Difference between revisions of "Mathew Clements"
(Created page with "{{Banner}} {{SemBioLongInfoBoxThree |Person=Mathew Clements |First name=Mathew |Last name=Clements |Occupation=Blockmaker |Training=Not apprentice |Citizen=Unknown |Literacy=S...") |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Has opening text=Mathew Clements | |Has opening text=Mathew Clements | ||
|Has signoff text=Mathew Clements | |Has signoff text=Mathew Clements | ||
| − | |Transcription image={{#transcription-image: }} | + | |Transcription image={{#transcription-image: }} |
|Language skills=English language, | |Language skills=English language, | ||
|Res street=Wapping | |Res street=Wapping | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
|Res country=England | |Res country=England | ||
|Birth year=1616 | |Birth year=1616 | ||
| + | |First deposition age=42 | ||
|Deposition start page(s)=HCA 13/72 f.223r Annotate, | |Deposition start page(s)=HCA 13/72 f.223r Annotate, | ||
|Deposition date(s)=Feb 4 1658 | |Deposition date(s)=Feb 4 1658 | ||
| Line 23: | Line 24: | ||
|Has HCA evidence completed=No | |Has HCA evidence completed=No | ||
|Has source comment completed=No | |Has source comment completed=No | ||
| + | |Type of ship=Shore based trade | ||
|Role in Silver Ship litigation=None | |Role in Silver Ship litigation=None | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 29: | Line 31: | ||
Resident in 1658 in Wapping in the parish of Saint Mary Matsellon Whitechapel. | Resident in 1658 in Wapping in the parish of Saint Mary Matsellon Whitechapel. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Possibly the same Mathew Clements identified in an allegation made by John Corbin, former master of the ''Roger and Edmund'' on June 23rd 1655. The allegation is in a cause brought by Charles Mitchell and Mathew Clements for goods and materials allegedly delivered to the master and the ship the ''Roger and Edmund''. However, the allegation does not specify what type of goods and materials they were. | ||
==Evidence from High Court of Admiralty== | ==Evidence from High Court of Admiralty== | ||
Forty-two year old Mathew Clements deposed on February 4th 1658 in the High Court of Admiralty. He was examined on an allegation dated December 9th 1657 on behalf of Warner in the case of "Warner against Watson and Howe".<ref>[[HCA 13/72 f.223r Annotate|HCA 13/72 f.223r]]</ref> | Forty-two year old Mathew Clements deposed on February 4th 1658 in the High Court of Admiralty. He was examined on an allegation dated December 9th 1657 on behalf of Warner in the case of "Warner against Watson and Howe".<ref>[[HCA 13/72 f.223r Annotate|HCA 13/72 f.223r]]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is the same Mathew Clements, blockmaker, who himself brought a cause in 1658, together with gunmaker Charles Mitchell, in the High Court of Admiralty. The cause was "Mitchell and Clements against the Roger and Edmond and against John Corbin Master and against others coming in for their interest". There are four depositions made in support of Mitchell and Clements made by a gunmaker, a former gunner on the ''Roger and Edmond'', a pulleymaker and a blockmaker. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is not clear where the shop of Mathew Clements was located, though it is likely to be in the parish of Wapping in the parish of Saint Mary Matsellon Whitechapel, the place of residence he gave in his own 1658 deposition. The bargain for the delivery of goods and materials was sealed in a house in Southwark, where Mitchell and Clements met with John Corbin to discuss delivery of goods and materials. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thomas Salmon, fifty year old late gunner of the ''Roger and Edmond'', living in Saint Mary Matsellon alias Whitechapel, deposed on February 20th 1658 on behalf of Mitchel and Clements.<ref>[[HCA 13/72 f.246v Annotate|HCA 13/72 f.246v]]</ref>. Salmon stated that he was ordered by John Corbin in July 1656 to fetch the goods and materials listed in two schedules attached to the allegation from the respective shops of Charles Mitchell and Mathew Clements.<ref>[[HCA 13/72 f.247r Annotate|HCA 13/72 f.247r]]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | John Mitchell, a twenty-three year old gunmaker of the Liberty of The Tower, deposed on February 20th 1658 on behalf of Mitchel and Clements. He provides considerable detail of the goods and materials delivered by Mitchell and Clements. Mitchell stated that "hee was present in company with the arlate John Corbyn. Charles Mitchell and Mathew Clements at a house in the Burrough of Southwarke about three or fower moneths since and there heard the sayd Corbin Mitchell and Clements have some discourse touching certayne goods and materialls by them formerly delivered to him the sayd Corbin or his order, by them the sayd Mitchell and Clements for the use of a shipp called the ''Roger and Edmond'' whereof the sayd Corbin was at the tyme of the delivery of the sayd goods master, (being as this deponent beleeveth the same shipp ''Roger and Edmond arlate'')"<ref>[[HCA 13/72 f.247v Annotate|HCA 13/72 f.247v]]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | According to John Mitchell, "the sayd Mitchell for the goods by him delivered did then demand of the sayd Corbin as master of the sayd shipp the summe of forty sixe pounds nyneteene shillings" Corbin "did in this deponents presence acknowledge that hee had receaved powder and a gunne and carriage and other commodities of the sayd Mitchell for the use of the sayd shipp to the value aforesayd."<ref>[[HCA 13/72 f.247v Annotate|HCA 13/72 f.247v]]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | As for Clements, John Mitchell stated that "Clements did at the same tyme and place demand of the sayd Corbin the summe of five pounds tenn shillings five pence for the goods by him as aforesayd delivered to the sayd Corbin or his order for the use of the sayd shipp And the sayd Corbin did then alsoe before this deponent acknowledge that hee had receaved blocks and other materialls of the sayd Clements for the use of the sayd shipp amounting to five pounds tenn shillings sterling or thereabouts."<ref>[[HCA 13/72 f.247v Annotate|HCA 13/72 f.247v]]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[George Farro|George Farro (alt. Farrow)]], twenty year old pulley maker of Wapping, deposed on March 24th 1658 on behalf of Mitchell and Clements.<ref>[[HCA 13/72 f.265v Annotate|HCA 13/72 f.265v]]</ref>. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[William Stiff]], a twenty year old blockmaker of Limehouse, deposed on the same date, also in support of Clements and Mitchell.<ref>[[HCA 13/72 f.266r Annotate|HCA 13/72 f.266r]]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | A further short deposition was made on January 26th 1658 by Edward Potts, a thirty-three year old upholsterer of Upper Shadwell in Stepney. Potts recalled being present at a meeting with Charles Mitchell and Nicholas Rippen. The meeting was "at the signe of the Golden Still and Anchor in Eastsmithfeild". Potts described "Mitchell and Rippon having discourse about goods and materialls delivered aboard the arlate ship the ''Roger and Edmond'' at the said places. and the said Mitchell desiring security for the said goods and materialls of and from the said [XXXXX] and this deponent being caried by the said Rippen to the foresaid place, to that purpose; the said Rippen proffesed this Deponent the said Mitchell to be his security; but the said Mitchell refused to take this deponent for his security, And the said ?Rippen desired the said Mitchell to forbeare troubling him further, or ?putt him to further charge therein, and disgracing him".<ref>[[HCA 13/73 f.18v Annotate|HCA 13/73 f.18v]]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Potts stated that Rippen told him "hee the said Rippen had tenne pounds in the hands of the said Mitchells brother (who was then at sea) and said that the th[XX] summe to the said Mitchell. and with all told him that when the said Mitchells brother came home [XX XXXX] hee the said Rippen would worke out what hee could [XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]or to that effect, whereto the said Mitchell replyed, to this effect that notwithstanding, unlesse hee would give him such security as hee liked, hee would proceed against him".<ref>[[HCA 13/73 f.19r Annotate|HCA 13/73 f.19r]]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | A further short deposition was made in February 22nd 1659 by [[Samuel Selwyn]], a forty-nine year old baker of Wapping. Selwyn addresses the identity of Nicholas Rippen, the man John Corbin alleges satisfied or partly satisfied the bargain with Mitchell and Clements. Selwyn remembered meeting Rippen in Eastsmithfield. Selwyn states that Rippen requested "that hee would bee bound for him to mr Mitchell in a bond of about 31: ''li'' for the payment of gunnes and gunnpowder and materialls the said Mitchell had delivered aboard the ship the ''Roger and Edmund'' for which the said Rippen said hee was to pay the said Mitchell, and had already paid him tenne pounds in part for the same, or to this effect, but this deponent refused to be bound for him, and about a moneth after the said Mitchell asked this deponent whether hee would be bound to him, for the said Rippen, and this deponent told him hee would not".<ref>[[HCA 13/73 f.36v Annotate|HCA 13/73 f.36v]]</ref> | ||
==Comment on sources== | ==Comment on sources== | ||
| + | '''1658''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Allegation in the High Court of Admiralty dated June 23rd 1658 given by Proctor Oughton on behalf of John Corbin and others in the cause of Mitchell and Clements against the ship the ''Roger and Edmund'' (Master: John Corbin).<ref>HCA 24/113 Item 123 IMG_111_10_3624-3626</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Article one of the allegation asserts that if Charles Mitchell and Mathew Clements delivered goods to John Corbin, the late master of the ship the ''Roger and Edmund'', then such goods and materials were "not soe delivered or trusted upon the security of the said shippe or master, or upon expectation of payment of satisfaction from the said master or upon the said shippe". Instead, the article continues, Mitchell and Clements "did accept one Ripen since deceased for their paymaster for the said goods and materialls and every part thereof and did agree with him for the price and value of the same and take a bill or other writeing from the said Ripen under his hand as payment of the moneyes due for the said goods and materialls". Moreover, the article claims that Micthell and Clements did "release acquitt and discharge the shipp and master of and from the sum due for the said goods and materialls". Article two of the allegation claims that Mitechell and Clements accepted "in part" of the sum due for the goods delivered the summe of ten pounds or at least ten pounds".<ref>HCA 24/113 Item 123 IMG_111_10_3624-3626</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The allegation to which John Corbin's allegation was a response has not yet been identified. | ||
Revision as of 14:45, November 1, 2016
| Mathew Clements | |
|---|---|
| Person | Mathew Clements |
| Title | |
| First name | Mathew |
| Middle name(s) | |
| Last name | Clements |
| Suffix | |
| Spouse of | |
| Widow of | |
| Occupation | Blockmaker |
| Secondary shorebased occupation | |
| Mariner occupation | |
| Associated with ship(s) | |
| Training | Not apprentice |
| Is apprentice of | |
| Was apprentice of | |
| Had apprentice(s) | |
| Citizen | Unknown |
| Literacy | Signature |
| Has opening text | Mathew Clements |
| Has signoff text | Mathew Clements |
| Signoff image | (Invalid transcription image) |
| Language skills | English language |
| Has interpreter | |
| Birth street | |
| Birth parish | |
| Birth town | |
| Birth county | |
| Birth province | |
| Birth country | |
| Res street | Wapping |
| Res parish | Saint Mary Matfelon alias Whitechapel |
| Res town | London |
| Res county | |
| Res province | |
| Res country | England |
| Birth year | 1616 |
| Marriage year | |
| Death year | |
| Probate date | |
| First deposition age | 42 |
| Primary sources | |
| Act book start page(s) | |
| Personal answer start page(s) | |
| Allegation start page(s) | |
| Interrogatories page(s) | |
| Deposition start page(s) | HCA 13/72 f.223r Annotate |
| Chancery start page(s) | |
| Letter start page(s) | |
| Miscellaneous start page(s) | |
| Act book date(s) | |
| Personal answer date(s) | |
| Allegation date(s) | |
| Interrogatories date(s) | |
| Deposition date(s) | Feb 4 1658 |
| How complete is this biography? | |
| Has infobox completed | Yes |
| Has synthesis completed | No |
| Has HCA evidence completed | No |
| Has source comment completed | No |
| Ship classification | |
| Type of ship | Shore based trade |
| Silver Ship litigation in 1650s | |
| Role in Silver Ship litigation | None |
Biographical synthesis
Mathew Clements (b. ca. 1616; d. ?). Blockmaker.
Resident in 1658 in Wapping in the parish of Saint Mary Matsellon Whitechapel.
Possibly the same Mathew Clements identified in an allegation made by John Corbin, former master of the Roger and Edmund on June 23rd 1655. The allegation is in a cause brought by Charles Mitchell and Mathew Clements for goods and materials allegedly delivered to the master and the ship the Roger and Edmund. However, the allegation does not specify what type of goods and materials they were.
Evidence from High Court of Admiralty
Forty-two year old Mathew Clements deposed on February 4th 1658 in the High Court of Admiralty. He was examined on an allegation dated December 9th 1657 on behalf of Warner in the case of "Warner against Watson and Howe".[1]
This is the same Mathew Clements, blockmaker, who himself brought a cause in 1658, together with gunmaker Charles Mitchell, in the High Court of Admiralty. The cause was "Mitchell and Clements against the Roger and Edmond and against John Corbin Master and against others coming in for their interest". There are four depositions made in support of Mitchell and Clements made by a gunmaker, a former gunner on the Roger and Edmond, a pulleymaker and a blockmaker.
It is not clear where the shop of Mathew Clements was located, though it is likely to be in the parish of Wapping in the parish of Saint Mary Matsellon Whitechapel, the place of residence he gave in his own 1658 deposition. The bargain for the delivery of goods and materials was sealed in a house in Southwark, where Mitchell and Clements met with John Corbin to discuss delivery of goods and materials.
Thomas Salmon, fifty year old late gunner of the Roger and Edmond, living in Saint Mary Matsellon alias Whitechapel, deposed on February 20th 1658 on behalf of Mitchel and Clements.[2]. Salmon stated that he was ordered by John Corbin in July 1656 to fetch the goods and materials listed in two schedules attached to the allegation from the respective shops of Charles Mitchell and Mathew Clements.[3]
John Mitchell, a twenty-three year old gunmaker of the Liberty of The Tower, deposed on February 20th 1658 on behalf of Mitchel and Clements. He provides considerable detail of the goods and materials delivered by Mitchell and Clements. Mitchell stated that "hee was present in company with the arlate John Corbyn. Charles Mitchell and Mathew Clements at a house in the Burrough of Southwarke about three or fower moneths since and there heard the sayd Corbin Mitchell and Clements have some discourse touching certayne goods and materialls by them formerly delivered to him the sayd Corbin or his order, by them the sayd Mitchell and Clements for the use of a shipp called the Roger and Edmond whereof the sayd Corbin was at the tyme of the delivery of the sayd goods master, (being as this deponent beleeveth the same shipp Roger and Edmond arlate)"[4]
According to John Mitchell, "the sayd Mitchell for the goods by him delivered did then demand of the sayd Corbin as master of the sayd shipp the summe of forty sixe pounds nyneteene shillings" Corbin "did in this deponents presence acknowledge that hee had receaved powder and a gunne and carriage and other commodities of the sayd Mitchell for the use of the sayd shipp to the value aforesayd."[5]
As for Clements, John Mitchell stated that "Clements did at the same tyme and place demand of the sayd Corbin the summe of five pounds tenn shillings five pence for the goods by him as aforesayd delivered to the sayd Corbin or his order for the use of the sayd shipp And the sayd Corbin did then alsoe before this deponent acknowledge that hee had receaved blocks and other materialls of the sayd Clements for the use of the sayd shipp amounting to five pounds tenn shillings sterling or thereabouts."[6]
George Farro (alt. Farrow), twenty year old pulley maker of Wapping, deposed on March 24th 1658 on behalf of Mitchell and Clements.[7].
William Stiff, a twenty year old blockmaker of Limehouse, deposed on the same date, also in support of Clements and Mitchell.[8]
A further short deposition was made on January 26th 1658 by Edward Potts, a thirty-three year old upholsterer of Upper Shadwell in Stepney. Potts recalled being present at a meeting with Charles Mitchell and Nicholas Rippen. The meeting was "at the signe of the Golden Still and Anchor in Eastsmithfeild". Potts described "Mitchell and Rippon having discourse about goods and materialls delivered aboard the arlate ship the Roger and Edmond at the said places. and the said Mitchell desiring security for the said goods and materialls of and from the said [XXXXX] and this deponent being caried by the said Rippen to the foresaid place, to that purpose; the said Rippen proffesed this Deponent the said Mitchell to be his security; but the said Mitchell refused to take this deponent for his security, And the said ?Rippen desired the said Mitchell to forbeare troubling him further, or ?putt him to further charge therein, and disgracing him".[9]
Potts stated that Rippen told him "hee the said Rippen had tenne pounds in the hands of the said Mitchells brother (who was then at sea) and said that the th[XX] summe to the said Mitchell. and with all told him that when the said Mitchells brother came home [XX XXXX] hee the said Rippen would worke out what hee could [XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]or to that effect, whereto the said Mitchell replyed, to this effect that notwithstanding, unlesse hee would give him such security as hee liked, hee would proceed against him".[10]
A further short deposition was made in February 22nd 1659 by Samuel Selwyn, a forty-nine year old baker of Wapping. Selwyn addresses the identity of Nicholas Rippen, the man John Corbin alleges satisfied or partly satisfied the bargain with Mitchell and Clements. Selwyn remembered meeting Rippen in Eastsmithfield. Selwyn states that Rippen requested "that hee would bee bound for him to mr Mitchell in a bond of about 31: li for the payment of gunnes and gunnpowder and materialls the said Mitchell had delivered aboard the ship the Roger and Edmund for which the said Rippen said hee was to pay the said Mitchell, and had already paid him tenne pounds in part for the same, or to this effect, but this deponent refused to be bound for him, and about a moneth after the said Mitchell asked this deponent whether hee would be bound to him, for the said Rippen, and this deponent told him hee would not".[11]
Comment on sources
1658
Allegation in the High Court of Admiralty dated June 23rd 1658 given by Proctor Oughton on behalf of John Corbin and others in the cause of Mitchell and Clements against the ship the Roger and Edmund (Master: John Corbin).[12]
Article one of the allegation asserts that if Charles Mitchell and Mathew Clements delivered goods to John Corbin, the late master of the ship the Roger and Edmund, then such goods and materials were "not soe delivered or trusted upon the security of the said shippe or master, or upon expectation of payment of satisfaction from the said master or upon the said shippe". Instead, the article continues, Mitchell and Clements "did accept one Ripen since deceased for their paymaster for the said goods and materialls and every part thereof and did agree with him for the price and value of the same and take a bill or other writeing from the said Ripen under his hand as payment of the moneyes due for the said goods and materialls". Moreover, the article claims that Micthell and Clements did "release acquitt and discharge the shipp and master of and from the sum due for the said goods and materialls". Article two of the allegation claims that Mitechell and Clements accepted "in part" of the sum due for the goods delivered the summe of ten pounds or at least ten pounds".[13]
The allegation to which John Corbin's allegation was a response has not yet been identified.- ↑ HCA 13/72 f.223r
- ↑ HCA 13/72 f.246v
- ↑ HCA 13/72 f.247r
- ↑ HCA 13/72 f.247v
- ↑ HCA 13/72 f.247v
- ↑ HCA 13/72 f.247v
- ↑ HCA 13/72 f.265v
- ↑ HCA 13/72 f.266r
- ↑ HCA 13/73 f.18v
- ↑ HCA 13/73 f.19r
- ↑ HCA 13/73 f.36v
- ↑ HCA 24/113 Item 123 IMG_111_10_3624-3626
- ↑ HCA 24/113 Item 123 IMG_111_10_3624-3626
