(Vol. viii., p. 594. &c.)
GARLICHITHE'S apologies to MR. HUGHES are due, not so much for neglecting
his communications as for misquoting them. We all owe an apology to your
readers for keeping up so pertinaciously a subject of which I fear they
will begin to be tired.
MR. HUGHES has _not_ stated that Richard Minshull of Chester, son of
Richard Minshull, the writer of the letter of May 3, 1656, was born in
1641. What MR. HUGHES _did_ state (Vol. viii., p. 200.) was, that Mrs.
Milton's brother, Richard Minshull of Wistaston, was baptized on April 7 in
that year; and the statement is quite correct, as I can vouch, from having
examined the baptismal register. Richard Minshull of Chester was aged forty
or forty-one at the date of his father's letter, as shown below; but even
if he had been aged only fifteen, as supposed by GARLICHITHE, I do not see
that there is anything in the language of the letter to call for
observation. He had conveyed to his father a communication from Randle
Holmes, and the father writes in answer,--"Deare and loveing sonne, my love
and best respects to you and to my daughter [GARLICHITHE may read
daughter-in-law if he likes, but I see no necessity for it], tendered
w^{th} trust of y^r health. I have reaceived Mr. Alderman Holmes his
letter, together with y^{rs}, wherin I understand that you desire to know
what I can say concerning our coming out of Minshull House;" and he
proceeds to give the information asked for.
GARLICHITHE, in his former communication, confounds Randle the
great-grandfather with Randle the great-grandson, and in his present one he
confounds Richard Minshull of Chester, the uncle, with Richard Minshull of
Wistaston, the nephew. I agree with GARLICHITHE that "he, Richard, the
writer of the said letter, must be _fairly presumed_ to have been married
at the date of such letter," which he addresses to his "Deare and loveing
sonne;" but what of that? Whom he married, your readers are informed at p.
595. He died in the year following his letter, at the ripe age of
eighty-six.
The misquotations noticed above would, if not pointed out, lead to
inextricable confusion of facts; and I am compelled therefore again to {39}
trouble you. In order, if possible, to set the matter at rest, I will put
together in the form of a pedigree, compressed so as to be fit for
insertion in your columns, the material facts which have been the subject
of so much discussion; but, before doing so, permit me a word of protest
against some of the communications alluded to, which are scarcely fair to
"N. & Q."
A correspondent (Vol. vii., p. 596.) asks for information as to Milton's
widow, and MR. HUGHES (Vol. viii., p. 12.) refers him to a volume in which
will be found the information asked for, and gives a brief outline of the
facts there stated. On this GARLICHITHE (Vol. viii., p. 134.), misquoting
MR. HUGHES, calls his attention to Mr. Hunter's letter, which, if
GARLICHITHE had availed himself of the reference furnished to him, he would
have found duly noticed. A second correspondent, MR. SINGER, whose literary
services render me unwilling to find fault with him (Vol. viii., p. 471.),
heading his article with five references, of which not one is correct,
suggests as new evidence the very documents to which MR. HUGHES had
furnished a reference; and a third, T. P. L. (quoting an anonymous
pamphlet), jumps at once to the conclusion that "there can be little doubt"
the author derived his information from an authentic source, "and, if so,
it seems pretty clear"--that all the evidence supplied by heralds'
visitations, wills, and title-deeds is to be discarded as idle fiction.
Such objections as these, and the replies which they have rendered
necessary, are, with the exception of the valuable contribution of MR.
ARTHUR PAGET, the staple of the contributions which have filled so much of
your valuable space.
I conclude with my promised pedigree, the authorities for which are the
Cheshire Visitation of 1663-4, and the Lancashire Visitation of 1664-5,
confirmed by the letter to Randle Holmes, and the legal documents published
by the Chetham Society:
John Mynshull, fourth and youngest son of John Mynshull of Mynshull,
married the daughter and co-heiress of Robert Cooper of Wistaston, and
founded the family subsequently settled there, as stated in his
great-grandson's letter.
|
Randle Mynshull of Wistaston married the daughter of Rawlinson of Crewe,
as stated in his grandson's letter.
|
Thomas Mynshull of Wistaston married Dorothy Goldsmith of Nantwich, as
stated in his son's letter.
|
Richard Mynshull of Wistaston married Elizabeth, daughter of Nicholas
Goldsmith of Bosworth, in co. Leic. (who was probably maternal aunt or
great-aunt to the John Goldsmith mentioned in Dr. Paget's will). He was
the writer of the letters in 1656, and died in 1657, aged eighty-six.
He had two daughters and three sons, viz.--
|
+--------------------+--+------------------------+
| | |
Randle Mynshull (1) Thomas Mynshull (5) Richard Mynshull (6)
|
+------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| | |
Richard Mynshull (2) John Mynshull (3) Elizabeth (4)
(1) Randle Mynshull of Wistaston married Ann Boot, and had seven children,
of whom it will be necessary to mention three only, viz.--
(2) Richard Mynshull, baptized April 7, 1641. On June 4, 1680, he executed
a bond, by the description of Richard Mynshull of Wistaston, frame-work
knitter, to Elizabeth Milton of the city of London, widow, who, though not
stated to be his sister, was evidently a near relative, as appears from the
contents of the bond.
(3) John Mynshull appears to have resided in Manchester, where he was
buried, May 18, 1720, and administration was granted at Cheshire to
Elizabeth Milton of Nantwich, widow, his lawful sister and next of kin.
(4) Elizabeth, baptized December 30, 1638, married Milton in 1664, is
described as of London in the bond from her brother, on the occasion of her
purchase of an estate at Brindley in Cheshire; is described as of Nantwich
in three legal documents from 1713 to 1725; by the same description,
administered to her brother John in 1720, and made her will on August 22,
1727, which was proved on October 10 in the same year.
(5) Thomas Mynshull, the apothecary of Manchester, mentioned in Thomas
Paget's will, aged fifty-one in 1664, had five sons and four daughters.
(6) Richard Mynshull, alderman of Chester, to whom his father wrote the
letter of May 3, 1656, aged forty-seven in 1663.