9th Generation

9th, 10th, and 11th Generations
Charles Inman (a. 1791-1858)                                                         Richard Inman (a. 1804-1883)
             and others                                                                                           and others

to most of the personal estate of the aforesaid John Fowden Hindle.
   He left each of his daughters amply provided for, protecting their interests by means of Trustees; all of them died leaving no issue, except the youngest. She was the wife of Richard Inman, and he, by her, bad a son, Richard Henry (Will proved in the Principal Registry, a. 1876). who predeceased his parents, which son married Anna (adhuc vivens), daughter of Jean Sussenthaler, of Colmar, and, by her, had two children, one of whom, Alfred H. Inman, is now the only surviving descendant of either John Fowden Hindle or Richard Inman; this A. H. Inman married Kate Phillips, of the University College of Wales (Aberystwyth), and, afterwards, of the Victoria University (Yorkshire College, Leeds), eldest daughter of the late Henry Phillips of Slimbridge, co. Gloucester.
   The Will (pr. a. 1823) of his father left £3,000 to Richard Inman, and a further sum, 1,000 in the value of c. a. 1823, after the death (a. 1845) of his, the testator's, wife; in addition to this, the said Richard was entitled, on the death (a. 1845) of his mother, to a share of the property left by her brother, Will. Mashiter, and to a seventh part of portion of her own personal estate (cp. pp. lxvii, lxviii). Richard Inman's first marriage continued for over forty-two years (a. 1833-1875); his wife, Maria, enjoyed, under the Hindle Trust, a provision which was sufficient to have added some measure of pecuniary significance. After her decease, her husband had a considerable benefit from this Trust till the year of his own death (a. 1883); the dwelling-house and premises at Walton-le-Dale (par. Blackburn), which John Fowden Hindle had devised (subject to a life interest for his widow) to his daughter Maria, and her heirs, were sold before the death of his first wife. She died in a. 1875 (Special Administration of her effects granted at the Principal Registry in a. 1876; 'Under £100'); her husband remarried in March, a. 1881, having then nearly accomplished the age of seventy-seven years.
   Shortly after Richard Inman's second marriage, his sister, Anne, died; her Will, dating a. 1872, was proved in a. 1882, and purported to devise and bequeath 'all my real and personal estate' to her [younger] brother, Richard Inman, subject to a life annuity of £230 to her [elder] brother.
   John, charged on both real and personal estate, which elder brother survived the younger one by nearly five years. Anne Inman's net personalty was under £6,600; it is conjectured that, at the time of her death, her real estate may have been worth from £4,500 to £6,000. Richard Inman died in a. 1883; his Will and Codicil date a. 1881 and 1882, and were proved at Lancaster in Aug., a. 1883. The amount of personalty was resworn in the following October, being over £40,000 (net); this sum would, presumably, include personal estate late of Anne Inman. Richard Inman explains in his Codicil that it is the intention of his Will that 'all my property real and personal except the legacies therein named shall be my wife's absolutely', that is, in case of failure of issue by her; the numerous legacies, money and goods. amounted in all to about the value of £2,000. This second wife, by whom he had no issue, succeeded to nearly the whole of the personalty, and to some of the realty; at the time of her husband's death, the value of every kind of his real estate (portion of which he devised in expectancy after the death of his brother) might have been from £5,500 to £8,000, perchance, somewhere about £6,000. Richard Inman's Codicil had devised some real estate in expectancy to his lineal descendants, who were also amongst his legatees; the whole of the property of every kind, devised and bequeathed to and amongst them by Will and Codicil, may perhaps have been equivalent to as much as one-ninth part of the value of everything the testator was worth at the time of his death, but it may easily be that one-ninth part would be an over-estimation of what he left them.

* Burke's Landed Gentry gives the date Nov. 19, a. 1790, but the year is believed to afford an illustration of the rather numerous errata in the account of Inman therein; the present writer personally took his extracts from the Par. Reg. of Pately Bridge, but searched the Lancaster registers by deputy. There is, however, independent reason for supposing that a. 1791 is correct; there is a very explicit note, in the handwriting of Elizabeth, a sister of Charles Inman, which shews that be died on Nov. 11 (recte, 11; Burke, Nov. 10, incorrectly), a. 1858, 'Age 66, nearly 67', and this does not point to a. 1790 as the year of his birth. Again, Burke (ed. a. 1871) gives the year as 1791, and not as 1790; a fresh reference to the Par. Reg. of Me Church of S. John, Lancaster, might have been made, but the present writer is content to stand by a. 1791.

Scribebam Bellinghami XIV. Kal. Novembris, a. MDCCCCV.

Note A.

The writer has been unable to distinguish between Public and Private Baptism, and has, here and elsewhere, assumed the former, although it would have been more accurate to refer to the local Register Book, without stating where the Ministration took place; however, it was [and is] enjoined that the people were to be warned that without like great cause and necessity they procure not their children to be baptized at home in their houses. The 'old Church at Pateley Bridge' was, of course, a Parochial Chapel, not immediately in that town; the term, Par. Reg., has not been limited to the Register or Registers of a Parish Church.

Note B.

Ten Wills of Darnbrookes of Bewerley were proved before the end of the first half of the 17th c. (a. 1476, 1546-1639); there are 'Administration Acts' (a. 1575-1634; re two or three Darnbrookes of Bewerley. The late Reverend J. W. Darnbrough traced Francis Darnbrooke (see p. xvi) to that Will. Darnbrooke of Bewerley whose Will was proved in a. 1546; he supposed that this William was the grandson of Thos. Darnbrooke, whose Will was proved in a. 1476, and whom he described as 'manager of the lead-mines, Bewerley 1457.8'.

Note C.

The inheritance of a. 1681 is a convenient evasion, for 'this writer is unable to state whether Eliz. Inman was one of the 'next heirs' to her brother, John Darnbrooke, for freeholds at Bewerley; in other words, he does not know if Judith Darnbrooke, or her brother, Francis, was actually seised of certain property which was inherited after her death. It is clear, however, that Eliz. Inman and Thos. Porter were admitted to 'land called Kilne Hill', in the Manor of Bishopside, as 'next heirs' of said Judith; possibly, said Porter died in his nonage, and, at any rate, Michael and Eliz. Inman sold land called Kilne Hill in a. 1682.

Note D.

The illustration of the seal on the Will of John Darnbrooke is from a rubbing, and is not, in this writer's opinion, a minutely exact representation of the original; it may, however, pass, and it was not thought advisable to photograph the rubbing with a view to make a reproduction in that manner.

Note E.

Three or four Wills of Lowsons of Monkton (that is, Bishop Monkton) were proved a. 1537-1565/6; there are 'Administration Acts' (a. 1607, 1660) re Francis and Christopher Lowson, both of Bishop Monkton. The Curation of William, son of William Lowson [late, apparently] of Bishop Monkton, was entrusted to Christopher Lowson of Parcivall Hall in a. 1676 or 1677; this seems to connect the latter with the Lowsons of Bishop Monkton.

Note F.

A notice re an Elizabeth Whalley of Sherebank occurs at a. 1593; perhaps, a Bond at Chester concerning the administration of personal estate, formerly belonging to her. The Will of Thos. Whaley, the elder, of Sherebank in Blackburn, yeoman, dating a. 1610/11 was proved in a. 1612; it is not unlikely that he was uncle to the Thos. Whalley, of the same place, named on p. xxxiii.

Note G.

The curious reader is referred to the Probate Registry at York; it is not intended that a minutely exact conception of the residuary personal estate of, Charles Inman should be obtained from what has been written on pp. li, liii.

Note H.

Property of a. 1765, apparently, included all the acres, freehold and leasehold, of the estate of a. 1752; nevertheless, there may have been a sort of diminution. Suppose, for example, that, in a. 1752, Michael Inman had the remainder of a term in certain lands, such remainder being about 100 unspent years; it is clear that, in a. 1765, he might only have had some 87 years, yet to run, in this hypothetical property, and therefore, in a sense, a lesser estate therein than he had in a. 1752, some 13 years earlier.

Submitted by Nancy McLaughlin (with my sincere appreciation)

A note from the submitter - I expect you are going to ask about the Le Page Royal descent folding pedigree. There is no way I can scan this; it is attached to the back covers of the book, and is, I suppose, about 15 inches x 30 inches in size. There is no new Inman information on it, anyway. It deals mainly with the direct ancestors of Deborah Bayles who married Michael Inman, and through her line right back to King Edward III, and so on back to William the Conqueror. Somewhere on your web site I have read of

the Inmans being descended from John of Gaunt (Edward III's son). This is true insofar as Deborah Bayles descends from him (and also from his brother, Lionel of Clarence), but of course only those Inmans descended from the Deborah Bayles/Michael Inman marriage can claim this 'Royal' descent.

.

[Generation 1] [Generation 2] [Generation 3] [Generation 4]
[Generation 5] [Generation 6] [Generation 7] [Generation 8]