Thomas Ginn of Fyfield d. 1707

Tom here was the last of the Ginn family in Fyfield, they had lived there continuously for over a hundred years. 

 
Most people's lives are a mixture of light and dark, and for Thomas unfortunately it was mostly dark.

His mother died when he was nine and his father at ten and he was the eldest of five little orphans.  His dad had not had any siblings and so the five of them had their great uncle Arthur Ginn, Estate Manager at Bower Hall in distant Steeple Bumpstead and then a bachelor of 64, appointed as their guardian.

Arthur Ginn had a dfficult time of it as we know, having to deal with the creditors of his nephew and fighting to maintain the inheritence of his great nephews and niece in 1691.  The struggle was not over.

When Arthur died in 1693 we know from a later court case (see below) that the orphans were passed into the care of a Stephen Blewett of Fyfield, a Blacksmith who died in 1694 (will ERO).  At this point Tom junior was still only 17 and thus underage.  A certain John Stracey, yeoman of Fyfield, seized his opportunity and took up the guardianship with a view to making a profit from the power it gave him it is alleged - "he appointed himself"  said Tom when he came of age.

Tom achieved his majority in 1698 and he set about trying to take control of his life. He first married Rebecca Upshire in 1699.  I finally tracked down a marriage licence (see D/AEL 1699 at ERO) the original of which with Tom's signature is shown below..   The Upshire family are likely related to the Upshaw family of Virginia in the USA who were established there by a Capt John Upshaw of Essex in the mid 1600s.  Apparently there is a website devoted to them and the Upshire family of Essex. 

Thomas Ginn, Yeoman, was to marry Rebecca Upshire of Felstead “between the hours of 8 and 12 o’clock in the forenoon” at Great Leighs or Leighs Chapel.  They duly married at the Leighs Chapel on November 28^th 1699 and the entry is registered at Little Leighs. 

Thomas was the litigant in 1702 - suing Stracey for what Tom perceived was the loss of part of his inheritence.  To be fair, it was difficult for the guardians to manage these lands without dispute, they looked after them for some fifteen years, taking the income as their payment and to pay for the upkeep of the kids.  They leased them out and mortgaged them and, obviously, some of what took place did not meet with the approval of Thomas.  The result of the case is not known.  There were allegations that Stracey was holding up delivery of all of the lands that were due to Tom (reputed of the yearly value of £100 and upwards – probably about 120 acres) until such time as Thomas paid Stracey money the latter claimed was owed him.  It was also said that Thomas Snr (who died in 1687) left an estate of some £500 in addition in chattels, bonds, money etc etc and where was a chunk of it ?  It was all very messy

It was discovered in 2006 and 2007 that there are two sets of deeds and related papers at the ERO that are crucial to an understanding of this family.  These are DDHf/T66 and  D/DO T965.

It is clear from these and the court case of the same year that Thomas was desperate for money in 1701/2.  He had married and his brother Arthur was now of age and expecting the money left him in his father’s will.  His brother Henry would shortly also be asking for his inheritance.  Tom needed cash.

In 1701 he mortgaged all of his lands in Fyfield for nearly £300 to a chap called Boosey.  This was not enough.  In 1702 he sold everything – Clarks, Gibbs and all the rest to a man called Fenwick for some £500.  The only stipulation was that the sale was subject to Rebecca’s jointure in Clarks (probably a lifetime income  from it) and the mortgage to Boosey.  Fenwick had to pay that off.  There were also negotiations as to how to pay off Tom’s brothers .  No wonder Tom sued in 1702 to see what he could get off of Stracey !!  

Whether all this affected his health I know not , but the deeds tell us that Thomas endured the curse of many of his ancestors and died young.   The Fyfield Vestry Minutes tell us that this was in 1707 - he  was 30. 

Poor Rebecca was left with three children and no man to run the lands.  She doubtless had some cash but only her life interest in Clarks and in 1710 she mortgaged that interest (in only the house and 17 acres) for £100. There is at least one surviving deed with her signature, a renewal of the mortgage of 1715 being shown below.  She kept up the interest payments for many years and appears to have leased Clarks out to obtain income as well as capital.  

It is clear from these same deeds that Rebecca later remarried Henry West.  They married at Shelley in 1720.   Henry also died soon after.

Two of Tom and Rebecca’s three children died at Fyfield:  Mary in 1723 aged 21 and Thomas jnr in 1724 aged 24.   This was the era of major smallpox epidemics and it seems likely that it was that which carried them away.  It is also obvious that their daughter Sarah survived, but died without issue.

Rebecca later charged her interest in Clarks with a £20 annuity and it is known to have died at High Easter, Essex in 1762 as Rebecca West, widow with a quoted age of 93 and leaving a will (ERO).  It is sadly apparent from the will that none of her children survived her and there were no grandchildren.

Thomas Ginn of Fyfield d.1687

Thomas, the only child of Thomas Ginn in my post of 10th September was a Yeoman, sometimes referred to as a Gentleman. 

As we have seen in the post concerning his father, Tom jnr here was fortunate enough to have been highly regarded as the only child of his father and thus considered one of the main beneficiaries in the will of Thomas Harvey jnr (1606-1657) of Moulsham in Chelmsford and thus left land there and elsewhere when Tom Harvey died in 1657 (will PCC).  But in 1657, Tom Ginn jnr was only 11.

Tom Harvey died childless, and because of that fact the lands he had inherited from his father were inherited in 1657 by his cousin Henry Harvey in Good Easter and his "kinsman" (likely a first cousin) John Harvey of Moulsham.  So that was that.

But, Tom Harvey jnr had acquired lands of his own in Moulsham, Boreham, Writtle and Springfield.  And most of that went to his kinsman John Harvey. But there was another but, because John Harvey, although taking some land absolutely (which would go to whoever his heirs were, however remote) also took thirty acres of land in Writtle for life, then to his son John jnr, but if John jnr died without issue, then those thirty acres went to Thomas Ginn jnr.

And Thomas Ginn jnr was also left a malthouse and three freehold tenements in Moulsham absolutely, these all being "on an alley known as "Pepper Alley".  The only condition being that Tom Ginn was to buy a coat worth 20s for "each of some twenty four most ancient and poorest men and women of Chelmsford and Moulsham" a 20s coat must have been a good one at the time.

And Thomas Harvey was a nice bloke, and this was to cause a problem, because he tried to be nice to everybody.  He left solid legacies everywhere, not trivial amounts, and to every cousin he could think of.  And he left a tenement called "Frame Yard" in Baddow Lane in Chelmsford to his half brother Edward Herridge of Moulsham (who had married Margaret Frank at Chelmsford in 1614) who was a Bay or Baizeweaver - he wove a form of wool.  And Tom Harvey left legacies to the children of his half brother Thomas Herridge of Faulkbourne in Essex, as well as the children of his half brother William Herridge, now at Hatfield Peverel.  There was also the children of Richard Pond of Good Easter (I have discovered that Richard married Elizabeth Harvey of Good Easter in 1630, she was the daughter of Henry Harvey - Tom Harvey's distant cousin).  There were other legacies, working out who these people were had me weaving a tapestry as complex as any Ted Herridge made !

Now some of the land he left to John Harvey was to be used for the legacies, And other land left to John absolutely should have been used for the legacies.  But the Writtle land, the land left to Tom Ginn jnr if no Harvey of John survived, well, that could also be called in, taken by the beneficiaries, in default of the legacies being paid.  And that was the crux.

Because John Harvey's only son died in 1661, he was an Innkeeper (more of that later) and John Harvey the elder followed soon after.  And it took time for land to be rented out to raise the legacies of £20 here, £20 there, perhaps £200 in all, that Tom Harvey had left.  And too many of the beneficiaries came of age before that money could be raised,  So there was trouble

Thomas Ginn junior here came of age in 1667.  He then got all the land in Moulsham absolutely.  It was in Moulsham Street, but more of that later.  But as John Harvey snr had left no heirs of his body, Tom Ginn also got the thirty acres of land in Writtle.  Within six months some of the beneficiaries of the will of Thomas Harvey (namely Joseph Herridge son of Thomas died 1709 and |Eleanor Pond, b 1645 dtr of Richard)  came after the Writtle land for payment.

The papers on the case are quite substantial (see  C7/172/43 - C6/201/39 and C25/107/200) and Thomas Ginn jnr argued a good case.  But the trouble was that not all of the legatees had been paid off, and the Writtle land could be taken by them in lieu.  And although we have no record of the judgment, is is clear that Herridge at least won, because we can see from Find mypast and Ancestry and records at the ERO, that Joseph Herridge moved to Writtle and took some at least of that land where he died in 1709 (will ERO)

But Tom Ginn succeeded to the properties in Moulsham Street, those including the malthouse and buildings adjacent to Pepper Alley.  Now at some point, between the death of Tom Harvey in 1657 (Oliver Cromwell died in 1658) and the Restoration of the Monarchy (Charles 2nd) in 1660, they converted the malthouse and one tenement into a pub.  The Mildmay family owned Moulsham Hall and were Lords of the Manor.  Their crest was a blue lion, and the pub was called the "Three Blue Lions Inn".

Tom Harvey jnr obviously had this inn when he died in 1661.  And with his death Thomas Ginn jnr took it.

The Inn became the "Kings Arms" and that pub survived into modern times.  You can see it on the right hand side in 1930 on the photo below.  As you look at the side of the Inn, you can see the kerb turn in, it is turning into Pepper Alley.  But sadly public houses are rapidly becoming unfashionable, and not too long back the pub was heavily refurbished and became "Smith's Bar".  Having survived the Great Plague, numerous smallpox epidemics and two world wars, it was closed during the Covid pandemic and has not yet reopened.  But I am sure that after 360 years it will rise again !

Thomas married  Hannah Hydes of very distant Sible Hedingham at Widford,  at the end of |Moulsham Street, Chelmsford on October 16^th 1673.  The register reads “ Thomas Ginn of Fifield single man & Hannah Hydes of Sible Hedingham single woman married by licence”.  The licence does not survive.

Thomas was Churchwarden for Fyfield on several occasions and was clearly a substantial figure in both parish and county, often attending as a juror at the county assizes.

Unfortunately Tom had the misfortune to be pursued by his father’s creditors for much of his life.  The Noake family were after him (hence the 1691 court case) and his uncle Arthur tells us in 1691 that he (Thomas)  tried to get the creditors to prove their case so to speak, because in Arthur’s words “ he feareth not to live long” which suggests he was beset by ill health.

Hannah died in 1686 - it is speculated from a late child – see below.  She is accounted "Mrs Ginn" in the register so Tom and his family were viewed at least by the parish clerk as gentry. Tom whose apparent ill health may indicate tuberculosis, did indeed die young in 1687 aged 42 and his will (ERO) is informative.  Five little orphans were left, and Thomas (as related in earlier posts) asked his Uncle Arthur Ginn, by this time at Steeple Bumpstead, to look after them.  There is a story there and it will be told in the next post.

       The Blue Lion (being part of the Mildmay crest) is common on Chelmsford Inn signs 
 

Despite the legacy of debts, Tom and Hannah lived in some comfort and substantial bequests were made in the will for all of the children.  His wife’s belongings and clothes were left to his daughter and gold rings and coins were distributed widely as was the silver plate.  He was mindful of the debts he was leaving, his belongings were to be sold to part repay them as was the “Three Blue Lions Inn” at Moulsham, left to uncle Arthur only to be sold for this purpose.

Thomas and Hannah had a number of children: 

Thomas - subject of the next post

Henry -  The only known baptism for a Henry was in 1679.  Yet a Henry died at Fyfield in 1682.  In 1687 a Henry is mentioned in his father’s will and was left £60 charged on Clarks and Gibbs.  The second Henry is mentioned in the 1691 court case as a beneficiary.

In 1702, this same second Henry Ginn is mentioned in the deeds of Clarks and Gibbs and was stated to be 14, too young to inherit.  This implies that the second Henry was born to his mother dying in childbirth in 1686 and never baptised.  What is known is that he was alive in 1708 and 1709 as Fenwick released his interest in Clarks and Gibbs by paying him his £60, a useful sum that used wisely would have set him up in a trade or bought him a cottage and land.

He was not required to enter into any deed in 1725 which means either it was accepted by the lawyers that he had no claim on Clarks or he was dead without issue. I think it can be said without question that like most of the men of his family he died young, being the Henry Ginn buried at nearby Chipping Ongar in 1718, he was 32.  There is no evidence he ever married.

Arthur - the last Arthur Ginn - see later post

John - he should have inherited the lands at Gt Baddow / Moulsham as per his father's will.  It is not clear whether he was alive in 1691 being not mentioned in the court case.  He was mentioned (but merely as a recital of the terms of his father's will) in the 1702 court case (see next post) but is not mentioned in the deeds of Clarks that same year but as he had no interest in that property under the terms of the will that is not conclusive as to his death. My gut feeling comes from his absence from the court case of 1691, given that all his siblings are mentioned as being beneficiaries of their father’s estate.  I suspect he died young.

Mary - was left £100 by her father charged to Clarks and Gibbs along with other things including all her late mother's clothes and belongings.  She is mentioned in the 1691 court case but is not mentioned later and can conclusively and very sadly be said to have died in 1697, aged 17.