MRP: C10/99/70 f. 1 - Revision history

Francescagreenstreet at 22:36, February 2, 2012

2012-02-02T22:36:56Z

Francescagreenstreet at 22:18, February 2, 2012

2012-02-02T22:18:26Z

Francescagreenstreet at 22:16, February 2, 2012

2012-02-02T22:16:50Z

Francescagreenstreet at 22:15, February 2, 2012

2012-02-02T22:15:19Z

Francescagreenstreet at 08:38, February 1, 2012

2012-02-01T08:38:04Z

ColinGreenstreet at 19:31, October 30, 2011

2011-10-30T19:31:52Z

ColinGreenstreet at 19:30, October 30, 2011

2011-10-30T19:30:46Z

ColinGreenstreet at 19:30, October 30, 2011

2011-10-30T19:30:14Z

ColinGreenstreet at 19:27, October 30, 2011

2011-10-30T19:27:55Z

ColinGreenstreet at 19:27, October 30, 2011

2011-10-30T19:27:20Z

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 C10/99/70 f. 1 provides the joint and several answers of Sir George Smith, Sir William Rider, Edward Wood and Maurice Thompson, four merchants who are defendants to a Bill of Complaint brought by the English East India Company.  A further defendant to the same suit, the merchant John Park, makes his answer in [[MRP: C10/99/66 f. 1|C10/99/66 f. 1]].  The Bill of Complaint either has not survived, or has not yet been located by this author.  The suit concerns the ship ''The Royal James and Henry'', of which the four defendants above, were co-owners.
-The Chancery suit, to which C10/99/66 and C10/99/70 are answers, was instigated by the East India Company in February 1661, following the discovery in January of that year that a Samuel Hutchinson had loaded prohibited goods upon the ''Royal James and Henry'' in the Downs.<ref>Ethel Bruce Sainsbury, ''A calendar of the court minutes, etc., of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 89</ref>  The books of Edward Wood, a merchant and one of the part owners of the ''Royal James and Henry'', were alleged to have confirmed that Hutchinson's actions were with the knowledge of, and presumably financed by, some or all of the part owners of the ship who were subsequently made defendants in the East India Company's Chancery suit.
+The Chancery suit, to which C10/99/66 and C10/99/70 are answers, was instigated by the East India Company in February 1661, following the discovery in January of that year that a Samuel Hutchinson had loaded prohibited goods upon the ''Royal James and Henry'' in the Downs.<ref>'A Court of Committees, February 6, 1661' (''Court Book'', vol. xxiv, p. 340), in [http://www.archive.org/stream/courtminutesetc00east#page/88/mode/2up Ethel Bruce Sainsbury, ''A calendar of the court minutes, etc., of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 89]</ref> The books of Edward Wood, a merchant and one of the part owners of the ''Royal James and Henry'', were alleged to have confirmed that Hutchinson's actions were with the knowledge of, and presumably financed by, some or all of the part owners of the ship who were subsequently made defendants in the East India Company's Chancery suit.
 The ''Royal James and Henry'' appears to be have been the new ship, constructed in 1660 at Blackwall at the instigation of Maurice Blackman, its captain and one of its part owners, which appears in the ''Cout Book'' of the English East India Compay.  Originally proposed by Blackman to be of 400-500 tonnes,<ref>A Court of Committees, January 2nd, 1660 (''Court Book'', vol. xxiv, p. 236 in Ethel Bruce Sainsbury (ed.), ''Calendar of  the court minutes of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 2</ref>  the ship is described in the Court Minutes of the EIC as Maurice Blackman's "new ship of 300 tons, sixty men and twenty-four guns."<ref>A Court of Committees, January 2nd, 1660 (''Court Book'', vol. xxiv, p. 236 in Ethel Bruce Sainsbury (ed.), ''Calendar of  the court minutes of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 16</ref>  The ship was chartered by the English East India Company and was dispatched for Madras, via Guinea in September 1660.
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 The suit also shows the wide geographical commercial interests which could be represented in a small number of merchants - mention is made of a ship, the ''Venice Merchant'', presumably involved in the Italian and/or Levant trade, and trade with Guinea, as well as trade with the East Indies.  Sir George Smith's and Sir William Ryder's common interest in the Guinea trade can be seen in at least one of their letters to Sir George Oxenden, and both Smith and Ryder were subscribers to the joint stock of the Royal Africa Company. ADD REFERENCES.
-It is possible that the papers of Edward Wood of this Chancery suit are those held at the London Metropolitan Archives concerning the Wood family of Littleton (Stowe).<ref>London Metropolitan Archive: GB 0074 ACC/0262; 'Wood family of Liitleton (Stowe), http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cgi-bin/vcdf/detail?coll_id=18296&inst_id=118&nv1=browse&nv2=sub, viewed 27/10/11</ref>  These papers include the papers of Edward Wood (c.1604-1667) and his son Thomas Wood (1641-1723).  According to the administrative/biographical history of these papers, Edward Wood was the son of Nicholas Wood, with strong Norfolk connections.  He was living in Thames Street in 1638.  In 1657 this source states that he was an Alderman of Billingsgate Ward.  Beaven states that he was a Committee of the EIC, 1655-1647. These papers identify John Pack and Joseph Stapley as business partners and agents, and the papers contain many letters from Edward Wood to John Pack.  Two letters, both of 1663, place John Pack in Thames Street. ("For Mr John Pack at the Signe of the Shipp over against beare key in Thames St." (262/43/7), and on a letter dated 26th October: "For Mr John Pack at the signe of the shipp in Thames (sic) neere the Costome house." (262/43/8).)  The administrative/biographical history of the papers suggests that in the 1660s Edward Wood lived at Littleton, where he appears to have built a mansion in the 1663-1665 period, and where he farmed land.
+It is likely that the papers of Edward Wood of this Chancery suit are those held at the London Metropolitan Archives concerning the Wood family of Littleton (Stowe).<ref>London Metropolitan Archive: GB 0074 ACC/0262; 'Wood family of Liitleton (Stowe), http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cgi-bin/vcdf/detail?coll_id=18296&inst_id=118&nv1=browse&nv2=sub, viewed 27/10/11</ref>  These papers include the papers of Edward Wood (c.1604-1667) and his son Thomas Wood (1641-1723).  According to the administrative/biographical history of these papers, Edward Wood was the son of Nicholas Wood, with strong Norfolk connections.  He was living in Thames Street in 1638.  In 1657 this source states that he was an Alderman of Billingsgate Ward.  Beaven states that he was a Committee of the EIC, 1655-1647. These papers identify John Pack and Joseph Stapley as business partners and agents, and the papers contain many letters from Edward Wood to John Pack.  Two letters, both of 1663, place John Pack in Thames Street. ("For Mr John Pack at the Signe of the Shipp over against beare key in Thames St." (262/43/7), and on a letter dated 26th October: "For Mr John Pack at the signe of the shipp in Thames (sic) neere the Costome house." (262/43/8).)  The administrative/biographical history of the papers suggests that in the 1660s Edward Wood lived at Littleton, where he appears to have built a mansion in the 1663-1665 period, and where he farmed land.
 Further suggestive evidence for this is provided by Peter Edwards in his book ''The Horse Trade of Tudor and Stuart England'' (Cambridge, 2004).  Edwards, writing about the use of agents to procure horses, mentions an Edward Wood, who in 1663 wrote to a Mr. John Park of London asking him to send a servant to contact a presumed horse dealer in Smithfield.  Given Edward Wood's will which identifies John Park as Wood's former servant, this links the will to the Wood papers, which are now held at the London Metropolitan Archives, but which were formerly at the Middlesex Record Office.<ref>Peter Edwards, ''The Horse Trade of Tudor and Stuart England'' (Cambridge, 2004), p. 95, citing Middlesex R.O., Wood Papers ACC 262/43/29</ref>
-The minutes of the Court of the EIC suggest that an unidentified merchant, who himself had been involved in the escapade, had supplied information to the Court of the EIC, and was subsequently excepted from the fines imposed on the part owners of the ''Royal James and Henry.''<ref>Ethel Bruce Sainsbury, ''A calendar of the court minutes, etc., of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 98</ref> This may have been John Park, whose answer ([[MRP: C10/99/66 f. 1|C10/99/66 f. 1]]) was recorded separately from those of Sir George Smith, Sir William Ryder, Edward Wood, and Maurice Thompson.  In Edward Wood's will, written in 1658, but proved in 1667, Wood refers to "my late servant M:r John Park", who was to receive a bequest of £40. Later in Wood's will Park is described as "my said friend  and late servant" and was named one of Wood's three executors.<ref>PROB 11/324 Carr 59-116 Will of Edward Wood of Grocer 27 June 1667</ref>
+The minutes of the Court of the EIC suggest that an unidentified merchant, who himself had been involved in the escapade, had supplied information to the Court of the EIC, and was subsequently exempted from the fines imposed on the part owners of the ''Royal James and Henry.''<ref>Ethel Bruce Sainsbury, ''A calendar of the court minutes, etc., of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 98</ref> This may have been John Park, whose answer ([[MRP: C10/99/66 f. 1|C10/99/66 f. 1]]) was recorded separately from those of Sir George Smith, Sir William Ryder, Edward Wood, and Maurice Thompson.  In Edward Wood's will, written in 1658, but proved in 1667, Wood refers to "my late servant M:r John Park", who was to receive a bequest of £40. Later in Wood's will Park is described as "my said friend  and late servant" and was named one of Wood's three executors.<ref>PROB 11/324 Carr 59-116 Will of Edward Wood of Grocer 27 June 1667</ref>
 Considerable discussion took place amongst the committees in 1661 regarding private trade, which appears to have been rife, as merchants, including some committees themselves, took advantage of the absence of a new charter for the company following the restoration of Charles II.  This can be seen in the ''Court Book'' of the English East India Company, which is held at the British Library.

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 "''Now we have only to advise you that yesterday wee have made up into pewter juggs five hundred markes of rich Guinea gold, packed up in a chest, and laden it aboard ye Royall James & Henry, Captain Maurice Blackman commander, and tenn lusty Neagors, with twelve chests of corne for their Provissions.''"<ref>Timothy F. Garrard, ''Akan weights and the gold trade'' (London, 1980), p. 155; ADD THE PRIMARY SOURCE REFERENCE BEING QUOTED FROM</ref>
-Subsequent to the chartering of the ''Royal James and Henry'' by the EIC, the same ship may have been chartered by the navy in the period 1664-1665.<ref>Mary Anne Everett Greene, ''Calendar of State Papers, domestic series, of the reign of Charles II: 1660-[1685]'' (London, 1883), p. 179</ref>.  However, there also appears to be a reference to the wreck of the ''Royal James and Henry'' in ''English Factories in India: 1661-1664''.<ref>William Forster, ''The English Factories in India: 1661-1664'' (Oxford, 1923), p. 175</ref>.  Both references need to be followed up by this author.  The latter event seems most likely, since there is a subsequent reference, dated December 16th 1664, in ''A Calendar of the Court Minutes of the East India Company: 1664-1667'', which refers to "the great loss [Captain Maurice Blackman] sustained in the ''James and Henry''".<ref>'A Court of Committees, December 16, 1664 (Court Book, vol. xxiv, p. 912) in ''A Calendar of the Court Minutes of the East India Company: 1664-1667'' (Oxford, XXXX), p. 117</ref>
+Subsequent to the chartering of the ''Royal James and Henry'' by the EIC, the same ship may have been chartered by the navy in the period 1664-1665.<ref>Mary Anne Everett Greene, ''Calendar of State Papers, domestic series, of the reign of Charles II: 1660-[1685]'' (London, 1883), p. 179</ref>.  However, there also appears to be a reference to the wreck of the ''Royal James and Henry'' in ''English Factories in India: 1661-1664.''<ref>William Forster, ''The English Factories in India: 1661-1664'' (Oxford, 1923), p. 175</ref>  Both references need to be followed up by this author.  The latter event seems most likely, since there is a subsequent reference, dated December 16th 1664, in ''A Calendar of the Court Minutes of the East India Company: 1664-1667'', which refers to "the great loss [Captain Maurice Blackman] sustained in the ''James and Henry.''"<ref>'A Court of Committees, December 16, 1664 (Court Book, vol. xxiv, p. 912) in ''A Calendar of the Court Minutes of the East India Company: 1664-1667'' (Oxford, XXXX), p. 117</ref>
 Sir George Smith, Sir William Ryder, Maurice Thompson, and Maurice Blackman were named as part owners in the ''Royal James and Henry'' in the Chancery suit. Sir George Smith and Sir William Ryder appear frequently in the surviving correspondence of Sir George Oxenden for the 1662-1669 period and had a commercial partnership of some sort with him until the death of Sir George Smith in 1667.  However, there is no evidence of a commercial partnership betwen Maurice Thompson and Sir George Oxenden.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 The ''Royal James and Henry'' appears to be have been the new ship, constructed in 1660 at Blackwall at the instigation of Maurice Blackman, its captain and one of its part owners, which appears in the ''Cout Book'' of the English East India Compay.  Originally proposed by Blackman to be of 400-500 tonnes,<ref>A Court of Committees, January 2nd, 1660 (''Court Book'', vol. xxiv, p. 236 in Ethel Bruce Sainsbury (ed.), ''Calendar of  the court minutes of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 2</ref>  the ship is described in the Court Minutes of the EIC as Maurice Blackman's "new ship of 300 tons, sixty men and twenty-four guns."<ref>A Court of Committees, January 2nd, 1660 (''Court Book'', vol. xxiv, p. 236 in Ethel Bruce Sainsbury (ed.), ''Calendar of  the court minutes of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 16</ref>  The ship was chartered by the English East India Company and was dispatched for Madras, via Guinea in September 1660.
-Alistair Maeer in his doctoral study of the Thames school of nautical cartography mentions the ''Royal James and Henry''.  He suggests that the ship left London in September 1660 and arrived in Madras in July 1661.  It brought to Madras over 16,000 pounds sterling of gold and fifteen slaves, who were destined for Pulo Run in the spice islands.<ref>Alistair Simon Maeer, PhD dissertation, ''The cartography of commerce: The Thames School of nautical cartography and England's seventeenth century overseas expansion'', University of Texas at Arlington, August 2006, p. 166</ref>.  A primary source cited by XXX confirms the slaving activities of the ''Royal James and Henry'' in Guinea:
+Alistair Maeer in his doctoral study of the Thames school of nautical cartography mentions the ''Royal James and Henry''.  He suggests that the ship left London in September 1660 and arrived in Madras in July 1661.  It brought to Madras over 16,000 pounds sterling of gold and fifteen slaves, who were destined for Pulo Run in the spice islands.<ref>Alistair Simon Maeer, PhD dissertation, ''The cartography of commerce: The Thames School of nautical cartography and England's seventeenth century overseas expansion'', University of Texas at Arlington, August 2006, p. 166</ref>  A primary source cited by Timothy F. Garrard confirms the slaving activities of the ''Royal James and Henry'' in Guinea:
 "''Now we have only to advise you that yesterday wee have made up into pewter juggs five hundred markes of rich Guinea gold, packed up in a chest, and laden it aboard ye Royall James & Henry, Captain Maurice Blackman commander, and tenn lusty Neagors, with twelve chests of corne for their Provissions.''"<ref>Timothy F. Garrard, ''Akan weights and the gold trade'' (London, 1980), p. 155; ADD THE PRIMARY SOURCE REFERENCE BEING QUOTED FROM</ref>

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 The Chancery suit, to which C10/99/66 and C10/99/70 are answers, was instigated by the East India Company in February 1661, following the discovery in January of that year that a Samuel Hutchinson had loaded prohibited goods upon the ''Royal James and Henry'' in the Downs.<ref>Ethel Bruce Sainsbury, ''A calendar of the court minutes, etc., of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 89</ref>  The books of Edward Wood, a merchant and one of the part owners of the ''Royal James and Henry'', were alleged to have confirmed that Hutchinson's actions were with the knowledge of, and presumably financed by, some or all of the part owners of the ship who were subsequently made defendants in the East India Company's Chancery suit.
-The ''Royal James and Henry'' appears to be have been the new ship, constructed in 1660 at Blackwall at the instigation of Maurice Blackman, its captain and one of its part owners, which appears in the ''Cout Book'' of the English East India Compay.  Orginally proposed by Blackman to be of 400-500 tonnes,<ref>A Court of Committees, January 2nd, 1660 (''Court Book'', vol. xxiv, p. 236 in Ethel Bruce Sainsbury (ed.), ''Calendar of  the court minutes of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 2</ref>  the ship is described in the Court Minutes of the EIC as Maurice Blackman's "new ship of 300 tons, sixty men and twenty-four guns."<ref>A Court of Committees, January 2nd, 1660 (''Court Book'', vol. xxiv, p. 236 in Ethel Bruce Sainsbury (ed.), ''Calendar of  the court minutes of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 16</ref>  The ship was chartered by the English East India Company and was dispatched for Madras, via Guinea in September 1660.
+The ''Royal James and Henry'' appears to be have been the new ship, constructed in 1660 at Blackwall at the instigation of Maurice Blackman, its captain and one of its part owners, which appears in the ''Cout Book'' of the English East India Compay.  Originally proposed by Blackman to be of 400-500 tonnes,<ref>A Court of Committees, January 2nd, 1660 (''Court Book'', vol. xxiv, p. 236 in Ethel Bruce Sainsbury (ed.), ''Calendar of  the court minutes of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 2</ref>  the ship is described in the Court Minutes of the EIC as Maurice Blackman's "new ship of 300 tons, sixty men and twenty-four guns."<ref>A Court of Committees, January 2nd, 1660 (''Court Book'', vol. xxiv, p. 236 in Ethel Bruce Sainsbury (ed.), ''Calendar of  the court minutes of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 16</ref>  The ship was chartered by the English East India Company and was dispatched for Madras, via Guinea in September 1660.
 Alistair Maeer in his doctoral study of the Thames school of nautical cartography mentions the ''Royal James and Henry''.  He suggests that the ship left London in September 1660 and arrived in Madras in July 1661.  It brought to Madras over 16,000 pounds sterling of gold and fifteen slaves, who were destined for Pulo Run in the spice islands.<ref>Alistair Simon Maeer, PhD dissertation, ''The cartography of commerce: The Thames School of nautical cartography and England's seventeenth century overseas expansion'', University of Texas at Arlington, August 2006, p. 166</ref>.  A primary source cited by XXX confirms the slaving activities of the ''Royal James and Henry'' in Guinea:

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==C10/99/70 f. 1==
+'''C10/99/70 f. 1'''
 ----
-===Abstract===
+__TOC__
 '''This abstract needs to be written'''
 C10/99/70 f. 1 provides the joint and several answers of Sir George Smith, Sir William Rider, Edward Wood and Maurice Thompson, four merchants who are defendants to a Bill of Complaint brought by the English East India Company.  A further defendant to the same suit, the merchant John Park, makes his answer in [[MRP: C10/99/66 f. 1|C10/99/66 f. 1]].  The Bill of Complaint either has not survived, or has not yet been located by this author.  The suit concerns the ship ''The Royal James and Henry'', of which the four defendants above, were co-owners.
 The Chancery suit, to which C10/99/66 and C10/99/70 are answers, was instigated by the East India Company in February 1661, following the discovery in January of that year that a Samuel Hutchinson had loaded prohibited goods upon the ''Royal James and Henry'' in the Downs.<ref>Ethel Bruce Sainsbury, ''A calendar of the court minutes, etc., of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. 89</ref>  The books of Edward Wood, a merchant and one of the part owners of the ''Royal James and Henry'', were alleged to have confirmed that Hutchinson's actions were with the knowledge of, and presumably financed by, some or all of the part owners of the ship who were subsequently made defendants in the East India Company's Chancery suit.
@@ Line 38: / Line 42: @@
 Considerable discussion took place amongst the committees in 1661 regarding private trade, which appears to have been rife, as merchants, including some committees themselves, took advantage of the absence of a new charter for the company following the restoration of Charles II.  This can be seen in the ''Court Book'' of the English East India Company, which is held at the British Library.
 See [[MRP: C10/99/66 f. 1|C10/99/66 f. 1]]
@@ Line 47: / Line 53: @@
 See [[MRP: Edward Wood will|Edward Wood will]]
 ----
-===Transcription===
+==Transcription==
 '''This transcription is completed, but requires careful checking'''
@@ Line 178: / Line 186: @@
 ----
-===Notes===
+==Notes==
+===The Royal James and Henry===
-<u>''The Royal James and Henry''</u>
 "The Company was continuing actively its trade in Guinea. The ''Royal James and Henry'', dispatched in September, 1660, was directed to call there on its way to Madras ; while a smaller vessel, the ''Benin Frigate'', was sent out specially to the same parts about the end of November. Meanwhile the future of this trade — which was outside the limits defined in the Company's existing charter — was causing the Committees some anxiety. As we have seen, their title was derived from the purchase of a lease granted in the time of the Commonwealth, and now the Restoration had revived the rights of Sir Nicholas Crisp and his partners, whose monopoly, under grants from Charles I, was apparently to last at least until June, 1662, if not until much later. Sir Nicholas was a zealous Royalist and had suffered heavily for his loyalty ; hence his claims were sure of a respectful consideration at Court. At the same time an influential syndicate was being formed, with the support of the Duke of York and Prince Rupert, to develop the trade with Guinea, and particularly to prospect for gold in those parts. The East India Company was naturally anxious to retain its hold upon the trade of the Gold Coast ; and among the additional privileges suggested for the new charter (early in October, 1660) we find included the extension of the Company's sphere to embrace this region ; while on November 14 it was resolved to apply to be heard before any decision was taken in favour of other applicants. These representations proved useless ; and on December 18, 1660, a royal charter was issued to the syndicate aforesaid, incorporating them under the title of ' The Company of the Royal Adventurers into Africa '. Subject to Crisp's rights under his patent, and in any case from the date of its expiration, the new body was granted the sole trade with the western coast of Africa from Cape Blanco to the Cape of Good Hope."<ref>Ethel Bruce Sainsbury, ''A calendar of the court minutes, etc., of the East India Company, 1660-1663'' (Oxford, 1922), p. viii</ref> [http://www.archive.org/stream/courtminutesetc00east#page/n11/mode/2up See document]
 "A Court of Committees, July 25, 1660 (Ibid., p. 277)
@@ Line 250: / Line 259: @@
 ----
-===Possible primary sources===
+==Possible primary sources==
+===TNA===
-<u>''TNA''</u>
 C 6/192/112 Taswell v Puckle. Plaintiffs: James Taswell. Defendants: William Puckle and John Hellier. Subject: money matters, Middlesex. Document type: bill, answer. 1667
@@ Line 272: / Line 280: @@
 ----
-===Possible secondary sources===
+==Possible secondary sources==
 "En Inglaterra LONDRES

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 The Samuell Hutchinson who allegedly put prohibited goods aboard the ''Royal James and Henry'' at the Downs cannot be definitively identified.  However, he may have been the brother-in-law of a William Puckle, and son of Richard Hutchinson, an ironmonger of Cheapside.  This Richard Hutchinson had spent time in Boston in New England.  A secondary source identifies such a brother-in-law being involved in trade with Guinea in 1661 as a part owner of the ''Lark'' of London.  This ship was bound for Guinea, where it acquired gold and other commodities, and then for Buenos Aires in the Spanish colony of Rio della Plata.  However, it was seized by the Portuguese.  A Chancery law suit followed at the instigation of Samuel Hutchinson, who subsequently became bankrupt, the suit being continued by his brother-in-law, William Puckle<ref>XXX, ch. 4, pp. 5-6, http://www.wedmore.org.uk/puckle/Merchant4.pdf, viewed 27/10/11</ref>
-This suit shows fathers and sons, together with fathers and sons-in-law, and the sons of deceased friends, collaborating commercially as part owners of a ship.  Richard Middleton, the merchant of London, mentioned in this suit as insuring Maurice Thompson's ship by bottomery, is most probably William Ryder's son-in-law, who had married Ryder's eldest daughter, Elizabeth Ryder. See [[MRP: Sir William Ryder will|Sir William Ryder will]].  Intriguingly, Edward Wood's will mentions a widowed sister, Katherine Smith.  Although no sister Katherine is mentioned in Sir George Smith's own will, it is just possible that this sister of Wood was married to a deceased brother of Sir George Smith.  However, this is speculation, and Sir George Smith's family background remains frustratingly opaque.  If this speculation were correct, it would show a further family connection amongst the part owners of the ''Royal James and Henry''.
+This suit shows fathers and sons, together with fathers and sons-in-law, and the sons of deceased friends, collaborating commercially as part owners of a ship.  Richard Middleton, the merchant of London, mentioned in this suit as insuring Maurice Blackman's ship by bottomery, is most probably William Ryder's son-in-law, who had married Ryder's eldest daughter, Elizabeth Ryder. See [[MRP: Sir William Ryder will|Sir William Ryder will]].  Intriguingly, Edward Wood's will mentions a widowed sister, Katherine Smith.  Although no sister Katherine is mentioned in Sir George Smith's own will, it is just possible that this sister of Wood was married to a deceased brother of Sir George Smith.  However, this is speculation, and Sir George Smith's family background remains frustratingly opaque.  If this speculation were correct, it would show a further family connection amongst the part owners of the ''Royal James and Henry''.
 The suit also shows the wide geographical commercial interests which could be represented in a small number of merchants - mention is made of a ship, the ''Venice Merchant'', presumably involved in the Italian and/or Levant trade, and trade with Guinea, as well as trade with the East Indies.  Sir George Smith's and Sir William Ryder's common interest in the Guinea trade can be seen in at least one of their letters to Sir George Oxenden, and both Smith and Ryder were subscribers to the joint stock of the Royal Africa Company. ADD REFERENCES.

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 Maurice Blackman was the second son of Captain Jeremy Blackman (d. 1656), and was probably named Maurice after Jeremy Blackman's close friend, Maurice Thompson.  Captain Jeremy Blackman was also close to Captain William Ryder, describing him in his will as a dear friend, as was Maurice Thompson. See [[MRP: Jeremy Blackman senior will|Jeremy Blackman senior will]].  Maurice Thompson, "of Stepney, co. Middx, esq.", George Thompson, "of Lee, co. Kent, esq." (one of Maurice's brothers), and William Rider, "of London, merchant," were some of the parties in 1657 to the marriage settlement of Susan Blackman, a daughter of Captain Jeremy Blackman.<ref>Sheffield Archives: Cooke of Wheatley Muniments: TITLE DEEDS [no ref. or date]: Bentley lands originally of the Raynye family of Kent [no ref.]  [1657] - 1720/21: Marriage settlement. (by way of deed to lead the uses of a fine)  CWM/645  [23 May 1657]</ref>
-The Samuell Hutchinson who allegedly put prohibited goods aboard the ''Royal James and Henry'' at the Downs cannot be definitively identified.  However, he may have been the brother-in-law of a William Puckle, and son of Richard Hutchinson, an ironmonger of Cheapside.  This Richard Hutchinson had spent time in Boston in New England  A secondary source identifies such a brother-in-law being involved in trade with Guinea in 1661 as a part owner of the ''Lark'' of London.  This ship was bound for Guinea, where it acquired gold and other commodities, and then for Buenos Aires in the Spanish colony of Rio della Plata.  However, it was seized by the Portuguese.  A Chancery law suit followed at the instigation of Samuel Hutchinson, who subsequently became bankrupt, the suit being continued by his brother-in-law, William Puckle<ref>XXX, ch. 4, pp. 5-6, http://www.wedmore.org.uk/puckle/Merchant4.pdf, viewed 27/10/11</ref>
+The Samuell Hutchinson who allegedly put prohibited goods aboard the ''Royal James and Henry'' at the Downs cannot be definitively identified.  However, he may have been the brother-in-law of a William Puckle, and son of Richard Hutchinson, an ironmonger of Cheapside.  This Richard Hutchinson had spent time in Boston in New England.  A secondary source identifies such a brother-in-law being involved in trade with Guinea in 1661 as a part owner of the ''Lark'' of London.  This ship was bound for Guinea, where it acquired gold and other commodities, and then for Buenos Aires in the Spanish colony of Rio della Plata.  However, it was seized by the Portuguese.  A Chancery law suit followed at the instigation of Samuel Hutchinson, who subsequently became bankrupt, the suit being continued by his brother-in-law, William Puckle<ref>XXX, ch. 4, pp. 5-6, http://www.wedmore.org.uk/puckle/Merchant4.pdf, viewed 27/10/11</ref>
 This suit shows fathers and sons, together with fathers and sons-in-law, and the sons of deceased friends, collaborating commercially as part owners of a ship.  Richard Middleton, the merchant of London, mentioned in this suit as insuring Maurice Thompson's ship by bottomery, is most probably William Ryder's son-in-law, who had married Ryder's eldest daughter, Elizabeth Ryder. See [[MRP: Sir William Ryder will|Sir William Ryder will]].  Intriguingly, Edward Wood's will mentions a widowed sister, Katherine Smith.  Although no sister Katherine is mentioned in Sir George Smith's own will, it is just possible that this sister of Wood was married to a deceased brother of Sir George Smith.  However, this is speculation, and Sir George Smith's family background remains frustratingly opaque.  If this speculation were correct, it would show a further family connection amongst the part owners of the ''Royal James and Henry''.

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 See [[MRP: Sir George Smith will|Sir George Smith will]]
 See [[MRP: Sir William Ryder will|Sir William Ryder will]]
-See [[MRP: Maurice Thompson will|Maurice Thompson will]]
+See [[MRP: Maurice Thomson will|Maurice Thomson will]]
 See [[MRP: Edward Wood will|Edward Wood will]]