy about his coming. According to Henry, she asked Mary Chubb, one of the servants who constantly attended on Francis Seymour, what enquiry her brother had made of their father’s situation as to his mind and body. Mary Chubb gave her an account “as the truth was … of the absolute Infirmity of his Mind at that time and for a long time before.” Mrs Baily responded “Molly you should not have sayd so but should have told my Brother my father had been sensible till now.”
Henry also related the details of conversations he had heard about, or participated in himself, on the 29th December, not long after Francis had died. In one conversation, Mary Baily, after hearing the Codicil read, declared to Mr James Still that her father intended to give nothing but his money by the said Codicil. In a conversation between Henry, Mr Brodrepp and Mr Still, either Henry or Mr Still asked Mr Brodrepp if he knew that an Estate of £2,000 per annum or more would pass under the Codicil. Mr Brodrepp replied he did not know it. Henry Seymour then asked Mr Brodrepp if he had explained the meaning of the word “Real” (as in, “real estate”) to Francis Seymour, to which Mr Brodrepp replied he did not and that he himself had inserted the word “Real” as par for the course. Henry then asked Mr Brodrepp, if the word “Real” had been left out, whether his father still have Executed the Will just the same? To which Mr Brodrepp replied he believed he would have. I presume these conversations were included in Henry’s affidavit to illuminate how much Mr Brodrepp had been told (or more to the point, not told) when instructed to draw up the Codicil, and whether the Testator had intended in fact to bequeath real estate to Mary, as well as the personal estate.
Snippet from the court documents
Then Henry Seymour made some allegations about John Baily which served to highlight Mr Baily’s nefarious behaviour. About 3 or 4 months before Francis Seymour died, John Baily had a conversation at the home of Samuel and Jane Hyde, whose son kept the post office. He said to Mrs Hyde, “Jenny I want to beg a favor of you and you can Grant it me if you will” to which she replied that “I will do anything you can ask me that is fit for me to do”. He replied, “Why then, I want to know if there be any Letters passing between Molly Chub and Bellon” (who was formerly a Butler at Sherborne House) “for that purpose you can get your Daughter to go into the Post Office under pretense of making your Son’s Bed and see if there be any such Letters and to Stop them and let me have Copies of them.” Mrs Hyde answered that she could not do that because her son as Post-Master was faithful in the execution of his duties and kept the post very secure. Mr Baily said “why it may be done unknown by your Son” and promised to pay her handsomely for it, and added “if the Bitch (meaning Molly Chubb) wrote anything about the Family (meaning the deceased’s Family) he should by that means be able to get her out” and that “Then we shall Manage matters with Mr Seymour (or manage Mr Seymour) very well.” Jane Hyde told Mr Baily that she would try to do as he desired, though she was herself determined not to do anything. He visited several times afterwards to know if there had been any letters stopped, and she answered no. He stopped coming but left very strict orders at the post office that no letters directed to him or his wife should be carried to Mr Seymour’s House by anyone other than Jenny, himself, or his servant. Henry also alleged that John Baily several times in the few months before Francis Seymour died approached Mr Hyde, the postmaster, with promises to pay him handsomely, and endeavoured to “seduce” him into intercepting any letters that went to Henry Seymour’s house in London from Francis Seymour at Sherborne “least he should get proper intelligence of that Situation his Father was in as to his Body and Mind.” Mr Hyde refused, and told him his son always kept the keys. Mr Baily replied that the keys might be taken out of his son’s pockets when he was asleep.
These assertions, as presented in this deposition, would only count as hearsay. I do not know if there were sworn statements made by Mr and Mrs Hyde, or by any servants, some of whom had obviously been keeping Henry apprised of the goings-on at Sherborne House.
On the 17 May 1764, Henry Seymour recounted further allegations. Firstly, he rebutted Mary’s allegation that Francis Seymour had a very ill opinion of him. He then described that in February 1861 at his house, Francis Seymour had instructed James Still, who was his steward and agent and had transacted his law affairs for him in the country for 12 years or so, to make his Will. This earlier Will was signed on the 24 Feb 1761, witnessed by Richard Till (his butler at the time) and Thomas Sparklin, his footman. In this Will, he appointed Henry as executor and bequeathed all the rest residue and Remainder of his Money, Goods, Chattels and Effects and all other his personal Estate whatsoever and wheresoever to Henry. Henry said that Mary was living in the house , and had the inspection and custody of all the papers belonging to their father, and that Henry did not ever have custody of this older Will. However, he exhibited a letter, which contained the original instructions given to James Still in Feb 1761, which Still had kept in his possession. The copy of the letter of instructions stated that by Francis Seymour’s articles made prior to his marriage to Lady Hinchingbrooke, he must pay £10,000 to his daughter out of his personal estate. He also left her in trust £6,000 – into her hands alone (i.e., her husband was not to have access to it), and then to her children. If she had no children, then the £6,000 was to go to his nephew Edward Scroggs and his issue (with preference given to males). All his goods in his dwelling-house were to go to Mary.
Henry exhibited the instructions of this earlier Will to show their father’s intentions regarding the residue of the estate. However, I am curious about the change of executorship. The February Will named Henry as Executor, whilst the Will made in May named Mary as Executrix. Why the change made in just a matter of months? The change may lend some credence to Mary’s assertions that her father did not trust Henry to do the right thing by her.
The trial was held 10 November 1764, and the parties came to an agreement that the residue of the real estate not devised to Mrs Baily by the Will should belong to Mr Seymour, and that all the residue of the Testator’s personal estate should belong to Mrs Baily as under the Codicil, over and above the £10,000 mentioned in the marriage settlement between Francis Seymour and the Viscountess Hinchingbrooke. On the 17 December 1764 the cause came before the Lord High Chancellor, and his Lordship ordered that the Codicil be declared void and should to be set aside in relation to the Real Estate it mentioned.
Along with the suit between brother and sister, there were other suits heard by the Court, relating to the details and size of the personal and real estate. Some were suits initiated by Henry Seymour against the surviving representatives of Henry Portman’s executors, as it appears that perhaps not all aspects of his estate had been finalised and properties given into Francis’ hands. The High Chancellor ordered accounts be taken of all assets, and in the end, payments were directed in all sorts of directions.
Francis Seymour’s Will was not proved at the Prerogative Court of Chancery until 12 February 1765, at which time probate was – at last – granted to Mary Baily. When the lawsuit was finished, John and Mary Baily possessed themselves of “such part of the said Francis Seymour’s personal Estate as they were advised they had a Right to and legally could do.”
This was obviously not the end of the matter, however. A note added to the PCC Will and Codicil indicate that Letters of Administration with Will annexed were later granted in 1788 to Edward Seymour Baily, John and Mary’s eldest son. By this stage, both John and Mary were dead. While I do not yet have details of why this happened in that year, perhaps there still parts of the estate unadministered.
I would be curious to hear what others make of the two sides of the case? Did John and Mary Baily conspire with several of his relatives to get Francis Seymour’s signature onto a Codicil that would be of great advantage to them? How credible are the allegations made by some of the servants, the family of the Sherborne post-master, and obviously some friends and acquaintances referred to in Henry’s affidavits? Not yet having seen all the documents relating to the lawsuit, I do not know if these people were examined under oath. If not, what Henry stated in his affidavits amounts (at least by today’s standards) as hearsay. And after all, he also had much to gain by overturning the Codicil.
On the other hand, in some regards, the Codicil seems very basic compared to the Will. Almost as if written by those who were not well-informed about other circumstances touching on Francis Seymour’s estate. It seems hard to believe that Francis would attempt to leave his entire estate to his daughter when he was legally unable to do so. The statements made by John and Mary Baily, Mr Brodrepp and William Seymour almost seem to match too well. Their denial of any questions about the capacity Francis Seymour had to make a testamentary disposition are only that – a denial. Effectively, they say “everybody else says so.”
I will, in time, try to get access to other documents in this lawsuit, if they still exist, and add to the story. Do let me know your opinions, though!
Shelagh M. Hill, Sherborne House and Its People, 1996; Dorset County Council, Dorset England.
“Seymour v Baily b.r.”, 1767, C 12 – Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Pleadings 1758 to 1800: Subseries within C 12 – WOODFORD & KIPLING DIVISION, Reference C 12/1019/26, The National Archives, Kew.
“Seymour v Baily b.r.”, 1765, C 12 – Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Pleadings 1758 to 1800: Subseries within C 12 –WHITTINGTON & SEWELL DIVISION, Reference C 12/45/38, The National Archives, Kew.
“Seymour v Baily b.r.r.r.”, 1762, C 12 – Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Pleadings 1758 to 1800: Subseries within C 12 – WOODFORD & KIPLING DIVISION, Reference C 12/1003/35, The National Archives, Kew.
“Probate lawsuit Baily v Seymour, concerning the deceased Francis Seymour of Knoyle, Wiltshire but late of Sherborne, Dorset. Allegation.” 1762, PROB 18 – Prerogative Court of Canterbury: Allegations, Reference PROB 18/73/84, The National Archives, Kew.
“Probate lawsuit Baily v Seymour, concerning the deceased Francis Seymour of Knoyle, Wiltshire but late of Sherborne, Dorset. Allegation.” 1762, PROB 18 – Prerogative Court of Canterbury: Allegations, Reference PROB 18/73/94, The National Archives, Kew.
“Probate lawsuit Baily v Seymour, concerning the deceased Francis Seymour of Knoyle, Wiltshire but late of Sherborne, Dorset. Allegation.” 1763, PROB 18 – Prerogative Court of Canterbury: Allegations, Reference PROB 18/74/18, The National Archives, Kew.
“Probate lawsuit Baily v Seymour, concerning the deceased Francis Seymour of Knoyle, Wiltshire but late of Sherborne, Dorset. Allegation.” 1763, PROB 18 – Prerogative Court of Canterbury: Allegations, Reference PROB 18/75/40, The National Archives, Kew.
“Settlement between John Baily and Mary his Wife, The Right Hon. John 4th Earl of Sandwich, and John Gawler,” 23 July 1774, HINCH – HINCHINGBROOKE COLLECTION: HINCH 3 – Trusts Deeds: HINCH 3/29-30 – D. Miscellaneous Trusts. Reference: HINCH 3/30; Huntingdonshire Archives.
Copy Release in Trust for Sale, Indenture in 7 parts, 4930 B – S.H. Neck and Co. Moretonhampstead: ESTATE: 4930 B/E/T – Throwleigh and Torquay; Reference: 4930/B/E/T/3; Devon Records Office
When I started doing my own family history, my Dad told me that his family grew up being told that the Turners were descended from the Dukes of Somerset, and that somewhere in the family tree was a Seymour Heiress. His mother and two aunties were keen family historians, in the days when genealogy was not so easy to do. My Dad showed me their notes. They had gone many times to the State Library in Melbourne, and looked for clues in books about the illustrious Seymour family. They never found the connection, and had all passed away before I eventually did find the connection – also in days before such information could be gleaned by looking things up on Ancestry.com.
It turns out that we Turner descendants – i.e., the issue of the Reverend John Turner and his wife Mary Jane Baily, are descended only directly from the very first Duke of Somerset. Much further down the line, we descend from the younger brother of the 8th Duke.
Edward Seymour, the Lord Protector, 1st Duke of Somerset, painted by Hans Holbein the Younger
The Seymours are said to have come to England with William the Conqueror. The original Norman spelling of the name was “St Maur”. There’s lots more to interest people on the Seymours’ early history, but I’m going skip that and provide only a severely pruned summary from the era of Henry VIII and afterwards. There are plenty of resources out there for learning all the details.
The First Duke of Somerset – Edward Seymour
Edward Seymour was born around the year 1500. He was the son of Sir John Seymour (1474-1535) and Margery Wentworth (eldest daughter of Sir Henry Wentworth of Nettlestead, Suffolk (and descended from King Edward III). His star really began to shine after the marriage of his sister Jane Seymour to Henry VIII. Edward was created Viscount Beauchamp in 1536, and Earl of Hertford the next year. There is much more to be said about his career, but for the sake of this family history, the important part comes after the death of the king.
After Henry VIII died, his only surviving son, Edward, became King Edward VI. Henry had named sixteen executors to his Will, who were to act as Edward VI’s Council until he reached the age of 18. The Will did not specify any one of them would become the official protector. Nevertheless, a few days after Henry VIII’s death, the executors chose to invest “almost regal power” to the boy-king’s uncle, Edward Seymour. Edward became the Lord Protector of England, a position he held for only 2 years between 1547 and 1549. In the first year of his term as Lord Protector, he made himself the Duke of Somerset, with the acquiescence of the Privy Council. At this point, he bought Berry Pomeroy Castle.
Among the problems that the Lord Protector had to deal with was the behaviour of his own brother. Thomas Seymour wanted his share of power. Edward Seymour tried to soothe him by providing him with a barony, and appointing him Lord Admiral, and gave him a seat on the Privy Council. But it was not enough. Thomas insinuated himself with the young King, trying to create a rift between him and the Lord Protector. Thomas then secretly married Henry VIII’s widow Catherine Parr. In 1548, Catherine discovered her husband embracing Henry VIII’s daughter, the Princess Elizabeth. When Catherine died in childbirth, Thomas resumed his attentions to the Princess, sending her a letter stating that he was planning to marry her. The following year, the Privy Council arrested Thomas on various charges, and he was later beheaded.
Edward himself was to fare no better. Some historians describe his rule as inept, and his personality as arrogant. He had involved England in costly wars, and the Crown faced financial ruin. Riots and rebellions had broken out across the country. The other Councillors conspired against him, and he was arrested. He lost the title of Lord Protector, and his peerage titles, and on the 22 January 1552, he also lost his head.
Edward had married twice. He married in about 1527 to his first wife, Catherine Filiol, daughter of Sir William Filiol. However, years later Edward divorced her, and disowned her 2 sons, as he questioned their paternity – she had allegedly been carrying on an affair with her father-in-law – in other words, Edward’s own father. In around 1535, he married Anne Stanhope, with whom he had 9 children. When he bestowed the duchy upon himself, Anne argued that only her children and their descendants should carry on the title. However, Edward added that should that line die out, the issue of his first marriage would then take on the title.
The title and its privileges, having been stripped from Edward Seymour, were subsequently restored to the Seymours, in the person of William Seymour, Edward’s grandson, in thanks for William’s support to Charles I.
We Turners are descended from the first Duke’s first wife. You would think that with 9 children, the issue from the Duke’s 2nd wife would be sufficient to carry on the title. However, the descendants of Edward by his second wife had a tendency to die young or unmarried, or without legitimate issue.
The descendancy of the title 2nd Duke: William Seymour – the eldest grandson of the 1st Duke – having had the peerage reinstated, died a month or so later in 1660. His eldest three sons had pre-deceased him. The first two sons did not have children. The third son, Henry, had died in 1654 and had a son William.
3rd Duke: William Seymour, grandson of the 2nd Duke. He died unmarried in 1671.
4th Duke: Lord John Seymour, uncle of the 3rd Duke, brother of the 2nd. He was married, but died without issue.
5th Duke: Francis Seymour, 3rd Baron Troubridge, a cousin of the 4th Duke. While travelling in Italy, he insulted some ladies at the church in Lerice, and was shot to death by the husband of one of them. He was unmarried.
6th Duke: Charles Seymour – brother of the 5th Duke. By this point, the male heirs on this line were few. The 6th Duke of Somerset was called “the proud duke,” and described as “a man in whom the pride of birth and rank amounted almost to a disease.” It is said that “shortly before his death he foresaw that his own line of the Seymour family was about to die out in the male line and that ‘the honours of his family were about to pass away from his own line to settle on that of a distant relative.’” Which was indeed about to happen.
7th Duke: Algernon Seymour – the only surviving son of the 6th Duke. Algernon and his wife had only two children. The first, a son, had died in 1744. The only other child was a daughter.
As Algernon’s only son pre-deceased him, there were no males left among the descendants of the 1st Duke’s marriage to his 2nd wife. Thus when the 7th Duke died in 1750, the title of Duke of Somerset and all its rights and privileges passed on to the first in line of the descendants of the 1st Duke with his first – disowned – wife.
Meanwhile, only one of Edward’s sons from his first marriage survived to have children of his own. When the title reverted to the issue of the first Duke’s first marriage, they were all descended from that one man.
The first in line in that branch was Sir Edward Seymour, son of Edward Seymour and Letitia Popham, of the Berry Pomeroy Seymours.
Sources: Burke’s Peerage 1881 Wikipedia
Francis Seymour
Francis Seymour was born circa 1697, and was baptised at Easton Royal, Wiltshire on the 1 October of that year. His father was Sir Edward Seymour, 5th Baronet of Berry Pomeroy, and his mother was Laticia Popham. His elder brother was Sir Edward Seymour, 6th Baronet of Berry Pomeroy. In 1750, when his distant cousin Algernon Seymour died, Sir Edward became the 8th Duke of Somerset. I’m sure more can be discovered about this family online. From here, we’ll concentrate on Francis.
Francis was in his early 30s when he inherited his seat and property from his great-uncle Henry Seymour Portman, who died in 1728. Henry Portman was the fifth (and youngest) son of Sir Edward Seymour, 3rd Baronet of Berry Pomeroy. Portman had joined the army, and risen to the rank of captain in the Duke of Buckingham’s Foot circa 1672. Later he served as a Member of Parliament, first for the seat of St Mawes, in Cornwall; and later for Totnes, Taunton and Wells. In 1690, he inherited estates in Somerset and Dorset from his maternal cousin Sir William Portman. On inheriting, he changed his surname from Seymour to Portman. While he married twice, he had no issue.[i]
Henry Portman’s Will left the bulk of his estate to his nephew William Seymour, but in the event of William’s dying without issue, it was next to go to Francis. William Seymour did die without issue, thus the vast estates were entailed upon Francis. Although the estates comprised of several properties, Sherborne House in Sherborne, Dorset, appears to have been his principal seat, at least later in his life.
Francis Seymour served as a Minister of Parliament, belonging to the Tory party. He was member for Great Bedwyn from 1732-34 and then Marlborough 1734-1741. His time in politics was relatively short, and his time in Parliament was when the opposing party, the Whigs, were in power. He made a particular enemy of Sir Robert Walpole, who tried to rid him of his seat in 1735. Subsequently, “he voted against the Walpole’s administration in all recorded divisions”.[ii]
He was described as “a proud spirit,” and it is said that he once refused to take his hat off to the King at the opera, as he was afraid of catching a cold, and was quoted as saying “He would have thought it very wrong to have done anything of that sort in the King’s palaces, but there were not kings at operas or playhouses where everyone could sit as they pleased.”[iii]
Francis Seymour married Elizabeth, the Dowager Viscountess Hinchingbrooke. The ceremony took place on the 30th July 1728 at St Giles in the Fields, Holborn[iv]. Elizabeth was the daughter of Alexander Popham, of Littlecote, Wiltshire, and Anne Montagu. She was, in fact, Francis’ cousin. His mother, Laticia Popham, was the sister of Elizabeth’s father Alexander.
Elizabeth had been married previously, and widowed early. Her first husband was Edward Richard Montagu, the Viscount Hinchinbrooke, son of the 3rd Earl of Sandwich. Had he lived, on the death of his father he would have himself become the Earl. However, he did not survive his own father, and instead, his and Elizabeth’s first-born son, John acceded to the title of the 4th Earl of Sandwich a few years later. Elizabeth retained her title and was referred to as the Viscountess Hinchingbrooke until her death.
The marriage of Francis Seymour and the Viscountess Hinchingbrooke was not entirely successful. They separated in 1739. The Articles of Separation were drawn up between Francis Seymour and Elizabeth’s son The Right Honourable Earl of Sandwich. The articles begin “Whereas there have lately arisen some unhappy differences between the said Francis Seymour and Elizabeth his said Wife and thereupon they have parted and agreed to live separate”. [v]
A Marriage Settlement, mentioned in the articles of separation, had secured a separate estate upon the Viscountess, though the value was not stated in this document. Per the separation agreement, Francis was to pay Elizabeth an additional amount of £100 a year for her own use, and also £100 per year for the maintenance and education for their daughter Mary. Should he change his mind and wish to maintain and educate her himself, he was to give the Viscountess sufficient written notice of his intention, and thereafter would no longer provide the additional £100.[vi]
Upon separating, the Viscountess Hinchingbrooke purchased a house in Charles Street, in the parish of St George Hanover Square. She died 20 March 1761. She left a rather long-winded Will with several codicils describing in detail what she was leaving and to whom. Among her gifts were rings, paintings, furniture, items of clothing, and more, bequeathed to her daughter, her sons, her friends and servants. Interesting items she bequeathed included:
a “large tea kettle and stand that were made out of a Cup” to the widow of her son Captain William Montague
“my Japan Chest upon a Gilt Frame with every thing that Shall be found therein” to Mr Wood who accompanies her son Henry Seymour on his travels abroad.
To Lady Vanburgh the black Japan Standish with a Parrot on top
To Mrs Mary Taylor, her fourth Commode with drawers inlaid with brass
To her daughter, Mrs Mary Baily, she bequeathed a number of items, including ornamental figurines, her sedan chair, stoneware, household linen, a mahogany bookcase with all the books it contained, chests and trunks with their contents (to be delivered unopened), a Turkey carpet, “my Six leav’d leather Skreen”, a crimson damask bed with all the bedding
She also directed that her house in Charles Street be sold for the highest amount it could fetch, and requested that Edward, the Duke of Somerset, and Thomas Prowse, Esquire, of Somerset, be the Trustees, for the £1000 to be set in trust for her daughter Mary Baily. The residue of the money arising from the sale of her land and premises she gave to her son Henry Seymour for his absolute use.
The “Seymour Heiress“
Francis and Elizabeth had three children, but one child (Francis) died young. The first-born was Henry, born in 1729. He deserved a separate entry on this blog.
The second child was Mary, mentioned above. She was probably born in 1730, and baptised on the 14 February 1730 in London, at St George Hanover Square. At this point, not much is known about her early life. She was still a child when her parents separated, and it is presumed, from the Articles of Separation, that she remained with her mother for a time, who was to receive £100 a year for her education and maintenance. Later, though, as a young woman in her 20s, she was known to be living with her father.
This girl, Mary Seymour, is the “Seymour Heiress” mentioned in the tales of the Turner family. For in the marriage settlement of her parents, £10,000 had been set aside to be shared between any daughters and younger children. As she was the only daughter and the only surviving younger child, she was to receive the whole amount upon the death of both parents. She also received £1000 form her mother’s Will, and £6000 from her father’s Will, put in Trust for her. Thus she inherited a total of £17,000. This is the equivalent today of about £1,700,000.[vii]
Mary married John Baily in 1758. They had four children together (who will also be the subject of a later blog-post).
Mary Baily’s date of death and place of burial has not yet been established. She does not appear in the burial registers of Chagford, Devon (where her husband died), or Weyhill, Hampshire (where they lived for many years). It is presumed that Mary died circa 1784, as that was the year that her Will was probated. If so, she was aged only 52. Her Will states that she was from Ramridge, Hampshire, but she wrote her will on the 4 July 1774. At the time of its writing, her children were still very young. By the time she died, her youngest child was 13 years old. The Will mentions the £1000 that had been willed to her by her own mother, the Viscountess Hinchingbrook. She directed that the interest of this money be divided between her children. She also mentioned the personal estate of her father, which had been willed to her. She directed that those funds also be divided between her children. However, if one of her sons, by virtue of the limitations of her father’s Will, become entitled to the manors and lands, then that son would only receive £50 from the amount inherited from her mother, and another £50 from the personal estate inherited from her father, and the remainder would be divided between her other children. The wording appears to indicate that there was still uncertainty about what would happen to the estate her father had inherited from Henry Portman. For more on the controversy surrounding her father’s Will, see the blog post about the Chancery Suit of Francis Seymour.
ENDNOTES
[i] Biographical notes taken from “Henry Seymour Portman” Wikipedia, last updated 2 Mar 2021, accessed 10 Apr 2021. And “Seymour (afterwards Portman), Henry II (c. 1637-1728), of Orchard Portman, Som” on History of Parliament website, accessed 10 Apr 2021.
[ii] Shelagh M. Hill, Sherborne House and Its People, 1996. 23
[iii] Shelagh M. Hill, Sherborne House and Its People, 1996, quoting Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, in “Some Letters of a Grandmother”, ed G. Scott Thompson
[iv] Marriage document Francis Seymour and Dame Elizabeth Montague, St Giles in the Field, Camden, London Metropolitan Archives, London, England, no. P82/GIS/A/03, downloaded from http://www.ancestry.com.
[v] “Articles of Separation between Francis and Elizabeth Seymour (1739)”, Seymour Family Deeds etc., DD\BR\tsk\11 Somerset Archives and Local Studies, Taunton, England.
Sherborne House is a 3-storey Georgian mansion build circa 1720, designed by the architect Benjamin Bastard for Henry Seymour Portman. Its staircase hall features murals painted by Sir James Thornhill. It is now a Grade I Heritage Listed Building.[i] On the site had previously stood a Tudor building, which was mostly demolished, except for the west wing, which still stands.
A description of the house was posted when it was to be sold in 1798:
“A large free-stone Mansion House, handsomely built, with roomy commodious apartments, exceeding good offices of all kinds, granary, coach-houses, and stabling for 30 horses, with rooms over them etc and about five acres of pleasure ground, and good gardens adjoining, fenced with a high brick wall, well planted with fruit trees, in high bearing. The premises stand in a high dry, healthy situation.”
Francis Seymour, for the Berry Pomeroy family, younger brother of the 8th Duke of Somerset, inherited the house from his great-uncle Henry Portman. Francis did live there, at least some of the time, and certainly for the last few years of his life. He died there in 1761, after which it passed to his son, Henry Seymour. Henry, however, did not live there, and the house was let out to tenants for many years.
In 1799, Sherborne House was bought by a wealthy local farmer, James Toogood. Later it was in the hands of various owners and tenants, and then in 1931, it became a school, first named “Lord Digby’s School.”
In more recent times, Sherborne House was purchased under the Sherborne House Trust, and the process began to restore and preserve it, with the aim of “promoting and advancing the education of the public in the arts.”
LINKS AND SOURCES
For more details of the house and its occupants, I recommend “Sherborne House and Its People”, by Shelagh M. Hill, Illustrated by Anne Moorse.
According to a descendant of the South Cadbury Bailys, “Colonel John Baily is said to have been regarded as the handsomest man in Somerset” but also “seems to have been a thoroughly bad lot and certainly ran through his wife’s fortune.” [i]
John Baily, my 5x great-grandfather, was likely born in 1728. He was baptised at St Thomas à Becket church in South Cadbury, Somerset, the parish where his father, the Reverend John Baily, was the Rector. His mother was Elizabeth Newman. John was the eldest of 9 children. He appears to have been close to his brother William who later became a clergyman
From the baptismal registers of South Cadbury, Somerset. Year: 1728. Clipped from Ancestry.com.
John’s father, John Baily, was born circa 1697, and hailed from Frome, Somerset[ii]. He attended Balliol college at Oxford University, matriculating the 1 December 1714. He obtained a BA in 1718 and MA in 1721, and was instituted the Rector of South Cadbury, Somerset on the 3 July, 1725. In 1730, he added the parish of Sparkford to his care, and was later made Prebendary of Wells.[iii] He married Eleanor Newman in 1727.
At the age of 30, on the 17 August, 1758, at Sutton Montis in Somerset, John Baily married Mary Seymour, of Sherborne, Dorset. They married by licence, which he obtained on the 15 August. [iv]
Curiously, some sources give the marriage date as the 30 November of the same year. For example, several of the peerage compendiums[v]:
The Peerage of England: third edition, p. 1768
Furthermore, the marriage notices did not appear in the fashionable press until December:
The London Chronicle Vol. 4, Dec 2-5, 1758, p. 5338
The Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure, Vol. 23, Dec 1758, p. 325
Note, too, that the London Chronicle says that the ceremony was performed “at her father’s house in Sherborne, Dorset”. This is not true – at least of the first, official ceremony. The marriage very much took place in Sutton Montis, and there is no evidence of an official second marriage ceremony in the church registers of Sherborne.
There is an explanation for the discrepancy.
It appears that the marriage was kept a secret from Mary’s father for at least several months. This was revealed in the Chancery lawsuit relating to Mary’s father’s Will (more on this in another post). Mary’s brother Henry described John Baily as a man who “then followed the Business or Calling of a Farmer and was looked on as a man without any Fortune or at least a very small and Inconsiderable one.”[vi] Given that his father was a clergyman, most likely if John was a farmer, he was a “gentleman farmer” as opposed to someone who did any labouring.[vii]
Mary’s father was Francis Seymour, Esq., who had inherited a large estate from his great-uncle Henry Portman, including his mansion, Sherborne House, in Sherborne, Dorset, only about 5 or 6 miles from Sutton Montis. Francis Seymour was the son of Sir Edward Seymour, a baronet. Francis’ elder brother, Edward Seymour, became the 8th Duke of Somerset. Mary’s mother was the Viscountess Hinchingbrooke, and her half-brother was John Montague, the 4th Earl of Sandwich. Therefore, Mary was from a wealthy and well-connected family, and in comparison, while John Baily would be considered a gentleman, he was not one of wealth or status. She was 26 years old when she married John, and would not have needed her father’s permission to wed, but given the disparity in fortune, she could well have faced serious opposition to the marriage. Hence it is not a surprise that she did not tell her father until it was a done deal.
For Mary, at least, this was likely a love-match. But was it for John? Is it possibly he had a more mercenary motivation?
Mary herself was an heiress. She stood to inherit at least £10,000 set aside as part of her parents’ marriage settlement, as well as an additional amount from her father when he died. This would be a fair prospect for the son of a clergyman with no occupation and not likely to inherit much himself.
Anyway, according to Mary, her father was soon reconciled to the marriage. In fact, “he was so little displeased” that he desired her not to leave, and instead, offered John and Mary to live with him and declared if they did, he would give them £300 a year. From about March 1760, this is what they did. Mary went on to write that her father “took a great liking to … John Baily and became very fond of his Company and was uneasy at such times as he was absent.” [viii] John and Mary’s first child, Edward Seymour Baily, was born at Sherborne House on the 16 August 1761.
From Mary’s point of view, John was charming enough to soften her father’s opinion of him. But Mary’s brother, Henry Seymour, paints a different picture of John Baily.
Francis Seymour’s Will and Codicil, and the Probate Lawsuit
In summary, Henry Seymour alleged a scheme by which John Baily obtained the assistance of his relatives to get the Codicil made. The way Henry saw it, John Baily (with or without his wife’s help) unsealed the Will made in May, in order to familiarise himself with its contents. He sent for Richard Brodrepp, a second cousin of his, to write the Codicil, and his brother William Baily to participate in the scheme. One or other of them is accused of guiding Mr Seymour’s hand to sign his name. The accusations include trying to get servants to cooperate, and to keep the goings-on from the ears of Henry Seymour, as well as trying to hide the “fact” that Francis Seymour did not have the mental capacity to dictate the Codicil. Please see the post on the Chancery Suit for more details.
In the end, the court decided that the residuum of the estate not devised to Mary Baily by the Will should belong to Henry Seymour, and that the residue of the personal estate should belong to Mary Baily as per the Codicil.
Ramridge House, Weyhill
John and Mary left Sherborne House not long after the death of her father. By the description in the chancery depositions, Henry took possession of Sherborne House, and demanded that Mr and Mrs Baily depart quickly. In due course, they settled at Ramridge House, in the parish of Weyhill (also known as Penton Grafton) in Hampshire, where they stayed until at least the mid-1770s.
Their three younger children were all born or baptised there, and various documents described John and Mary as “of Ramridge House” during this period. In 1764, John Baily Esq became a Justice of the Peace for Weyhill, and as of 1774, was still acting in that capacity:
The Hampshire Chronicle 17 Oct 1774
The Northmore properties
In 1774 an agreement between Henry Seymour and John & Mary Baily, pursuant to the Chancery case, was finalised. In the indenture, some of the property originally belonging to William Northmore became the property of the Bailys. The background is that, many decades before, Willian Northmore had obtained a mortgage from Henry Portman. The debt was not paid off in Northmore’s lifetime, nor by his Heirs and Executors, so in the end, Francis Seymour came to own the properties. Among the properties where Whiddon House in Chargford, and Pring Close and Bywood Farm in the parish of Dunkeswell, all in Devonshire.
It states (in a rather saccharine way) “for the consideration of the natural love and affection which he hath and bareth for his said wife [John Baily] is desirous to Settle the Sum of four hundred and fifty pounds per annum upon his said wife during [their] Joint Lives for her own separate and peculiar use” to be paid from the rents and profits of the unsold properties and the interest and dividends of the £6,000 which will be invested after the sale of the properties.” The amount she was to receive was to be in no way subject or liable to the “debts, imposition or control” of John Baily.
In exchange, John wanted paid to him £3,900 as soon as that sum could be raised from the sale of the properties. He was “willing to forego and postpone the payment of any other the Claims and Demands which he now has upon the said Trust premises remaining unsold until the said Sum of Six thousand pounds so provided for the said Mary Baily in and by the Will of her said father shall have been raised by the Sale of a sufficient part of the said Hereditaments and premises”.
But, the settlement on Mary “is hereby agreed and declared shall be in lieu and satisfaction of any other provision which the said Mary Baily now is or may be intitled to under the will of the said Francis Seymour her late father or the Decree of the Court of Chancery before cited or otherwise”
While the surplus of rents and profits from the properties “shall from time to time be received by and come to the hands of the said John Gawler his Executors or Administrators unto the said John Baily.”
Curiously included were the penalties should John Baily “intermeddle” or interfere in any way with the collection of the rents! Did this imply he had already been doing so?
I have not found anything to show that John and Mary lived together at Whiddon House, but there is some indication that John was linked to Bywood Farm in 1775. Certainly by 1780, John Baily appears in the Devon Land Tax records as the proprietor of Pring Close and Bywood in the parish of Dunkewsell, but he was not then the occupier. From 1782, he is the occupier of Bywood.
John’s run for Parliament
In April 1784, John Baily ran for the seat of Honiton, in Devonshire, but was not successful.
The Chelmsford Chronicle 9 Apr 1784
When he died, less than a year later, his obituary noted:
I’m yet to find it there are any more details of his run for Parliament.
Death and Probate
John died in January 1785 at Whiddon House in Chagford, and was buried in the churchyard at the parish church there, on the 10 January. His last Will was dated 15 December 1784. His wife Mary died before him, and is not mentioned in his Will.
Obituary appeared in the Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette 27 Jan 1785, The Hampshire Chronicle, 31 Jan 1785, ad the London Times, 28 Jan 1785.
He bequeathed to his son Edward Seymour Bailey “all that my Manor of Dunkeswell in the said county and all my Messuages Tenements Lands and premises whatsoever or wheresoever situate and all my plate rings jewels china and all other my personal Estate of what nature or kind … unto and to the use of the said Edward Seymour Baily my son his Heirs Executors Administrators and Assigns for ever”.[x]
Summary:
There is some indication that John Baily was “a thoroughly bad lot”, to quote one of his descendants. If the allegations made by his brother-in-law are correct, he colluded with others to falsely obtain a Codicil to Francis Seymour’s Will, from which he would benefit financially through Mary. Of course, Henry had a vested interest in disproving the veracity of the Codicil, and Henry wasn’t exactly considered a paragon of virtue. The indenture between John and Mary hints at John’s need for immediate funds, and that he was not to interfere in, for example, the collecting of rents.
And certainly by the time their son Edward Seymour Baily inherited Whiddon House, the income from it was barely sufficient to live on.
But I reserve my judgement until I learn more about him.
Unfortunately, there are few descendants who can be asked if they know about him.
Mystery son, Rev John Baily, born 1750
Recently, I came across new information that John Baily may have been married before, to a woman named Elizabeth. I have not yet found the marriage between them.
In 1750, a child named John was baptised at Sutton Montis. His parents are named as “Mr” John Baily and his wife Elizabeth.[xi] A later child, William, was baptised and buried in 1753. [xii] I have not yet found a burial for Elizabeth, but I’m assuming she died by 1758.[xiii]
This son John attended Oxford University.[xiv] He became a clergyman, though I have not yet found information about this.
Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1500-1714, Vol 1, B. Oxford: Parker and Co., 1888-1892, p 49
His obituary in the Hampshire Chronicle on the 19 Sep 1825 certainly ties him to our John Baily, wherein he is described as the eldest son of John Baily, Esq of Ramridge House.
The Hampshire Chronicle 19 Sep 1825.
What is curious it that the Rev. John Baily is not mentioned in John’s Will, as he is his eldest son. Perhaps there was a rift between them, or perhaps the property that John had at the time of his death could only be passed on to the children of his marriage with Mary Seymour.
Still some digging to do:
John was in one place described as “Colonel” – this is new information and I have not yet looked into it.
John’s run for Parliament
A descendant of Sapphira Seymour Baily, George Baily Michell, apparently had miniatures of John and Mary Baily. George died in 1929, apparently without issue. His sister also died without issue. Where might these miniatures have ended up? There were also portraits of them at Whiddon – but when Whiddon left the families hands, would the portraits have been sold?
More information about his first marriage, and about his eldest son.
ENDNOTES
[i] The descendant was probably George Baily Michell, the grandson of Sapphira Seymour Michell, nee Baily, John and Mary Baily’s daughter. Source: private correspondence between Paul Gallagher and David Garway-Heath.
[ii] He was baptized 1 Nov 1697 at Frome, Somerset: Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset, England; Somerset Parish Records, 1538-1914; Reference Number: D\P\fr.jo/2/1/1, accessed at Ancestry.com.
[iii]Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1500-1714, Vol 1, B. Oxford: Parker and Co., 1888-1892.
[v] E.g. Collins, Arthur, The Peerage of England : The third edition, corrected and enlarged in every family, with memoirs, not hitherto printed, Volume 1, Woodfall, 1768
[vi] Probate lawsuit Baily v Seymour, concerning the deceased Francis Seymour of Knoyle, Wiltshire but late of Sherborne, Dorset. Allegation, PROB 18/73/58; obtained from The National Archives (England).
[vii] This information about John as a farmer is not quite consistent with the prefix of “colonel” given to him by the Baily descendant. Possibly he was an officer in the local militia, but I have yet to find any information about this.
[viii] Probate lawsuit Baily v Seymour, concerning the deceased Francis Seymour of Knoyle, Wiltshire but late of Sherborne, Dorset. Allegation, PROB 18/73/58; obtained from The National Archives (England).
[ix] Settlement; 1. John Baily of Rambridge, co. Southampton, Esq., and Mary his wife. 2. Rt. Hon John 4th Earl of Sandwich of Hinchinbrooke, co. Huntingdon, and John Gawler of the Inner Temple, London, Esq. HINCH 3/30 23rd July, 1774; obtained from Cambridgeshire Archives.
[x] Will of John Baily of Bywood, Devon, The National Archives; Kew, England; Prerogative Court of Canterbury and Related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers; Class: PROB 11; Piece: 1125, accessed at Ancestry.com.
Some Heirs and Graces 
