SHIRBURNS of Stoneyhurst.pdf - Ingilby History

More documents

Recommendations

Info

social standing and dynastic importance of his sister, Mary, who since her return from the Continent had been consigned to the relative obscurity of the nursery and the schoolroom. It was upon her, that Sir Nicholas now fastened his hopes, and it is a gross simplification to believe – as some commentators have – that he renounced all ambition and brought a stop to his building projects after 1702 35 . Mary’s wealth, religion and politics made her extremely eligible for marriage into the declining circle of great Jacobite and Roman Catholic families in England. Indeed, a far stronger case might be made, that in successfully negotiating the marriage of his daughter - with Thomas Howard, eighth Duke of Norfolk – in May 1709, Sir Nicholas had brought off a major political and dynastic coup, which served to propel his family into the first flight of the English aristocracy. Even though the penal laws prohibited a public wedding, Sir Nicholas determined that the dinner that followed the private ceremony, held at his London home, would be the occasion for fabulous expense and ostentatious display. The princely sum of more than £668 was spent on gilt plate as part of Mary’s dowry, while £350 was spent “in part for my daughter’s wedding cloathes” and just over £128 went on food, consumed by the wedding guests in the space of just two days 36 . Moreover, with the Howard estates still in ruins as a result of damage inflicted during the Civil Wars, the young couple and their train elected to return to Stonyhurst with Sir Nicholas, and spent the next seven months living off the land revenues and pursuing the deer which filled the surrounding parklands. Such largesse did, however, have to be paid for and it is no surprise to discover that in staking the future of his House upon both a high-profile marriage, and the implicit assumption that an heir would in time be born in order to unite the Shireburne and Howard theme, relating to the life and death of its owner. See: A. Weston-Lewis (ed), Effigies and Ecstasies. Roman Baroque Sculpture and Design in the Age of Bernini, (Over Wallop, 1998), p.157. 35 Gerard, Centenary Record, op.cit. pp.74 & 76; Hewitson, op.cit. pp.8 & 162; & Lofthouse, op.cit. p.152. 36 DDSt, Box 94, item 1.
patrimonies, Sir Nicholas had placed his own finances under considerable strain. As a direct result, the cost of projecting his family’s power was born primarily by the tenant farmers who worked the Shireburne lands. The tripling of revenues from 1689 to 1716 was, therefore, achieved through the expedient of sudden and - at times – crippling rises in rent. Moreover, both Sir Nicholas - and subsequently his daughter – oversaw the running of their estates with a ruthless and clinical efficiency. Quick to anger, they pursued those tenants and neighbours who resisted their plans with relentless vigour and proved themselves to be notoriously litigious. Indeed, the operation of the law was one of the few areas to which the Shireburnes had direct recourse. Aided by their wealth, they enjoyed every chance of successfully utilising it in defence of their “rights” or in mounting a direct assault upon those who pried too closely into their affairs. Sir Nicholas employed the services of a team of legal experts, which included Sir Charles Ingleby – who had been Judge of the High Court under James II – and Sir Edward Northey – who was to act as the Attorney General to both Queen Anne and King George I. However, it was the skill in land conveyancing of Nathaniel Piggott, of the Inner Temple, which he came to most significantly rely upon. Though unable to practice at the Bar, on account of his Catholicism, Piggott had nevertheless amassed a considerable fortune as the result of his uncanny ability to dissect the nature of complex contractual obligations and diligence in protecting the affairs of his wealthy co-religionists. It was he who had negotiated, and drawn up, the marriage contract between the Shireburnes and the Howards; and it was he who effectively preserved – and expanded upon – the former family’s inheritance and property rights 37 . However, Piggott had another – less secular – function. He was also employed in order to circumvent the operation of the Penal Laws in regard to the provision of private charity. Skeat, op.cit. Part I p.74.
Page 1 and 2: The last of the Shireburnes: the ar
Page 3 and 4: Shireburnes had been the exemplars
Page 5 and 6: for redress, Felgate was unable to
Page 7 and 8: College at St.Omers, he compounded
Page 9 and 10: agents in Ireland, liased with Talb
Page 11 and 12: West were quickly and quietly aband
Page 13 and 14: and to ultimately convict their tro
Page 15 and 16: only one of the group not to be sho
Page 17: Spelling and grammar books, togethe
Page 21 and 22: schemes, Sir Nicholas made over one
Page 23 and 24: Even though they had systematically
Page 25 and 26: opened up in the name of the King.
Page 27 and 28: one of active assistance in the pre
Page 29 and 30: the North and the manors owned by t
Page 31 and 32: “marriage” to Widdrington nulli
Page 33 and 34: through the blind operation of fate

SHIRBURNS of Stoneyhurst.pdf - Ingilby History

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?