Chapter XI: Part 11

Mr. Philip Hawkins, who purchased and settled at Pennance, was the son of Mr. Henry Hawkins, whose ancestor in the third or fourth degree, is said to have come from Kent into Cornwall as Rector of Blisland.

Mr. Henry Hawkins had four sons, the Rev. John Hawkins, Rector of St. Michael Caerhayes, St. Stephen’s, and St. Dennis, married, but died sine prole.

Philip Hawkins, who married Mary Scobell, eldest daughter of Richard Scobell, Esq. made heiress of his whole landed property.

Henry Hawkins, of St. Austell, who married Barbara, younger daughter of Mr. Richard Scobell.

Joseph Hawkins, a merchant at Falmouth, married Reid, but died sine prole.

Mr. Philip Hawkins had a very large family.

1. Henry, died at Oxford.

2. Mary, died young.

3. Elizabeth, married Mr. Thomas Corlyer, of Tregrehan, and left several children.

4. Ann, married Sir Edmund Prideaux, of Devonshire, and left an only daughter, who married John Pendarves Basset, Esq. of Tehidy.

5. George, died young.

6. The Rev. John Hawkins, D. D. Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, married Rachel Rashleigh, of Menabilly, died sine prole.

7. Mary, married, perhaps her distant relation, a gentleman of the same name, Christopher Hawkins, of Trewinnard, in St. Erth, barrister at law, made sole heir of his landed property by her brother Dr. Hawkins.

8. Jane, married James Stone, of Bundbury, Wilts.

9. Philip, married Elizabeth Ludlow, of London, represented Grampound in Parliament, died s. p.

10. Barbara, married Mr. Hambley, of St. Columb.

Mr. Henry Hawkins, who married Barbara Scobell, had also a numerous family.

1. Henry, died in 1723.

2. John, died in 1722.

3. Ann, married David Moyle, and left a daughter Ann Moyle, married to Mr. Carthew.

4. Barbara, married Mr. Edward Hoblyn, of Crone, and left a daughter, Damaris Hoblin, married to Mr. Kirkham, a Captain in the Cornwall Militia, but not a Cornishman; ob. s. p.

5. Elizabeth, married John Hawkins, of Helston, and left Mr. John Hawkins, who married Catherine Trewren; ob. s. p.

6. Gertrude, married Mr. Thomas Kent, and left children.

7. Grace, married John Tremayne, of Heligan, Esq. who left a son, the Rev. Henry Hawkins Tremayne, and a daughter married to Charles Rashleigh, Esq. of Disporth.

The Creed given by Mr. Hals, in his account of this parish, differs materially from both subjoined to my edition of “The Creation of the World, and Noah’s Flood,” one of which is said to be in old Cornish, and the other in modern. All the three go to prove how utterly vague and uncertain must be a language not fixed by some general reference to works of authority, nor guided by the superior influence of a Capital.

This parish contains 2552 statute acres.
Annual value of the Real Property, as £. _s._ _d._
returned to Parliament in 1815 2442 0 0
Poor Rate in 1831 205 12 0
Population, { in 1801, | in 1811, | in 1821, | in 1831,
{ 217 | 226 | 279 | 258;
giving an increase of 19 per cent in 30 years.
Annual value of the Real Property in £. _s._ _d._
Grampound, for 1815 854 0 0
Poor Rate in 1831 274 12 0
Population, { in 1801, | in 1811, | in 1821, | in 1831,
{ 525 | 601 | 688 | 715.
being an increase of 36 per cent.
Vicar, the Rev. John Trevener, instituted 1817.

[35] The word bethman, pronounced bedman, which is used in
Cornwall for a sexton, must evidently be derived from beth,
a grave. EDIT.

[36] Richard Lower, M. D. an eminent physician and
anatomist, was born in Cornwall about 1631, died in 1691. He
wrote several important works; among them Tractatus de
Corde; item de Motu et calore Sanguinis, et Chyli in eum
transitu.

CROWAN.

HALS.

Has situate upon the north Camburne, west St. Erth, south Sythaney, east Wendron. At the time of the Norman Conquest this parish was taxed either under the jurisdiction of Lanmigell, viz. Michael’s Mount, temple, or church, or Caer, id est, a city or castle, now Caer-ton, Castletown; so called from the British treble entrenchments of turf and stones yet extant in this parish. At the time of the Inquisition of the Bishops of Lincoln and Winchester, 1294, Ecclesia de Crowen, in Decanatu de Penwith, was rated VIII_l._; vicar ibidem, XL_l._ In Wolsey’s Inquisition, 1521, 11_l._ 9_s._ 0½_d._; the patronage in Sir John Seyntaubyn, the rectory in Seyntaubyn, the incumbent Glyn. The parish was rated to the 4_s._ per pound Land Tax, 1699, 177_l._ 10_s._ This church was endowed by the Prior of St. Michael’s Mount, its patron. After its dissolution 26 Hen. VIII, it fell to the Crown; from whence, as I am informed, the patronage was purchased by Thomas Seyntaubyn, Esq. Sheriff of Cornwall 37 Hen. VIII.

Clowens, in this parish, id est, White Cloos, those sort of grey marble stones so called, whereof an innumerable strag of them are visible upon a great part of the lands of this barton above ground, particularly in the Deer Park. Mr. Carew tell us, that Clowens is derived from the Greek κλω, cloow, to hearken. But glewas in Cornish is to hear, and golsowins, to hearken. This place for many ages hath been the seat of the genteel and knightly family of the Seyntaubyns, now Baronets, whose first ancestor came out of Normandy, a soldier, with William the Conqueror, 1066, who first settled himself at ..., in the county of Devon; and in process of time Guy Seyntaubyn (afterwards knighted), Sheriff of Cornwall 22 Richard II. as I take it, first settled himself in this place, and married Alice, one of the daughters and coheirs of Sir Richard Sergreaulx, Knight, Sheriff of Cornwall 12 Richard II. (who died at Killigarth, or Colquite), by whom he had issue. But after Sir Guy’s death, his lady Alice having her lands all in her own dispose, married Richard de Vere, Knight of the Garter, and the 11th Earl of Oxford of that house; by whom he had issue John the twelfth Earl of Oxford; and Sir Robert Vere, Knight, that married Margaret, the daughter of Sir Hugh Courtenay, of Haccomb, Knight, heir to her mother Philippa, one of the coheirs of Sir Warren Archdeacon, Knight, by the which Margaret he had issue John, who married Alice, daughter of Walter Killrington, Esq. by whom he had issue John fourteenth Earl of Oxford, that died without issue 14th July 1526 [See KILLYGARTH], upon whom she settled most of her lands, and deprived her issue by Seyntaubyn thereof.

Thomas Seyntaubyn, Esq. was Sheriff of Cornwall 37 Henry VIII. Thomas Seyntaubyn, Esq. was Sheriff of Cornwall 30 Elizabeth. John Seyntaubyn, Esq. was Sheriff of Cornwall 11 Charles I. John Seyntaubyn, Esq. was Sheriff of Cornwall 13 Charles II. who married Godolphin, and had issue John Seyntaubyn, Esq. (my very good friend) that married Anne, one of the coheirs of James Jenkyn, of Trekininge, Esq. who by letters patent, bearing date 11 March 24 Charles II. was created the 797th Baronet of England. He had issue by her, Sir John Seyntaubyn, Bart. that married De la Hay, and had by her issue another Sir John Seyntaubyn, now in possession of this place.

This famous worthy family, as it descended downwards, married Sergreaulx, Colshill, Whittington, Grenvill, Mallett, Godolphin, and others. The arms of Seyntaubyn are, Ermine, on a cross Gules five Bezants. And the said family was denominated from Mount Seyntaubyn in Normandy. Finally, as Sergreaulx’s heir, after the death of Sir Guy Seyntaubyn, passed away her lands from her issue by him to her children by her second husband, the Earl of Oxford aforesaid; so Jenkyn’s heir, after the death of Sir John Seyntaubyn, Bart. disinherited her heir by him, and sold most of her lands for the payment of her second husband’s debts, Mr. Spencer, of Lancashire; and after his death married one Mr. Page, for whose benefit she did her son Seyntaubyn what further damage she was able to perform by sale of more of her lands. So unconstant and irregular are some women’s affections.

Tregeare or Tregeire, Cornish Saxon, in this parish, id est, the dwelling of honour, or the honourable dwelling, gave name and original to a British family, from thence denominated De Tregeare. It is now in the possession of my very kind friend Richard Tregeare, Esq. Sheriff of Cornwall 3d of Queen Anne, and Receiver of the Land Tax temp. William III. who married Rawle, the relict of ――――, but died without issue, who left his estate to one of his name (though none of his tribe or blood, as I am informed), who gave for his arms, in a field Argent, a fess Gules, between three Cornish daws Proper.

TONKIN.

For the name of this parish, it is in Cornish Crows-on, the cross; probably so called from some notable cross erected in the parish.

But nevertheless, I learn from others that the name is derived from its female patroness, Sancta Crewenna, and not from any noted cross. In the Lincoln Taxation it is written Ecclesia Sancte Crewenne: which Crewenne, says Leland, came over from Ireland with St. Breage, or Breaca.

Mr. Tonkin reports what is stated by Mr. Hals of the family of St. Aubyn, and adds, in the year 1733: This family has been no less than six times Sheriff of Cornwall. They have served their prince and country, not only in the office of sheriff, but also as members of parliament and as justices of the peace.

The Sergreaulxes were of old a family of noble fame and worth in this County. It appears, from Carew’s Survey, that Richard de Sergreaulx held three fees by the tenure of knights’ service, tempore Henry IV. at Killigarth, Lerneth, and Lonsallos. Also, he had Killcoid (now Colguite) in the parish of Holland.

Tregeare, in this parish, Tre(g)eor (the g euphoniæ gratiâ to avoid an elision), is the mansion of an old family from thence denominated. Arms: Argent, a fess voided Sable, charged with three Torteauxes between three Cornish choughs Proper. Tregeare, interpreted, signifies not only a dwelling in honour, but an honourable dwelling; neither had the Saxon nor Kernawith Britons any other word to express honour or honourable by than the termination ge or gor, as appears not only from that incomparable antiquary Verstegan,[37] but also from the names of divers places among our ancestors. I have further to add respecting the word geor, and as we have many places so called in the County I shall once for all endeavour to give the true meaning of it.

Geare, fruitful, from guer, viridis, green (see Lhuyd’s Archæologia, vol. I. fol. Oxford, 1707, p. 174,) as this estate is at present, and as all others of the same name, I presume, formerly were. The family of Tregeare are said to date from before the Conquest.

Manor of Hellegar and Clowance: For Hellegar was formerly the chief place, and signifies the hall or place on the Downs; and there was lately standing there, and I believe yet remains, a hall of large dimensions. This was anciently the seat of a family bearing the same name; whose arms were, Gules, a bend Vaire between six cross-crosslets Or. Sibill, one of the daughters and co-heiresses of this house, married Pierce Kemell, or Kymyell, of Kymyell, in St. Buian, whose arms were, Argent, three dolphins in pale Sable. Elizabeth, one of the daughters and coheiresses of Pearce Kemell, married Geoffrey St. Aubyn, the second son of Guy St. Aubyn, Knight, and brought to him, with several other lands, this manor of Hellegar and Clowance.

THE EDITOR.

Mr. Hals commits an apparent mistake in assigning the advowson of this parish to Mr. St. Aubyn at the period of Wolsey’s Valuation, and then stating that it was acquired by purchase at the general dissolution of religious houses.

It is probable that the advowson was acquired when the alien priories, or all such houses as were cells in England subject to monasteries abroad, were given to the King by an Act of Parliament, 2d year of Henry V. A.D. 1415. See the statute in original Norman French, vol. VI. p. 986, of Dugdale’s Monasticon, London, 1830; and in Latin, vol. IX. p. 281, of Rymer’s Fœdera.

Sir John St. Aubyn, mentioned by Mr. Hals as in possession of Clowance at the time of his writing, represented the County in Parliament, and acquired popularity by opposing the administration of Sir Robert Walpole. He married Catherine, daughter, and eventually coheiress of Sir Nicholas Morice, of Werrington, and the Lady Catherine Herbert, and great-granddaughter of Sir William Morice, Secretary of State at the Restoration.

This lady brought a fortune of ten thousand pounds, which, the Editor remembers to have heard from a very aged member of the family, were conveyed in two carts from Werrington to Clowance, all in half crowns, and that he assisted in taling them.

But in addition to ten thousand pounds Miss Morice also received at her marriage, or afterwards succeeded to, the manor of Stoke Damarel, on the Eastern bank of the Tamar, near Hamoaze, and purchased not a long time before from the Wises, a respectable family in the South of Devon, for eleven thousand five hundred pounds.

On this manor all the dock yards and government buildings have been constructed, and the whole town of Plymouth Dock, now Devonport, has been built, together with Morris Town, Stoke, &c. so that the annual income has risen to perhaps three or four fold the original purchase money.

This Sir John St. Aubyn left a son of his own name, and three daughters, who married Basset, Molesworth, and Buller.

The son, Sir John St. Aubyn, had also the honour of representing the County in Parliament. He married Miss Wingfield, from the North of England; and dying in October 1772, left his estate to an only son, the present Sir John St. Aubyn. He left also four daughters, who have married Prideaux, Molesworth, Lennard, and White.

Mr. Lysons states that the church of Crowan was given by William Earl of Gloucester to the Priory of St. James, in Bristol, which was a Cell to Tewkesbury Abbey. If that is so, Mr. Hals must be entirely mistaken in assigning the advowson to a St. Aubyn at the time of Wolsey’s Valuation.

Mr. Lysons also says, that Kerthen, in this parish, belonged to a family of the name of Cowlins, from whom it passed to the Godolphins by a marriage.

Leland was entertained at Kerthen in the course of making his Itinerary, by a Mr. Godolphin, who resided there. Leland, however, writes the name Cardine.

In submitting to the press by far the greater part of Mr. Hals’ Manuscripts, and also of Mr. Tonkin’s Manuscript, in so far as it differs from the former, the Editor has been especially careful to preserve all such anecdotes and narratives of events as may tend to illustrate the manners or the opinions of the times to which they relate, adding to them many that have come to his knowledge from other sources.

Just a hundred years ago such a series of events took place with reference to the possession of Skewis, a farm in this parish, as would induce any one of the present time to think that he must be living in another land, under a different administration of the laws, and in a totally dissimilar state of society.

Skewis had been, for I know not how long, the freehold patrimony of a succession of yeomen proprietors of the name of Rogers. There were now two brothers, the elder married and lived on the farm, but without a family, the younger brother, Henry Rogers, married and had several children. He carried on for several years in Helston the trade of a pewterer, then of considerable importance to Cornwall, although it is now lost. A large portion of the tin was then exported in the shape of pewter made into plates, dishes, &c. all of which have been superseded by earthenware. At the first introduction of earthenware, provincially called clome, it was a popular cry to destroy the clome, and to bring back the use of tin. He had for some years retired to this parish.

I have made many diligent inquiries about Henry Rogers, and they have not gone to represent him as a bad man, but as one little in the habit of restraining his passions, of great bodily strength, and of what is termed a wilful disposition; and his prejudices were probably supported by an opinion, still prevalent among country people, that freehold lands, which have once descended to an heir cannot be alienated by any possessor without the concurrence of his heir.

The elder brother died, when a will was produced giving all the freehold property to his widow, whose maiden name was Millett. Henry Rogers averred, and possibly believed, that the will was spurious, and would be invalid at all events. Under that impression, and despising legal remedies, he waited for an opportunity when his sister-in-law was from home; he then turned some female servants out of the house, and took forcible possession. The widow of course appealed to the law, with the voice of the whole country, however, against her; and it is universally reported that Sir John St. Aubyn, the principal gentleman of the parish, would have supported Rogers in a legal proceeding. However that may be, he prepared for violence, and refused to yield up possession when judgment was given against him; so that the Sheriff was at last directed to eject him by force. But Rogers got several persons, ignorant and lawless as himself, to remain with him in the house, which had been barricaded and adapted for defence, and great numbers of people, partly from curiosity, but in part also to countenance his resistance, having assembled on the spot, the civil power was completely resisted, and two men killed by shots from the house; the Under Sheriff himself having narrowly escaped,――as he states in his evidence, rather ludicrously, that the discharge of a gun from the house burnt his wig and singed his face.

This happened on the 18th of June, 1734.

On the following day the Under Sheriff came back, assisted by some soldiers, who were fired on and one killed. They returned the fire, but without effect. And then, which would appear almost incredible, Rogers was allowed to remain in quiet possession, after these murders, till March of the following year, when he was again blockaded by soldiers; and the siege, I apprehend, continued for several days, with the loss of two more men, when at last cannon were brought from Pendennis Castle. On the night following their arrival, Rogers contrived to effect an escape. He travelled on foot, and got as far as Salisbury, with the intention, as he stated, of making his case known to the King.

Whatever might have been the opinions of gentlemen, and educated persons, on the abstract merit of his case, it became impossible for them not to join in bringing to condign punishment one who had thus taken away the lives of innocent persons, and set at equal defiance the laws of God and man.

Sir John St. Aubyn now took an active part in endeavouring to secure the fugitive, and being through his marriage connected with the Herberts Earls of Pembroke, who resided in the neighbourhood of Salisbury, handbills descriptive of Rogers were circulated round that town. I have always heard that a postboy, driving homewards a return postchaise, was accosted by a stout man walking with a gun in his hand, requesting to be taken in. The boy drove him to the inn, where he procured a bed; but the circumstances and description had excited strong suspicion, and he was secured in his sleep.

The prisoner was of course removed to Cornwall. He was there convicted of murder, together with John Street, who seems to have been his principal partisan, and both made an atonement for their offences with their lives.

Through the favour of Lord Hardwicke, I have procured a copy of the evidence, and a portion of the charge given to the Grand Jury, in reference to those prisoners, by his Lordship’s grandfather, the justly-celebrated first Earl of Hardwicke and Lord Chancellor.

Launceston, Aug. 1, 1735.

The King against Henry Rogers and John Street.

Indictment for murder of William Carpenter, by shooting him
in the back with a gun charged with leaden bullets, 19th
June 1734, at Crowan, in com. Cornub.

Plea, Not Guilty.

Sergeant Chapple pro Rege.

_Stephen Tillie_ was Under-Sheriff 1734. 8 June 1734
received a writ of assistance under the great seal. 31 Maij,
7 Geo. II. writ of assistance, reciting the writ of
execution of the decree and writ of injunction, whereby
possession was to be delivered to Anne Rogers, commanding to
put Anne Rogers into possession, and to remove and expel the
said Henry Rogers, his tenants, and accomplices, from
possession of the premises.

18 June he went to the house; the prisoner was in the
window, and held a gun at him; he called to him, and told
him that he had the king’s writ, and must have possession;
would not meddle with his person.

Prisoner said Lord Chancellor made an unjust decree. He said
that then he might deliver possession and appeal. Swore,
damn him, he would not deliver possession. Saw two or three
hundred people. Read the proclamation. The prisoner fired a
gun, burned his wig, and singed his face. One of his
officers said he was shot through the head. Expostulated
again. Then he swore if the King and Lord Chancellor came he
would not deliver it. Several guns were fired. He told him
he would give him time till tomorrow morning eight o’clock.
Sent to Captain Sadler for a few soldiers; the captain sent
them; he went with them; he demanded entrance. Prisoner
said, “Damn you, are you come again?” A gun was mounted out
of the hole cut in the door within an inch of his body;
discharged; and it shot Carpenter, who fell with it, and
said he was a dead man. Another gun fired, and shot Hatch,
his servant. Rogers had a gun in his hand when he first saw
him, and afterwards came out with a gun in his hand.
Carpenter was a bailiff to the sheriff, and he had commanded
him to go to his assistance. Mrs. Rogers, the plaintiff, was
there both times.

_George Ellis._ 18 June was desired by Mrs. Rogers to go
with them. Rogers and his wife in the window, and had a gun
between them. Mr. Tillie demanded possession. Prisoner said
he would not; swore and cursed, and said he had strength
enough to defend his possession against any person; insisted
the estate was his. The Under-sheriff expostulated with him,
and told him if he had a right, his best way was to submit
to the law. Sheriff read the proclamation. Rogers asked him
to drink a dram; he went for it, and in the meantime his
wife held the gun; guns were fired.

19 June went again. Under-sheriff told him he hoped he was
in a better mind now, and would deliver him possession.
Refused. A gun fired from the house. Soon after, heard it
called out that Carpenter was shot in the back, and a
soldier shot in the groin. He is a surgeon, and dressed
Carpenter; found him shot from about the fourth rib to his
buttock; many slugs and jagged pieces of lead in it.

Between two and three hundred men there the first day, and a
great many the second day, but not so many. Sir J. St. Aubin
having sent out his steward, heard the under-sheriff ask him
who were in the house. He said only his own servants.

No gun was fired, or any force used by any of the
Under-sheriff’s company till Carpenter was shot.

_Mr. Lukey_, surgeon. Found a gun-shot wound in the small of
his back. He saw him on Wednesday the 19th, died on Friday.
It was a great quantity of small shot; thinks the wound went
through into his belly.

_Samuel Hatch_, servant to Mr. Tillie, the Under-sheriff.
18th was there. The Under-sheriff read the King’s writ to
him. He did not see who fired the gun, but saw no man in the
house that day but Rogers, whom he knows.

Cannot say he saw Rogers fire the first time. Carpenter was
shot, and another soldier shot, and two men wounded before
any of the soldiers or Sheriff’s company fired. He was shot
with slugs.

_Richard Vinsam._ Was there the first day, and the Sheriff
read and showed him the writ; told Rogers that if he would
try the cause again he should be as ready to put him in as
to take him out. He was there again the second day. The
Sheriff told him he was come again to do his office, and
desired him to be easy. Gives the same account, and that the
soldiers did not fire till after Carpenter was shot.

As to Street.

_Edward Williams._ Was at Skewis House the 19th day of June
1734. Saw John Street there in the house, with a sword in
his hand. Kept people in the house, and said he would run
any body through that offered to go away; said now was the
time to do a friend service; assisted Rogers by keeping
persons in by force; the Sheriff was then come to demand
possession.

Street was in the house when the firing was.

Rogers’s wife was apprehended by the time the Under-sheriff
came to the house.

_Mr. Black_, ensign, was there with the soldiers; with the
others; had orders from the commanding officer to attend the
Sheriff. No firing by the soldiers or sheriff’s company till
Carpenter and a soldier killed.

_John Ellett_ was one of the soldiers who went with the
Under-sheriff to assist him. Agrees with the rest, that
Carpenter was shot from that part of the house where he saw
Rogers. There was no firing by the soldiers or the sheriff’s
assistants till Carpenter was wounded.

_Henry Jeffries_ was corporal to the party. Heard the
Under-sheriff read the proclamation, and demand entrance;
when Rogers refused.

Carpenter went up and struck at the door; and as he turned
about was shot in the back; he was shot in the leg; had
orders from the Under-sheriff to fire.

The _Prisoner_. Had good counsel, and thought he had a good
right to the estate; was unwilling to deliver it up the
first day; told him he intended to appeal; said if he did
not deliver possession he might bring a writ of rebellion
against him. Sheriff swore he would have possession. Sheriff
went off, and he did not expect to see him again. Next
morning heard the soldiers were coming. Sent his wife out;
they seized her. With beat of drum the Sheriff and soldiers
came and fired at him; the soldiers fired about five rounds
apiece.

_Henry Berriman._ 18 day of June saw the sheriff go, and
heard him demand entrance; and the prisoner said he should
have none. The next day the Sheriff came with soldiers; but
he was two coits cast off; the soldiers were on the eastern
side of the house; the soldiers fired three rounds; but he
did not see the gun fired out of the house. Carpenter was
shot on the eastern side of the house, and he was on the
western side of the house; the Undersheriff desired him to
carry him off. Did not see Carpenter receive the shot. Was
not on the same side of the house when Carpenter was shot;
as far off as the tower of this town from this place.

[Carpenter was on the eastern side of the house when he was
shot].

_Thomas Pendarves._ Rode through the town just as the
soldiers came with the Sheriff; saw Henry Rogers’s wife; was
on the south side of the house when the firing was first;
but that was on the east side of the house; however, thinks
he could distinguish whether it came from the house or the
soldiers, because the firing from the house was by single
pops now and then, and the soldiers shot many together. To
his sight and perception the first firing was by the
soldiers. Can’t say any more. He was not on the east of the
house at all. A great number of people assembled.

_Henry Johns_ was in company with Carpenter; said he forgave
Mr. Rogers.

_John Rogers_ saw Carpenter in his bed, and drank with him.
He asked how he came to throw a great stone. He said he did
not know; but he freely forgave the man that shot him; for
if they had not been merciful they might have destroyed them
all.

_John Street_ was at the house at his labour.

Writ of execution of the decree read.

_Mr. John Hawkins_ was solicitor for Mrs. Rogers; went with
the Sheriff; demanded possession; saw a gun fired from the
house; did no hurt; saw Carpenter actually shot and fall; no
firing by the soldiers till after that of two other guns.

Verdict, both guilty of murder.

The King against Henry Rogers and John Street.

Indictment for the murder of George Woolston alias Wilson,
with a gun charged with leaden bullets 19th June 1734, at
Crowan, in com. Cornub.

Plea, Not Guilty.

Serjeant Chapple, pro Rege.

Writ of Execution, Injunction, and Writ of Assistance, put
in.

_Mr. Tillie._ Gives the same account that he did before.
Second day after Carpenter was shot, Henry Rogers came to
the window with his gun on the east side, fired, and a shot
went through his hat, and a soldier wounded. He ordered the
soldiers to fire. Woolston was on the west side, and was
shot there. No gun was fired by the soldiers, or any person
in the assistance of the sheriff, nor a sword drawn, nor any
force, till after Carpenter was shot and Hatch wounded, and
Jeffries shot through the leg. Woolston declared that Rogers
had shot him, on his asking him. Died in about half an hour
after. Soldiers went to the assistance of him; ordered them
to use no force till resistance.

_John Ellet._ He was on the east side of the house; he
carried off Woolston; was shot from the waistband of his
breeches to the buckle of his shoes. Gives the same account
as to the occasion. There was no firing on the eastern side
of the house till after Carpenter was killed and Jeffries
shot in the leg.

_Nicholas Daniel_ was serjeant, and went to Skewis House.
After the first firing William Carpenter was killed. The
officer ordered him to go with ten men to the west side of
the house. As soon as he came into the court, saw the
prisoner Rogers come to the window and fire his gun and shot
Woolston, of which he died in an hour.

_Cross-examined._ After Carpenter was killed, some of the
soldiers had fired on the east side of the house before he
went to the west side.

_Samuel Hatch_ gives the same account as before of the facts
on 18th and 19th June. The first guns which were fired were
by persons that were withinside of the house, and not by
persons that were withoutside of the house. No firing by the
soldiers, or any in assistance of the sheriff, till after
one was killed and two wounded.

_George Ellis._ The same as before. Saw Woolston go with the
soldiers to the west side of the house. Soon afterwards
heard a cry that Woolston was shot. Went and saw him. He was
shot from the groin to the ancle. He was then in a manner
dying; died of that wound. The first firing from within the
house, before the Sheriff had finished the concluding words
of the proclamation; three guns fired before the soldiers
fired.

_Richard Vinsam._ Saw Rogers looking out at the window.
Several guns fired before the Sheriff had quite finished the
proclamation. No guns fired by the soldiers till they had
fired from the house.

_Mr. Black._ After the firing from the east side, ordered
eight or ten soldiers to go round to the west side, and soon
heard Woolston was shot. No firing by the soldiers till
after from the house.

_Mr. John Hawkins._ 19th, no gun fired from the soldiers
till after Carpenter dropped.

_Piercy Price._ 18th March last at Skewis. Was with the
soldiers when they took possession. Rogers looked out of the
little door. Asked him how he came to let a man lay unburied
who was there? owned “he killed him. As to the old soldier
that was killed, I had no animosity against him. It is true
I killed him, but it was time, he was too proud; intended to
kill the Sheriff and his men.”

_As to Street._

_Edward Williams._ Was there when Woolston was killed.
Street was on the inside of the house at the western door
when Woolston was killed. Had a sword drawn. He asked to go
out. Street said if he offered to do it he would run him
through; hindered him and another from going out; said if
they would do a friend any good or service now was the time;
the service was to keep the possession against the Sheriff.
The prisoner Rogers thought his appeal had been lodged.

_Henry Berryman._ The soldiers fired upon the house about
three times before they parted to different sides of the
house; did not see Carpenter shot, nor does not know when he
was shot; was as far off as the length of the whole hall;
did not see Street there.

_Thomas Pendarves._ By his perceivance the soldiers fired
first. Stood on the south side of the house, two hundred
yards off; did not see either Carpenter or Woolston shot.

_John Street has no evidence._

Verdict, both Guilty.

The King against Henry Rogers.

Indictment for the murder of Andrew Willis, alias Tubby, by
shooting him in the breast on the 16th of March at Crowan.

Plea, Not Guilty.

Serjeant Chapple, pro Rege.

_Edward Bennett._ Was a constable, and on 16th March called
Andrew Willis, alias Tubby, to give in his assistance to
take the prisoner Rogers at Skewis House on account of
murders that he had committed. Tubby was about sixty yards
from the house, and he saw a gun fired from a window of the
house; immediately on that Tubby fell down; he ran off;
immediately saw Rogers in the window from which the fire
came; afterwards saw Rogers come out to the man and walk
round him and take Tubby’s gun, but before Rogers came out
another gun was fired; saw one or two more at the window
afterwards; intended to apprehend him and bring him to
Launceston.

_John Williams._ Was with Bennett and Tubby at the
constable’s desire to take Mr. Rogers, but ordered them not
to shoot without necessity; about sixty yards off the house
saw Tubby on his knee, almost before he heard the report of
the gun; immediately saw Rogers in the window with a gun in
his hand; thought Rogers was gone out of his house. Tubby
cried, “Lord! Lord!” and fell down. Another gun fired, and
he crept away through the hedge.

_Henry Thomas._ Saw Rogers on 16th March, with a gun, walk
by the dead body forwards and backwards. Said, “Here lies
the black Bill.”

_Henry James._ Was called to assist William John the
constable the Sunday that Tubby lay dead at Skewis; saw the
prisoner with a gun within twelve feet of the body. Prisoner
said, “Sir Andrew, thou didst make thy brag last Sunday that
thou wouldst lend me a brace of bullets, but I think I have
paid thee.” Asked them to come in and drink a dram; refused.
He said, “If he would, he would make them come into the
castle.” They went away, and we retired. Rogers stood in the
lane with a gun in his hand, bid them turn in; said, Sir
John St. Aubyn would be angry if they had any thing to do
with any body in the house. He said, “Damn them, if they did
not he would shoot them.” Asked, if they knew who killed the
man? “No.” Said, “There was a black man lay dead in the
moor, if any body would own him they should have him. I have
the bill;” produced the gun; “Damn him, if they don’t come
and own him, I’ll cut off his head and stick it on the
chimney.”

_James Fall._ Heard the gun go off. Heard somebody say,
“Take up the man.” He ran out, and Rogers looked out of his
window, asked, what he was going for? said, “To see what you
have done; you will be hanged at last.” Said, “If you do not
go back, I will shoot you too.” Said to him, “Did not I tell
you to tell Sir John, that I would take them off as he would
fetch them.” He said “fetch them?”

_Prisoner._ That these people followed him and endeavoured
to shoot him.

Verdict, guilty.

An addition which appears to have been made to a charge
delivered by Lord Hardwicke, Chief Justice on Western
Circuit in 1735.

Of the truth of this observation and of the pernicious
consequences of lawless force, you of this country have
lately had a flagrant but an instructive instance. In that
you have seen from what small springs a torrent of violence
may arise. How people once engaged in such practices, go on
from invading the property, to taking away the lives of
their fellow subjects; and from an obstinate contemptuous
opposition to the regular decisions of the ordinary Courts
of Justice, they advance almost to open rebellion.

The honourable and indefatigable endeavours of the gentlemen
of this county to reform and suppress such daring outrages
cannot be sufficiently commended, and must always be
remembered highly to their honour. And happy it is that
these endeavours, enforced by the seasonable and gracious
assistance of his majesty, had the desired effect. To
consider this affair in its full extent, it ought on the one
hand to be looked upon as a strong proof that the King will
make use of the extraordinary as well as the ordinary powers
of his government, only for protection and security of his
people; and on the other hand, that the gentlemen of England
will unite in the support of the laws, and of legal, well
established government, against all attempts of any kind
whatsoever to introduce disorder and confusion.

So great were the apprehensions entertained of a man who had in this extraordinary manner, and for months set at defiance the whole authority of the country, that, immediately after his absconding, the magistrates of the hundred issued the following proclamation:

Cornwall.――To all Magistrates, Headboroughs, and Officers of
Towns and Parishes, to whom these presents shall come.

Whereas several murders have lately been committed by Henry
Rogers, of Skewis, in the parish of Crowan, in the county of
Cornwall, and whereas the said Henry Rogers and his gang did
last night abscond and withdraw themselves from justice,
notwithstanding a strict guard of soldiers and others which
were placed about the house at Skewis to prevent their
escape, and any further mischiefs that might ensue from
their wicked intentions and intrigues of the said Henry
Rogers and his abettors; And whereas they withdrew from
Skewis with their guns and ammunition, whereby it is
suspected that they will plunder and ravage the whole
county:――We therefore desire you to transmit this to the
next town, that it may go through the whole county, not only
that all his Majesty’s good and peaceable subjects may be
guarded against the said Rogers and his gang, but that they
may do their utmost endeavours to apprehend them, and bring
them to their trial, that all such horrid practices, which
threaten destruction to society and government, may for the
future be prevented, the public peace preserved, and the
authors of such infamous disorders be brought to condign
punishment.

We are, with much respect, gentlemen,
Your most humble servants,
JOHN ST. AUBIN.
JOHN BORLASE.
WM. ARUNDELL.

March 21st, 1734-5.[38]

There is a reward of 350_l._ for taking him. He hath on a
whitish fustian frock, with bastard pearl buttons, and a
blue riding-coat.

Although no one ventured to justify the violence, and especially the murders committed by Rogers, yet long within my remembrance a strong feeling of compassion was generally entertained for him. One of his sons lived to a very advanced age at Penzance, where he procured a scanty living as a saddler, merely employed, I believe, from kindness.

In October 1812 I had a long conversation with this old man about his father; and the following are minutes made on the occasion:

“On the 30th of October, 1812, I called on Mr. Henry Rogers,
formerly a saddler at Penzance, but then residing there in
great poverty, being supported by a small allowance from a
club, and by half-a-crown a week given him by the
corporation, nominally for yielding up the possession of a
house, but in truth to prevent his becoming a common pauper.

“Mr. Henry Rogers was then eighty-four years of age, and
remembered the unfortunate transactions at Skewis perfectly
well; he was between seven and eight years old at the time.
He recollected going out with his father into the court
after there had been some firing. His father had a gun in
his hand, and inquired what they wanted. On this his father
was fired at, and had a snuff-box and powder-horn broken in
his pocket by a ball, whilst he stood on the other side.

“He recollected that whilst he himself was in the bed,
several balls came in through the window of the room, and
after striking against the wall rolled about on the floor.

“One brother and a sister, who were in the house, went out
to inquire what was wanted of their father, and they were
not permitted to return.

“On the last night, no one remained in the house but his
father, himself, and the servant-maid. In the middle of the
night they all went out, and got some distance from the
house. In crossing a field, however, they were met by two
soldiers, who inquired their business, &c. The maid answered
that they were looking for a cow, when they were permitted
to proceed. The soldiers had their arms, and his father had
his gun. The maid and himself were left at a farm-house in
the neighbourhood, and Mr. Rogers proceeded on his way
towards London. Mr. Henry Rogers said that he was born in
Crowan, and he apprehended so were most of the children;
that his father, although bred a pewterer, had for many
years occupied land in that parish.”

All these circumstances, after so long an interval, were related to me by the old man with tears in his eyes.

It is curious to compare this account of the escape of one man, a woman, and a child, with the proclamation of the next day.

On the 8th of January, 1816, I called at Skewis, and saw several holes in the partitions, made by shot of different sizes, when Mr. Henry Rogers resisted the law in 1735.

I have an extract from a letter written by a Cornish gentleman in May 1735, who states that he had seen Rogers in the prison at Salisbury, when he seemed to rejoice in what he had done. And I have found in an account-book of my great uncle, Mr. Henry Davies, the following receipt:

“1st July 1735. Received of Mr. Henry Davies, towards the
taking of Henry Rogers, two pounds two shillings, per
Francis Arthur.”

A print of Rogers was soon after published with the following legend:

“Henry Rogers lived at a village called Skewis. He was so
ignorant of the reason as well as of the power of the law,
that when a decree in Chancery went against him, he resisted
all remonstrances, and fortified his house, making loopholes
for his muskets, through which he shot two men of the posse
comitatus who attended the Under-sheriff. A little after he
shot one Hitchens, as he was passing the high road on his
private business. He also fired through the window and
killed one Toby, and would not suffer his body to be taken
away to be buried for some days. At length the neighbouring
justices of the peace assisted the constables, and procured
an aid of some soldiers, one of whom he killed, and
afterwards made his escape; but at Salisbury, on his way
towards London, he was apprehended and brought down to
Cornwall, when at the assizes in August 1735 five bills of
indictment were found againt him by the grand jury for the
five murders aforesaid; to save the court time he was tried
only on three of them, and found guilty of every one, before
Lord Chief Justice Hardwick. As he lay in gaol after his
conviction, the Under-sheriff coming in, he attempted to
seize his sword, with a resolution to kill him; swearing he
should die easy if he could succeed in that design. He was
attended by several clergymen; but they could make no
impression on his brutal stupidity, and he died at the
gallows without any remorse.”

Extract made at the British Museum July the 8th, 1812, from the Weekly Miscellany, by Richard Hooker, of the Middle Temple, Esq. for Saturday Aug. the 9th, 1735, No. CXXXIX.

Launceston, August 1.

This day came on before the Lord Chief Justice Hardwick, the
trials of Henry Rogers and John Street, one of his
assistants, for murders committed in opposing the Sheriff of
Cornwall in the execution of his office.

Rogers was arraigned upon five indictments, and Street upon
two. The trials began about seven in the morning and ended
about two in the afternoon. Rogers was tried upon the three
first indictments, and being found guilty on all three, the
Court thought it unnecessary to proceed upon the other two.
Street was found guilty of the two indictments against him.
And they both received sentence of death before the Court
rose.

The Counsel for the king were Mr. Serjeant Chapple, Mr.
Fortescue, jun. The Counsel for the criminals Mr. Pratt and
Mr. Draper. The Solicitor for the Treasury Richard Paxton,
Esq. was also there on the part of the Crown, he being sent
down purposely to prosecute the affair.

* * * * *

At the assizes at Launceston Henry Rogers and John Street
received sentence of death for a murder they committed in
opposing the Sheriff of Cornwall in the execution of his
office, and were executed on the 6th of August 1735. They
seemed very penitent, particularly Rogers, who did not care
for any sustenance but bread and water. He said he was
guilty of one of the murders, but knew nothing of the other;
but had it been in his power he would have killed as many
more, and thought he committed no crime. Street, who was his
servant, had little to say, but that what he did was to
defend his master, and he was willing to die, for by the
course of years he could not live much longer, and he hoped
God would receive his poor soul.

And lastly, I subjoin an address to the parish of Crowan, by Sir John St. Aubyn, the gentleman whom I have mentioned as one of the opponents of Sir Robert Walpole’s administration.