7th Generation

Michael Inman     Deborah Bayles

(a. 1716-1784) (a. 1719 or 1720-1782)

MICHAEL INMAN==DEBORAH BAYLES

perhaps Michael Inman took up more money on Bewerley at this time. and it becomes evident that he had leaseholds there in this year.
   In June, a. 1749, he apparently placed all or portion of his lands, etc., in Bewerley, in the hands of Trustees for his creditors; see Wakef. Reg., AB. 491. The creditors include merchants, mariners, a shipwright, and a sailmaker; amongst the former is Charles Inman [then of Lancaster, and half-brother of said Michael]. There are merchants at Amsterdam and Rotterdam; two of Michel Inman's uncles, Ferrand and Samuel Whaley, had been merchants at the latter place, and it seems likely that he had an interest in shipping, and traded with Holland. In a. 1752, in conjunction, apparently, with the Trustees for the creditors, he sold all his freeholds and leaseholds, in Bewerley, to his uncle, Samuel Whaley. Deborah, the wife of Michael Inman, being a party to the sale [of the freeholds, ni fallor]; see Wakef. Reg., AH. 55, BC. 177, Feet of Fines (26 George II., Hil., a. 1753), and also the Fountains Call Book (re a. 1756), which has 'sold to one Whaley'. In or before a. 1752, he seems to have disposed to his said uncle of his copyholds in the Manor of Bishopside see the Court Rolls under a. 1752, 1771. Thus he appears to have parted with all his estate in lands by a. 1752; he is then described as of Kingston-on-Hull, merchant. Nevertheless, he returned to Bewerley in or before a. 1758, and is styled as of that place, gent., in a copy from a deed, dated a. 1760; presumably, there was some arrangement between the uncle and nephew. The latter's position, at this time, may not really have been so indifferent a one as it might seem to be; the Will of his half-brother, Charles, made in this (1760) year, rather favours this supposition. The latter, in the event of a certain contingency (which did not happen), makes his Godson and nephew, the younger son of his half-brother, his principal beneficiary; perhaps he would also have named the elder son, had he thought that he was likely to be unprovided for.
    In a. 1763 or 1764, Samuel Whaley, the aforesaid uncle, died, and, by his Will, dated a. 1754, left to his nephew, Michael Inman, (1) all his copyholds, with appurtenances, situate at Bishopside, near Pateley Bridge, in the Manor of Thornton with Bishopside, now or late in the Possession of James Scott and Will. Wood; these correspond, exactly or nearly, with the copyholds of which Christopher Inman died seised (v. Court. Rolls under a. 1752, 1758, 1771). His Will purports to give, to said nephew, (2) all his other messuages, lands, etc., at Bewerley and Pateley Bridge, whether copyhold, freehold, or leasehold, (2),or (1)and (2). being charged with the payment of ,900 and interest; Michael Inman perhaps met the above by raising £1000, all or part of the security being freeholds at Bewerley, from George Haughton of York, in (a.1765, and was, at any rate, indebted to him, for that sum, in a. 1771 (Wakef. Reg., BC. 177, BD. 89. both a. 1765; Le Page MS.), and seems to have assigned all or portion of his leaseholds in Bewerley to said George in a. 1765 (u. s., BC, 177. BR. 262), possibly with proviso for redemption.
   In a. 1764, Michael Inman apparently owned much more freehold property in the township of Bewerley than his father or grandfather had died seised of there, or than had been held there by his Inman great-grand-parents; it is not certain that his great-grandfather, Michael had any freeholds in this township, except the lands of the Darnbrooke inheritance., which he held iure ux.., but it is quite unlikely that the latter, or the latter plus the freeholds (if any) in Bewerley of Michael, the great-grand-father, were at all equivalent in acreage to the lands of this description owned by Michael, the great-grandson, in this township in a. 1764. The latter had there not only (a) the acres he had sold in a. 1752, but also (b) other valuable property which his uncle Whaley had purchased, much of which seems never to have been held by the Inmans before; he had leaseholds in a. 1764, perhaps the same lands as those held by him, in a.1744, by this tenure, regained to him by the Will of his uncle. The sale to Sam. Whaley in a. 1752 was both of freehold and leasehold property in Bewerley; whether Michael Inman had succeeded to the latter as part of. the personal estate of Christopher, his father, or whether he acquired it in a. 1737-1744, or partly one and partly the other, is unknown to the present writer. Now the former loss of his estates appears to be compensated; now was he of mature age, and experienced by previous misfortune. Unhappily for the Bewerley family, Michael Inman's first cousin, the wife of Josias Morley, Esq., of Giggleswick, died in a. 1768 or 1769; by her Will, dated March 26, a. 1768,. she left, on the death of her husband [ob. a. 1783], her lands. etc., in Carleton, Bingley, Keighley, Kildwick, and Barnoldswick, to Michael Inman's 'eldest' son (and, if he died under twenty-one. and without lawful issue, then to etc.), subject to the payment of £1000 (on Carleton only, as it seems) to such person or persons as said husband should by Will appoint.
   This estate in expectancy had disastrous consequences; the son (who himself says that he had been educated for the army), had been apprenticed at Halifax c. a. 1765, and was set up in business in a. 1769 or 1770, probably about the time he attained his age, and certainly before he was twenty-two. The father advanced him money, but the son 'made a stop' in business in May, a. 1771; his failure was one of the causes of the downfall of the family. All, or most, of the copyholds in the Manor of Bishopside were surrendered (sold, ni fallor) in a. 1771 and 1772; see the Court Rolls. Part of the estate at Bewerley was conveyed on trust for better securing money upon Bonds, etc., in a. 1772, and more money was perhaps raised in a. 1773; the property there was finally sold to John Yorke, Esq., in a. 1774, saving such part, or parts, if any, as had been assigned to George Jackson and Ro. Parker, respectively, for any subsisting term or terms of years therein (Wakef Reg., BN 230, BR. 262, BU. 280). The estates in expectancy, Carleton, etc., were, all or most of them, mortgaged to Michael Inman by his son on Apr. 2, a. 1771 (Le Page MS. and Wakef Reg., BM. 656), as security for a loan; this property seems to have been sold in a. 1784 and 1785, apparently, subject to one or two charges of £1000 each on all or portion of it, and after an understanding with the creditors of Michael Inman's son. The list given below is based on part of a Le Page MS. (18th c.), said MS. being headed Mdum of M. I. in. His Book - Mdums Halifax; the writing is not that of Michael Inman (M. I.), and the year 1774 is named, but it is not unlikely that the particulars about 'Buerley', 'Carrs', and 'Pately' apply to a. 1771. 'Valuation of Wood at Buerley 1800 - or rather exact - £1687, 11s. 1d. Buerley (offr^d by W [?lege Mr.] Jackson) 10,000, Carrs - 2,000, Pately -2,000.' The copyholds in the Manor of Bishopside (all or most of them) were, ni fallor, sold to several purchasers at different times in a. 1771 and 1772, and the prices paid would be matter of knowledge; 'Pately - 2,000' would appear to be a loose estimate made before realisation, or before such was completed. Near to the details about 'Buerley', 'Carrs', and 'Pately' is a list of debts, amounting to £5,500; they are headed M. I. owed 71 [a. 1771]. It is not clear to me under what conditions the offer of £10,000 for 'Buerley' was made, or exactly what was intended to be conveyed; it certainly seems that the 'Carrs', in Bewerley township*, (*See, however, lines 6 to 8 on p. lviii.) were not to be included, and it is my opinion that the £2,000, placed against the latter, is a mere estimation.

Bewerley; exact valuation of Wood [say, Timber 	£     s.    D.
on the Estate]   .   .    .    .    .    .    1,687.  11.   1
Bewerley; offered by W. Jackson .   .    .   10,000.   0.   0
Carrs* [near the Bridge, at Pateley Bridge]   2,000.   0.   0
Pateley [copyholds in the Manor of Bishopside]2,000.   0.   0
Craven [estates, then in expectancy], estimated on
a rental of £146, at 40 years purchase £5,840,  
but subject to a payment [cp. p. xlii] of £1000,
and [it is said] to a legacy of £1000    .    3,840.   0.   0
Wood End [in Skircoat, Halifax; estimated at a
rental of £52], 52 days' work, at £1 [per day],
at 35 years' purchase.    .    .    .    .    1,820.   0.   0
'Wood Pews Church' [in Halifax Parish Church]   230.   0.   0

The total exceeds £20,000, but it is not clear whether the first item should not be considered as a portion of the second one; the creditors of Michael Inman's son apparently had a claim on the reversion in fee (expectant on the death of Josias Morley) of the Craven Estates (Recovery Roll, No. 754; Wakef. Reg. CL. 692, CN. 680, a. 1782, 1783). The life tenant, said Morley, survived till a. 1783; it seems to be uncertain whether the Craven. property, after deducting (a) what was paid as a settlement of the claims of the creditors and (b) the sum of £1,000 or £2,000 (ut sup.), realised the bare amount which Michael Inman had advanced (a. 1771) to his son more than twelve years before the sales of a. 1784 and 1785. In a letter (Le Page MS.), dated Dec. 4, (a. 1787, the younger son of Michael Inman attempts a sort of valuation; if thou Recolects thou mentiond here respecting the property thee and my Father was once possessd of, which I estimated at £20,000, and I can make fairly appear at least so. But, at his death, it is somewhat doubtful if Michael Inman was worth a clear twenty hundred pounds, and Robert Parker, the Halifax attorney, in a letter of Oct. 7, a. 1786. mentions the little Property the Father left; the latter had charged his real and personal estate with the payment of his debts, etc., and he had property in the Craven Estates, and, at Skircoat, and, possibly, lands elsewhere. Michael Inman, c. a. 1764, had benefited very considerably by the Will of Sam. Whaley, and appeared in a Deed a. 1777 as heir-at-law or the latter, and of his own cousin, Lydia Morley (Whaley); he had a [? reversionary) interest in an estate at Pudsey, which was perhaps sold in a. 1777 (Wakef Reg. CA. 532), Josias Morley being a party to the Deed of Release. What, if any, other emolument he had as heir-at-law has not appeared; his name occurs in transactions about a property in the township of Haworth in a. 1774 and 1777 (Wakef. Reg. BU. 640, CA. 297), and he was, perhaps, a mortgagee (see p. lx).
   After his departure from Bewerley in a. 1774, he went to Thirsk in the same year; he resided there in a. 1779, but may have been at Lancaster, where his nephew lived, between those dates. In a. 1779 or 1780, he was living at Low Hall, or elsewhere, in the parish of Kirklington; his wife died in a. 1782, and was buried in the churchyard there. In a. 1783, he left Badger Hall, a place not far from the village of Kirklington, and went to Doncaster, where he resided with his late wife's sister (Mrs. John Wastell) and her husband (John Wastell, also her cousin); he died shortly after, probably at a house in the High Street. As to his politics, the name of Michael Inman occurs, under Daker cum Buerley, amongst those of the Freeholders who voted for George Fox, Esq., said to have been the Tory candidate; the Poll commenced on Jan.13, a. 1741/2.
   So far as has appeared, Michael Inman is the first of the Nidderdale family who was intituled Esquire by his contemporaries; he is so styled in a. 1768, and afterwards. The title presumably arose as a recognition of his wealth or supposed wealth, and was kept in use after the loss of his Nidderdale estates; it would have been clearly out of place before a. 1764. Of course the historian (Burke's Landed Gentry), partly perhaps from a pleasing desire for uniformity, or, it may be, from mere professional instinct, has created Esquires of the ancestors of Michael Inman, a title to which they seem to have been entire strangers; such complimentary additions might, with great propriety, be reserved for those legendary progenitors who occasionally figure in the pages of the genealogist. The Seal on the Will of Michael Inman is a man's head; no instance has occurred in which he used an armorial seal resembling those noticed under Robert and Christopher Inman.
   His Will purports to devise and bequeath to Whaley Charles Inman, his 'second' son, all his messuages, lands, etc., and parts and shares of messuages, lands, etc., situate in 'Canton, Barnoldswick, Keighley, Bingley, and Sutton in Craven, ... and in Skircoat', and all other his real estate in Great Britain, over which be has any right or power of disposal, whether in possession, reversion, remainder, or otherwise, together with all and every his personal estate and effects, to hold the same to and to the use of his said 'second' son, his heirs, executors, etc., 'absolutely for ever', according to the respective natures and tenures thereof, subject to testator's debts and funeral expenses; said son to be sole executor.

Christopher, a. 1748-1801, son of Michael Inman, of Bewerley, Esq., from an Oil Painting, by permission of Miss Barbara Inman; date probably not later than a. 1771.

   Michael and Deborah Inman had four sons and three daughters, two of the former, and all the latter, dying in infancy; the surviving sons were Christopher, born a. 1748, and Whaley Charles, born a. 1754. Ni fallor, neither of these sons is now represented by males, or a male, descended in the male line; Christopher, the elder, who died in a. 1801, had five sons, the survivor oi whom died in a. 1868. There are numerous literary memorials, of the time of the aforesaid Christopher, now in the possession of his grand-daughter, Louisa, the wife of John F. Le Page, M.D.; by their extreme courtesy, I was permitted, some years ago, to copy many of them. There are some references to the Le Page MSS. In these pages; Dr. Le Page has contributed a folding-pedigree to Nidderdale, and therein deals with certain matters which are beyond the scheme of my Account of the Inmans.

Wha1ey Charles, a. 1754- 1826, son of Michael Inman, of Bewerley, Esq.; from a Painting, by permission of Miss Barbara Inman.

   Whaley Charles (the younger son of Michael Inman), who died in a. 1826, had four sons and three daughters; all the sons died s. p., the survivor in a. 1865. Christopher and Whaley Chas. Inman are, ni fallor, represented by and through female descendants; the name survives in the younger branch of the family, to wit, through divers descendants who can trace their origin through males paternally descended from Charles, the half-brother of that Michael Inman who died in a. 1784.
   This Michael Inman owned landed property, and had also interests in lands, etc., which may be dealt with under six headings; (1) in Bewerly, (2) in the Manor of Bishopside (3) in the township of Skircoat, par. Halifax, (4) in the parishes of Carleton, Bingley, Barnoldswick, Keighley, and Kildwick, (5) in the township of Haworth, par. Bradford, and (6) in the place or places to which he had right as the heir-at-law of (?) Lydia Whaley, his cousin, the wife of Josias Morley, Esquire.
   Commencing with (a) BEWERLEY, a distinction should be drawn between the lands, etc., to which he succeeded in a. 1737 and the property which he had there in a. 1764; it is practically certain that he enjoyed a far greater estate, in the township, in the latter year. There was nothing in the Will (a. 1735) of Christopher Inman to shew that the testator had any leaseholds in Bewerley; nevertheless, the point is to be considered as undecided, and it is clear that unexpired terms (if any) would have passed to his son, Michael, by said Will. The latter succeeded in a. 1787, but, discarding the brief notice (of said Will), the earliest of the Memorials (registered at Wakefield) for his Bewerley property is for a. 1738; in the latter year he joins the Rouths in the conveyance (Aug.) of Calfhall in Bewerley, and there are (Oct.) Memorials respecting 'all' his lands, etc., in this township. He had leaseholds in a. 1744 (Wakef. Reg., TT. 166), but they might have been acquired in the period, a. 1735-1744; in a. 1752 the property (freehold and leasehold) in Bewerley was sold to his uncle Whaley. The latter died in a. 1763 or 1764, and, by his Will, Michael Inman obtained a freehold and leasehold estate in the township; it consisted of the whole* (*See Note H) (it would seem) of the lands, etc., conveyed in a. 1752, and also of other freehold, or freehold and leasehold, lands, etc., there. It is probable that the estate of a. 1764 comprised all the freeholds of Oct., a. 1738, and all* the freeholds and leaseholds of a. 1752; it has not appeared to me in what part or parts of the township the leaseholds lay, and it does not follow, as a matter of course, that the lands held on this tenure in a. 1764 were not of greater extent than those so held in a. 1752, but, if the language of a Memorial (Wakef. Reg. BC. 177) is to be relied on, Michael Inman had, a. 1765, all* the Bewerley lands that were sold in a. 1752. It would be convenient to call the estate of Oct., a. 1738 (a), the property acquired, c. a. 1754 - c. a. 1763, by Sam. Whaley (b), and the estate of a. 1764(a)+(b), where (a) would also represent the purchase, a. 1752, of said Whaley; this may happen to he approximate*, but, as shewn, the present evidence does not amount to a guarantee of the formula, for the property of a. 1752, may have been greater than that of Oct., a. 1738. However, it is fairly clear that Michael Inman lost his Bewerley estate in a. 1752, enjoyed a larger one there in a. 1764, and, before the close of a. 1774, had not a single acre in the township; certainly, his name, as well as that of his uncle, appears in the Bewerley Court Rolls for a. 1760-1763, and it is possible that Sam. Whaley had made over to him some lands there before his death, but, in the absence of precise evidence to that effect, the above statement may suffice.
   It happens that the Memorials (at Wakefield) of Inman Deeds do not indicate with sufficient detail all the landed property Michael Inman had in Bewerley either in a. 1774 or 1738, and, so far as I am aware, they never shew either the situation or the acreage of his Bewerley leaseholds; the estate of a. 1738 did not simply consist of the freeholds of the inheritance of a. 1681, in this township, which were of John Darnbrooke in a. 1678/9. The latter had freehold, leasehold, and (?) copyhold property, and left a wife, son, and daughter; the 'full filial child part and portion' of the daughter, Judith, was to have been £150 worth of my lands and leases'; it is doubtful if John Darnbrooke's Bewerley freeholds were worth £30 by the year, according to the value of land in his day. In the Compositions for Knighthood, a. 1630-1632, there is no return under Bewerley at all, and no Darnbrookes occur for any place in the Wapentake of Claro; from this it may reasonably be inferred that no Bewerley Darnbrooke was then estimated at 40 librates by the year for that township. Of course, prior to a. 1738, the Inmans may have sold some of the freeholds (once Darnbrooke) inherited in a. 1681, but it is certain they had property in the township which had not been so inherited; the following notices have occurred, and may be considered as an attempt to illustrate the Bewerley estate before Oct., a. 1738: -

   The estate of a. 1738 did not then exactly Consist of the lands inherited in a. 1681, which were of John Darnbrooke in a. 1678/9; Thos. Porter was given as one of the two 'next heirs '* (*See Note C) of Judith Darnbrooke, and although it is possible that he sold real property in Bewerley, or died under age, I am quite unable to assert that the Inmans ever had more than half the Bewerley freeholds held by John Darnbrooke in a. 1738. Nos. (3), (4), and (6) may point to sales of parts of the inheritance of a. 1681; on the other hand, the lands in question might have been purchased or otherwise acquired. It may be that the estate of a. 1738 retained all the Bewerley lands which had been inherited on the death (a. 1681) of the aforesaid Judith; there is some evidence for supposing that the capital messuage of the Inmans had belonged to the Darnbrookes.
   In a. 1754-1763 Sam. Whaley acquired property in Bewerley from different sources; say, the Whitelocks, Thos. Watkinson, Jos. Summersall, and perhaps others (at unascertained dates). Jos. Summersall had a small estate at West Cliffe, which had been sold by the Inmans in a. 1719 (Wakef. Reg., P.421); see under Robt. Inman above, where it is given as a messuage and about 10 acres. There are several notices of West Cliffe (Wakef. Reg.,P. 421, AO. 556, AU. 198, AW. 355, AY. 165); the last of these represents the sale to Sam. Whaley in a. 1763, and the property is the same, absolutely or nearly, as that dealt with in a. 1719. New Close House was another property, a messuage, perhaps about 12 to 18 acres of meadow and pasture, [?] with woods, etc., and with rights in the commons and wastes of the Manor of Bewerley; Sam. Whaley appears as 'Grantee' with regard to it in a. 1759, and Michael Inman, devisee in fee by the Will of said Whaley, also as 'Grantee' in a. 1773, and there seems to have been some encumbrance which was discharged in the latter year (Wakef. Reg., AS. 151, BR. 166). The Whitelocks had a considerable estate in Bewerley, all or part of which was formerly the 'Inheritance' (sic) of Chas. Darnbrooke, of Bewerley, yeoman (who died a.1671); it was conveyed to Sam. Whaley in a. 1754 (Wakef. Reg., AK. 80). In addition to these, it may be that said Whaley purchased other property in Bewerley; the tenements, with appts., of David Holdsworth and Joshua Joy are noticed at a. 1771 and 1774 (Wakef. Reg, BN. 230, BU. 280), and 4 shops in Bewerley at a. 1774 (Feet of Fines, 15 George III.). The names of said Holdsworth and said Joy do not appear in the Memorials of Inman Deeds before a. 1771, and, possibly, the two messuages or tenements, which at some time they occupied, might account for two of the shops; apparently, these messuages were not conveyed to Sam. Whaley by the sale of a. 1752, and it is perhaps more likely that the latter acquired them than that Michael Inman did so after his death. The 4 shops, as such, never appear in the Memorials of Inman Deeds at all, but 'all other the Messuages', etc., is perhaps inclusive enough; as they occur in the Fine (a. 1774), it would seem that they were part of Michael Inman's freehold property, and there can be no reasonable doubt that shops were conveyed to John Yorke, Esq., by the Indentures of Lease and Release (a. 1774) which preceded the Fine, in spite of the fact that the word is absent in the Memorial (Wakef. Reg., BU. 280). Apparently, they formed no part of the estate of a. 1752, for they do not occur in the Fine (a. 1753) which followed the conveyance of a.1752; it is quite likely that Sam. Whaley had bought shops in the township of Bewerley.
   £10,000 had been offered for 'Buerley' by W. [?Mr.] Jackson, and the Carrs (also in Bewerley township) were, as it seems, separately estimated at 1000 (Le Page MS.); the wood at Bewerley had been valued at £1687.11.1. It is not likely that the close called Stackwood was (here) considered to be a part of the 'Carrs'; I am unable to assert that it was in said township. It may be that the offer of £10,000 was made in a. 1771 for all the then lands and tenements, of every description, in Bewerley, except the 'Carrs'; in that year there were encumbrances, perhaps to the extent of £2,550 or more, on part or parts of the estate, but it is unknown to me whether it was the intention of the bidder that certain debts on the property for which he was offering should be discharged out of the £10,000. Nor am I able to give a satisfactory explanation about the Bewerley leaseholds; the following notices are from Memorials (Wakef. Reg., BC. 177, BN. 230, BR. 262, BU. 280) of 'Indentures of Lease and Release and Assignment' (a. 1765) and of three pairs of 'Indentures of Lease and Release' (a. 1771, 1773, 1774). The first Memorial (a. 1765) shews Michael Inman as 'Grantor', and George Haughton as 'Grantee'; it rehearses, in a fashion, the whole* (*See Note H) Bewerley estate of a. 1752. The second one (a. 1771) shews the said Michael as 'Grantor', and Ro. Parker as 'Grantee'; it rehearses, in a fashion, the whole estate of said Michael, held by him or in trust for him, in Bewerley in a. 1771. It appears to point to a conveyance on trust to said Parker; ni fallor, portion of the trust was for the benefit of creditors, etc., and there is said to have been a setting over of 'all such part of the above-mentioned tenements [whatever that may signify] as he the said Michael Inman do assign unto the said Robert Parker' (Yorke MS.). The third one (a. 1773) shews George Haughton and Michael Inman as 'Grantors', and George Jackson as 'Grantee'; it rehearses, in a fashion, the whole* estate of a. 1732, and then excepts therefrom such part and parts of it, 'if any such part or parts thereof there is or be', as were assigned by the said Michael to said Haughton, or which the said Michael is only 'intitled to for the flow residue of some Term or Terms for years therein yet to come and unexpired'. The fourth one (a. 1774) represents a conveyance by divers parties, including Michael Inman, Ro. Parker, and George Jackson (but not George Haughton), of all* the estate of a. 1752, and of all Michael Inman's other landed estate and tenements, etc., in Bewerley, held by him or in trust for him there by said Ro. and George, or either of them, or any other etc., to John Yorke; after the rehearsal, in a fashion, of certain premises, there is an exception clause, relating to such part and parts, if any, as were assigned for any subsisting term or terms of years to said Parker and said Jackson respectively. It seems clear enough, however, that Michael and Deborah Inman sold every acre in Bewerley that they then could sell; if there were any leaseholds there, which had not previously been assigned, the second deed (the 'Release' dated July 23, a. 1774) would presumably assign them to John Yorke. The latter, ni fallor, paid £1550 to Ro. Parker two days after the sale: this was exactly the amount which had been borrowed, in a. 1771, from four persons for whom said Parker was then acting. A Fine followed the Sale Deeds, the parties thereto being Michael and Deborah Inman and John Yorke; it would not, I believe, pass a term or terms of years to the plaintiff, but, the 'Release' (sic) probably conveyed such, if any, as Michael Inman had power to sell. It might perhaps be supposed that Michael Inman had an Equity of Redemption in terms of years which he had assigned, and therefore that he might still have had leaseholds in Bewerley in and after a. 1774; my opinion is that he had no lands of any kind in that township after a. 1774, and, at any rate, the word, Bewerley, does not occur in his Will. The Feet of Fines (15 George III., Michaelmas Term) assess the property at 8 messuages, 4 shops, etc., 200 acres of land, 100 of meadow, 100 of pasture, 100 of wood, 1000 of moor, 1000 of marsh, etc.; this, of course, is not intended to be exact, and the moor and marsh presumably represent mere rights in the commons and waste grounds of the Manor. The 8 messuages might possibly be the so called Tudor House, a house on the 'Carrs', another close to Beckstone Barn, Bailey's Gap House, New Close House, West Cliffe House, and the tenements of David Holdsworth and Joshua Joy, which were perhaps in the village; there were also 8 cottages - on parchment, at any rate.
   As to (2) the copyholds in the Manor of Bishopside, they corresponded, absolutely, or very nearly, with the estate there of which the father of Michael Inman died seised; see under Christopher Inman (above), and v. the Bishopside Court Rolls at a. 1752, 1758, 1771, 1772. The value (realisation or estimate) was £2000; the sale appears to date a. 1771 and 1772.
   As to (3), this was a property in SKIRCOAT, par. Halifax, which Michael Inman took for his son Christopher, who was a merchant at Heath (Halifax); it included Wood End and Lower Wood End, estimated at £35 and 14 days' work, and sometime occupied at rents of £28 and 14, respectively (Wakef Reg., BM. 34, a. 1770). Michael Inman himself it seems reckons its value at £1820, on a basis of 52 days' work at £1, and 35 years' purchase, and the extent may perhaps have been rather under 50 acres; it was, apparently, encumbered, and was sold in a. 1784, along with the pews [estimated separately at £230] belonging to it in the parish Church of Halifax (Wakef. Reg., CP. 419).
   As to (4), the 'CRAVEN ESTATES', these did not become available till a. 1783, when Josias Morley died; the extent appears to have been about 66 acres plus 152 days' work, loosely, perhaps, some 200 acres. The rental, c. a. 1771-1774, is given as £146.0.6, clear of all deductions, save £3 p. a. to the Duke of Devonshire; the sale of all, or part, of this property was in a.1784, or in a. 1784 and 1785, and the curious may find some particulars in 13 copies (Wakef. Reg.) from deeds (a. 1784, 1785) under the name of Whaley Charles Inman as a Grantor. The estimated value was £5840; as already pointed out, more than one interest had to be Satisfied thereout.
   Practically nothing is known about (5), a messuage, near Silver Hill, in the township of HAWORTH (Bradford), with 40 days' work, etc.; perhaps Michael Inman took a mortgage thereon in a. 1774, and was repaid in a. 1777, see Wakef. Reg. (BU. 640, CA. 297).
   There is also the somewhat indefinite (6), in which may be specified a messuage, and 4 closes, reckoned at 13 days' work, in PUDSEY (Calverley), but it has not appeared whether (6) contained property elsewhere than in Pudsey; perhaps Sam. Whaley had made a purchase here, for, in a. 1777, Michael Inman, described as heir-at-law of said Whaley and of Lydia Morley, appears, in conjunction with Josias Morley, amongst the 'Grantors' (Wakef. Reg., CA. 532).
   Below is a Table drawn up from the Feet of Fines, with reference to Nos. (1), (3), and (4); the dates are 26 George II. (Hilary Term, a. 1753), 15 George III. (Michaelmas Term, a. 1774), 10 George III. (Trinity Term, a. 1770), and 24 George III. (Trinity Term, a. 1784).

   From a. 1708/9 to a. 1792, inclusive, are not far short of 85 years; and, for this period, exactly or about, 85 copies from Deeds have been found, at Wakefield and Northallerton, in which the Inmans took part; the reference, of course, is only to Robert Inman (ob. a. 1721), his son, and those Inmans who were descended from said Robert.

Charles Inman==Susanna Casson

(a. 1725-1767) (a. -1752)

thereto; that his wife's Jointure was, wholly or [more probably] partly, to come from Harefield is amply proved by his Will. Mary Bowlby brought her husband £1000, and, in a. 1737, Harefield was but valued at £23 p. a.; it might have been worth £1000 in a. 1755. In his Will (May, a. 1760), he mentions that John Yeoman, the 'present' tenant of part of Harefield, had made considerable improvements, and therefore recommends his wife and Trustees to continue him for seven years without advancing his rent; it is likely that he had been at Knaresbro' in April, when he became a Trustee (as it seems) for his cousin's marriage settlement, and that he paid a visit to Harefield when he was in Yorkshire. In Aug., a. 1764, he was in Nidderda1e, probably for the last time; on that occasion, he bought a seat in the old Church at Pateley Bridge 'for the Use and Benefit of the Servants & Tenants of Harefield', paying £5.5.0 in hand, and assigning his property in a certain pew 'late belonging to Harefield' [perhaps the one which had been erected by his great-grandfather, Michael] to the sellers (witness his hand in the Pateley Bridge Register Book).
   Shortly after (Sept.29), he was again at Lancaster, adding a Codicil to his Will, and, in a. 1766 (Feb. 13), is described as late of Lancaster, but now of Jamaica, merchant, in which place he departed this life on the 14th of August in the following year; his Memorial Inscription, at the Church of S. Andrew, Kingston, Jamaica, describes him as late of 'this' parish, merchant. Very eulogistic are the lines on this Tablet; it also commemorates Ralph Preston, from Lancaster, almost certainly the son of that Thomas, of whose Will Charles Inman had been a Trustee. Rumour relates that Robert, the son of Charles Inman, stayed in Lancaster, and neglected to look after the 'Jamaica estates', which he lost through the dishonesty of overlookers; what, if any, landed property there was there must here be left in doubt, but certain it is that Robert Inman was but little more than eleven on his father's death.
   It would, however, appear that the aforesaid Ralph Preston (of the par. of Kingston, Jamaica merchant) had property of some sort in Jamaica, for he appoints Moses Benson ('of the Parish of Kingston aforesaid Merchant,) the sole executor of his Will, for that island; he nominates Nathaniel Milward, of the par. of Kingston, Jamaica, merchant, to the same position, after the death, or failure to act, of the aforesaid Benson. He desires that 'after payment of my debts funeral expenses and legacies before mentioned', all his ready money (if any) and all other his 'estate real personal and mixt after being converted into cash' be placed out in some good and sufficient fund in England, but he does not locate his real property; he appoints 'the said Moses Benson and Sir William Farrington of Shawhall in Lancashire' executors of his Will for Great Britain. This Will was made in a.1769, and was proved at Lancaster by Moses Benson in a.1773, power being reserved to Sir Will. Farrington, 'the other executor'; the aforesaid Benson is almost certainly he who voted at the Poll for the Borough of Lancaster in a. 1784, being then described as of Liverpool, 'Gent.' Ralph Preston names his brother Thomas, 'a Captain in the troops in the service of the East India Company'; I do not know whether there are now any Prestons descended from the family of Low Hall, Appletreewick. The Testator calls Moses Benson his 'worthy friend and copartner in trade'; the latter was the avowed writer of the epitaph of Charles Inman and Ralph Preston. Possibly, Moses Benson was a partner with Charles Inman, and perchance there may have been an estate in Jamaica; subsequent research might throw light on these matters. Neither negroes nor slaves are named in the testamentary dispositions of Ralph Preston and Charles Inman; there is no mention of any place out of England in the Will and Codicil of the latter. The Will of Moses Benson, dating May, a. 1806, was proved at Chester in the following June, and it seems that there was no open reference to Jamaica therein; apparently, the testator was identical with the Moses Benson named above.
   According to The Ocean Waves (London; a. 1875), the Inman family 'fled to the Island of Jamaica, owing to their espousing the royalist cause in the civil wars of Charles I.'; 'it appears that after the acquisition of property in Jamaica the family returned to England, where they remained many years'. Charles Inman, first of Harefield, county of York, went out to Jamaica, as there was reason to believe that all was not going well, in fact, that the estates were being squandered by the agent'; 'during the time he was there looking after his estates, he died'. Paul, the son of Warnefrit, inserts what he calls a ridicula fabula in his History of the Lombards, and then observes that haec risu digna sunt et pro uihilo habenda; this criticism would apply to some of the matter just extracted from the book called The Ocean Waves. It was dedicated to a then prominent member of the Inman family, of whom, and of two of whose residences, it contains illustrations; a few of the family had become armigerous, in the usual way, not very long before its publication. This permitted the writer of the book to refer to Barker's "Landed Gentry" for the 'family pedigree'; the story about the flight to Jamaica, etc., is too entertaining to omit, especially as 'Barker' does not appear to have been always so generously supplied with information as the author of The Ocean Waves.
   Charles Inman made a very careful Will and Codicil, taking into account divers contingencies; the only landed property, actually specified, is Harefield, and a purchase, not yet completed (Sept. 29, a. 1764), of two parcels of ground at Lancaster. Harefield was devised to his son, Robert, at twenty-one, subject to all, or, more probably, part of his mother's jointure; the lots of ground to his daughter, Susanna. But most of the Testator's wealth (at any rate, in England) was in personalty; he names his share of the ironworks at Halton and Leighton, 'shares of Ironworks and Ships monies securities', etc. Charles Inman left four children, Susanna by his first, and Robert, Mary, and Elizabeth by his second wife; their fortunes as follows, but exhaustive detail is not given in every case. Two lots of ground at Lancaster to Susanna Inman; to her, at twenty-one, or on marriage with consent etc., £1000, of which £250, or thereabouts (which had come from her grandfather Casson's estate, and which was lodged for her in her father's hands), was to be considered as part thereof. To Mary Inman £700 at twenty-one, or etc., and £300 more on the death of her mother; to [Elizabeth] Inman the same as her sister Mary. To Robert Inman, at twenty-one, Harefield, and the 'rest* (*See Note G) residue & remainder of my estates & effects both real and personal whatsoever and wheresoever the same or any part thereof now is are or shall be at the time of my decease', subject to such jointure as was charged thereupon in favour of Testator's present wife by Settlement before marriage, and, of course, chargeable with such of the payments in favour or his daughters as would be due after the majority of said Robert; the amount of the jointure is not named, but same might have been the interest of £1000.
   On March 18, a. 1768, Mary Inman, the widow, obtained administration (with Will and Codicil annexed) of her late husband's goods, chattels, and credits; the Bond was in £10,000. Susanna Inman elected Thos. Satterthwaite of Lancaster, a Quaker and merchant, as her guardian, Bond being given in £2000; Mary Inman, the widow, obtained the Tuition of her own three children, Bond being given in £10,000. The personal estate of Charles Inman seems to have been computed at about £5000; it may be that the Testator was worth some £6000 at the time of his death, and, if so, £2500, or more, may perhaps be reckoned as clear increase, obtained by his mercantile business. Harefield (a. 1767) might have realised £1000, or more, but the two lots of ground at Lancaster are an unknown quantity, and so are the 'Jamaica estates', supposing there were any; there is then uncertainty about the real estate, and hence this writer cannot even approximately assert what the value of the total property of Charles Inman was. In addition to what he had had from his father, already noted, he apparently received £150 and £1000 with his first and second wives; he also had about £250 for his daughter Susanna, and, presumably, obtained the money which arose from the sale of the estate which his mother brought.
   Not much has appeared about his relations with his half-brother Michael; in a. 1749, he occurs as one of his creditors, and therefore, perhaps, a sufferer. However, in a. 1754, he was Godfather to Whaley Charles, the son of this Michael; it is clear from his Will (a. 1760) and Codicil (a. 1764) that this nephew would have been his principal beneficiary, in case of the deaths, unmarried, without lawful issue, and under age, of all his own children. According to a Hailstone MS. (in 4. 29), Charles Inman was 6 feet, 2 inches, high; this was stated or written by his daughter, Elizabeth, in a. 1820, who, of course, should have been by way of bearing many details about her father. This Elizabeth, in a. 1786, acquired some (?) interest in lands, etc., in Kirkby Malhamdale (Wakef. Reg., CT. 116), perhaps an investment of her £1000, or part of it, in a mortgage; she died at Durham, a spinster, in a. 1847. Her sister, Mary Inman, is said to have been married to one Horrobin; whether this is correct, and when she died, has not been ascertained.
   There were extant two or three pieces of Silver Plate which had belonged to Charles Inman; a Tankard and Stand, a. 1745 and 1746, both marked with the intertwined initials, C I S S I C, that is, Charles and Susanna Inman, though C would also stand for Casson. There was a Coffee Pot, made a. 1749; it had an asymmetrical, 'Middle Georgian', armorial engraving, which shewed 3 roses on a chevron, but no crest, and which was almost certainly of the time of Charles Inman. A Tea Pot, a. 1783, had 3 roses on a chevron, but the shield was a symmetrical oval; a Salver, a. 1783, had a wyvern. The armorial seal on the Will (a. 1822) of Robert (son of Charles) Inman has 3 roses on a chevron, with a wyvern as crest; what is believed to be a similar seal is found on a letter of Whaley Charles Inman, dated May 2, a. 1789. Hence it might be held that the arms should be traced to the common ancestor, Christopher Inman, who died a. 1737; against this, it should be stated that the said Whaley Charles was almost certainly in Lancaster c. a. 11777, and presumably would have had the opportunity of borrowing the armorials from his cousin there. But see what has been said under Robert (ob. a. 1721) and Christopher Inman (ob. a. 1737); the 3 roses on a chevron may date from the time of the former.
    However this may be, it is certain that no grant of these or any other arms can be found at the Heralds' College, and therefore that the family of Inman Cannot be shewn to have been (technically) armigerous; in fact, they cannot, ni fallor, now claim to be so, with the exception of some descendants of the late William Inman who became so by a Grant of 'yesterday', which can be of no value as evidence for the precise period for which arms had been hitherto used. From the time of Queen Eizabeth down to that of the present generation, the securing of a grant of arms seems often able to be regarded as a simple commercial transaction; for the earlier period see Will. Harrison's Descr. of Britain, 'shall for money have a coat and arms bestowed upon him by heralds (who in the charter of the same do of custom pretend antiquity and service, and many gay things), and thereunto, being made so good cheap, be called master, etc.' A writer of a. 1900 (A. W. Hutton in The Contemp. Review, July) says that 'it is a matter of common knowledge that payment of the fees claimed will always secure a grant, apart from the rule, now somewhat meaningless . . . , that grants are not made to retail shop-keepers*'; (* Since a. 1900, an erstwhile butcher has been ennobled by a Grant of Arms to this writer's absolute knowledge; prior to his advancement, his pedigree, a combination of fact and fiction, was displayed in Burke's Landed Gentry. In this case, the Grant was perhaps somewhat inopportune, for, since the writing of the first sentence of this note, the Grantee's son has attained to the Baronetage; this presumes merit in the recipient of the dignity, whereas, a Grant of Arms, obtained merely in the usual way, is not necessarily to be regarded as the reward of some particular service rendered to the Commonwealth.) the subject has indeed engaged the genius of a modern poet (J. Horace Round, M.A.), who composed some elegant verses on the cost of production of gentry on the above system.
   The Inmans (u. s.) had clearly paid no fees to the College, nor has any evidence been brought forward to shew that they had obtained the right to bear arms for services rendered; nevertheless, five of the Nidderdale line, a. 1629-1784, in direct lineal descent, are described as generosi, the fifth of them (Michael Inman of Bewerley), indeed, rejoicing also in the title of Esquire. Now, it is likely enough that they were 'gentry' according to local estimation, and the term, 'gent.', was probably in common use for certain freeholders of the greater sort, without distinguishing whether they had paid the herald or whether they had not; a class which had a moderate return of income from lands and rents had the opportunity of securing certain real advantages, and it is doubtful if, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the average 'gentleman of the lesser sort' would have reaped much solid benefit by enrolment in the ranks of the generosi created through procuration of the Herald for a good and lawful consideration, supposing he was not already of their number. Unless I err, none of the present race, males in the male line, sprung from those Bewerley Inmans of whom this Account has essayed to restore a memory, now own a competent estate in land in any part of Great Britain, and, as the family is practically or altogether extinct as a land-owning one in this island, these descendants of to-day need not regret the fact that their predecessors, who really did own land, omitted to put the title of generosi on formal record; indeed, when it is considered in how mercantile and automatic a manner 'gentry' can be created, they should rather rejoice that they are not separated from the company of their ancestors in this particular.

[Generation 1] [Generation 2] [Generation 3] [Generation 4]
[Generation 5] [Generation 6] [Generation 8] [Generation 9]