Plymouth Guildhall- as a merchant and local politiian Nathaniel would have been very familiar with this building
NATHANIEL was born 16th April 1654 and baptised on the 19th of April and was the youngest brother of Dr
James Yonge. His father was John, a surgeon of Plymouth. John married in 1640 in Dartmouth, Joanna, daughter of Nicholas Blackaller
born 1589 and Rosamund nee Balsman (married 1611). Joanna was born on the 16th November 1618. John died 13th October 1679 of jaundice and colic, she 21st June 1700, so she was to outlive Nathaniel.
As to the spelling of his name there is a
separate article entitled “Whats in a Name?” and while is is not clear whether Nathaniel changed the selling from YONGE to YOUNG or his brother James changed it from YOUNG to YONGE, it seems clear that the brothers wanted a distinction because
of their fundamentally different political views, James being an up and coming establishment Tory and Nathaniel a Whig.
Nathaniel married 23rd November 1678. Joan(na) Tollar (also known as Trefrey) of Fowey Cornwall. It could be that
he married into money. His wife came from a merchant's family. fHowever he probably did not marry into a great deal of money. The marriage portion his wife brought him was only £250, His brother Samuel who married the daughter of a non conformist minister
In his will, burial record and other documents, Nathaniel is described as a merchant. It is not stated a merchant of what. In the records of the Plymouth charter of 1696 many of those admitted to the council there
is an occupation given but nothing is shown for Nathaniel.
family had seven children of whom four survived to adulthood:
Young the eldest. He died young, his last entry in Plymouth Borough Records as a free tenant was 1710 and probate of his will was granted in 1712 .
William Young Born 23rd April 1687 Secretary to Earl of Berkeley and a commissioner of the
Sixpenny Office. Married Susannah Binett.
Eulalia Young born
1690 married James Ruffiat
James Young born 17th March 1699. Possibly an official in the Admiralty. Living in Plymouth 1725.
He was probably of the non conformist persuasion and according to his brother James a “Whig”. Whigs were the successor to the Puritans, were strongly protestant but could, as was Nathaniel, be
members of the established church, for convenience , were opposed to Stuart absolutism and the Catholic monarch James 11 and strongly supported the accession to the throne of William and Mary. Unlike Nathaniel, his brother Samuel was not a member of the Church
of England but an out and out radical non conformist. His other brother James however was a Tory and supporter of James 11. A very divided family.
There was obviously tension with his brother Dr James was very much an establishment figure, having started off life as a non conformist. The fact that the three brothers were this way
inclined, might suggest that they were following their father who was very much of the civil war period.
Their fraught relationship must have been mirrored in many families in late 17th century England. The wounds of the civil war
and Cromwell’s rule and the Restoration would take many years to heal.
We know very little else about Nathaniel. Most of what further information we do have comes from Dr James Journal, but that is very clearly not objective and the Plymouth Municipal Records.
The Journal shows tension within the family:
Journal of Dr James Yonge
1679. This year began as fatally, for at Christmas my Brother Nathaniel was married to Joan, the daughter of Mr. Wm. Tollar, a merchant in Fowy , a match with which my father and mother were so enamoured
that I never saw them better pleased with anything. Though the fortune was but £250, yet my father, who would never advance or settle a penny on my elder brother John or myself in marriage &c., now gave this £100 in money the shops on the key
and a house in the Lane upon him after his own and my mother's death, and gave him present possession of the house I lived in and the fee of that next to it, a thing I so resented that it had almost broke my heart and was the general I wonder of the town that
I, who had a great family, vi 4 children, my wife big with a 5th, 5 servants, &c., and lived industriously and in reputation, should be turned out of doors to make way for a younger brother.
Upon this marriage I took a house behind the island house. Upon my removing, the thing became
more talked on, so that my father was much blamed for it wherever he went, and the more because he also maintained my brother and new wife in his own house. The constant reflections that were made on him for this unnatural act begat in him great remorse, which
he one day with great moan confest to me, and gave me £5 which so absolutely reconciled me to him, not for the value but as an evidence that he was sensible of the hard and wrongful measure he had metedme, that I became much afflicted for him. The thing striking so near to him, he fell into a melancholy and discontent that brought him to the jaundice and collick, which lasted all the summer till October the
15th, on which day he died, and was buried in St. Andrew's Church. In all his sickness he hated the sight of my brother and was discontented with my mother as she that had drawn him into this unnatural act, as he always called it, and though he was always
a haughty and passionate man, he now condescended to make strange confessions, once saying it had broke his heart, wishing he might repent of all his sins as heartily as he had done of that, and making me amends in his will by give me what I seemed to expect,
wherein indeed he was very generous, He died in very good charity with me; I wish he had the same with others nearer and as near related.
What lies behind the estrangement,we will never know. Particular odd at a time when the eldest son tended to be favoured over younger sons. It could be that John's views were more politically
compatible with his father's views than James but then James blames his mother for the breach as he does for the eldest son going away to sea. For in 1662 Dr James wrote
My elder brother [John, who died in 1670] was maintained like a prince, I clad with old turned clothes, sparrow-billed shoes, etc. and not one penny in my pocket. He [His Father]
was hard as a master, which however, when I was prentice to another, was sweetened with a token or kind letter from a father, which now I wholly wanted.
Then again Dr James was perhaps being hypersensitive and expecting too much.
Though there were tensions, there were also normal relationships.
In their respective Wills, Nathaniel and James both in varying ways acknowledged the other and their families.
Dr James wrote
Then I give to the said Joan Tollar and to my sister in law Joan Younge [Nathaniel's wife} and her two sons William Yonge and James Yonge…… to each of them a mourning ring worth a guinea
…. and lastly I do hereby nominate and desire my brother Mr James Young and Mr Jonathan Toller [ ] of Fowey in trust
for this my last will and testament to see my mind and memory performed and to be kind to my said wife and children giving them assistance and advice after I am dead. I give to my said brother James Young and Jonathan Toller a guinea apiece in gold to buy
each of them mourning ring as a memorial of my love.
…………Stow…., November 17, I returned to Plymouth. There I found my wife delivered of a son, occasioned through the grief and vexation for Pearse Granger, my then apprentice, running away from me. It was born some days before
time; my wife had hard labour, narrowly escaped, and the child after many convulsions died Friday 19th, being first christianed and named Thomas, Brother Nathaniel Yonge and Brother Thomas Cramporn Godfathers, and my mother Godmother. I buried the child Saturday
evening by his two sisters in St. Andrew's church, Plymouth.
occasion Dr James recounts how with members of his family, including Nathaniel he went on a trip out of Devon.
They also had some business dealings together
107/14 West Devon Record Office
Indenture made 26th January in the second year William and Mary between James Yonge of Plymouth chirugion or this part and Edward Hooper of Plymouth Thomas Cramphorne vintner and Nathaniel Yonge merchant witnessed
that James Yonge – messuage or tenement and courtilage lying and being within the Borough or Plymouth adjoining to a place? There called The New New Key [ ] bounded with a street there called Batton/Bottow Street on the East, the land or Philip Andrew
on the West part, the land now or late or Robert Gubbs Esq. On the north part and the New key on the south part.
Corporation of Plymouth
With few state officials the power of the government out of London depended on local gentry. When Charles 1st lost the support of the
gentry in many areas of the country this meant in effect that the Kings writ no longer ran. So who controlled the Corporations was absolutely vital not just for local administration but for the kings power and that of the national government in administering
It was against this kind of background that Dr
James and his brother Nathaniel were involved in the local government of Plymouth with the Tory Dr James supporting the Government and the Whig, Nathaniel resisting the demands of the centralising Catholic centre. Dr James was involved in the government of
Plymouth for at least thirteen years Nathaniel's involvement appears to have been more limited as for most of his life the Whigs were excluded from important public office.
Early on in the Restoration there was introduced a piece of legislation which were a clear sign of the times to come. The Corporation Act of 1661 excluded from municipal
corporations all those, who refused to take the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. Presumably not a problem for Nathaniel for we know he was church warden.
However as time went by, in many mercantile towns laws against non conformists holding public office were increasingly ignored. So twenty-two years after
his 'regulation' of the Corporation in 1661, the King was still not satisfied with the governing body of his own creation in Plymouth, and other towns, subservient though they largely were. He therefore called for the surrender of the great Charter of Elizabeth,
Charles treated Plymouth's with special ferocity. He emasculated the famous
document incorporated in the Act of Parliament, and drastically reduced the Corporation both in powers and in numbers. When the Charter came back, its members found themselves all dismissed. A new Mayor, -twelve new Aldermen and twelve new Councillors (instead
of twenty-four) all to serve for the term of their natural lives, were named in the Charter. Dr James is listed as a Councillor but not Nathaniel.
Though the King appointed in his charter all the officers, aldermen and councillors, there had been two Whigs in the deputation to London. There were Whigs even among the men named by
the King, and some were soon back in their old power-sharing positions.
subsequent charter of William 111 of 1696 almost entirely restored the Corporation to its original form and powers. This was the first Charter in Nathaniel’s life which allowed him to take public office without compromising himself or swearing a false
oath. Both Dr James and Nathaniel are named as councillors.
Lieut in militia
22/10/1680 and readmitted freeman 10/8/1687
In 1684 King Charles 11 forced a new charter on Plymouth which emasculated the Corporations powers with the intent of removing non conformists from all positions of power. With Nathaniel, according to Dr.
James being a Whig he presumably lost his freedom in the changes at that time but had this restored when William and Mary were on the throne.
The big change that the 1684 charter made was that freemen by a new oath had to notify the authorities
of any conventicles they were aware of in the Borough. A conventicle was a secret or unlawful religious meeting, typically
of nonconformists. Though a church warden and thus a subscribing member of the Church of England , one can imagine where his true sympathies lay
and that this was a step too far.
A Freeman of the Borough of Plymouth
was a privileged person who performed important functions in the Local Government of the Town. Only a Freeman could trade within the Borough without the payment of tolls and dues and only a Freeman could vote for the Councillors, Aldermen, Mayor and Members
of Parliament. Nobody could be elected as a Freeman if they were not born in the Town, Nathaniel was. Also according to an Order of the Corporation made in 1475, a freeman was also required to be a member of the Borough Guild of Our Lady and Saint George.
Also the eldest son, Nathaniel was not the oldest son, of an existing Freeman or somebody who had served a seven year apprenticeship with Freeman could also be elected to join the ranks. Subject to the earlier conditions, it was also possible to purchase a
Freedom and it was also possible for the Corporation to award honorary Freedoms as well.
7/10/1696and Common Councillor by charter 8/12/1696
The two appointments in this year reflect the new Charter of William 111. Probably Nathaniel
was suspect in his loyalties by Charles 11 and James 11 so was not appointed in their reigns but by 1696 with William and Mary on the throne, there was a different climate.
Charter of William III. Letters Patent of Inspeximus and Confirmation
by William the Third, confirming the Charter of Inspeximus and Confirmation given to the Mayor and Commonalty of Plymouth 3 March 3 Charles I., confirming charters and letters patent by previous sovereigns of England to the same Mayor and Commonalty, beginning
with the charter of Henry the Sixth; with approbation and confirmation of the recited charters. The present letters appoint John Munyon, merchant, to be the first Mayor; Francis Drake, baronet, to be the first Recorder (for life) ; William Symons, gentleman,
William Cotton, William Tom, John Munyon, James Hull, merchant, Peter Foot, gentleman, Philip Wilcocks, John Warren, John Neell, merchant, Thomas Knottford, druggist, Richard Opie, William Munyon, merchants, and Thomas Bound, tin-worker, to be the first Capital
Burgesses or Masters of the Borough; Edmund Pollexsen to be the first Town-Clerk during life; Thomas Payne, gentleman, to be t he first Borough Coroner; Gregory Martin, druggist, James Yonge, surgeon, Joseph Webb, merchant,
Robert Berry, senior, John Rogers, William Davies, Nathaniel Young, Nathaniel Dowrich, merchant, Samuel Allen, Thomas Lymbear, William Cock, appraiser, Nicholas Gennis, perfumer, Thomas Darracott, merchant, John Wallis, appraiser,
Jonas Lavington, druggist, Samuel Howe. brewer, James Cock, Robert. Wilcocks, merchant, Frank Hill, Robert Hewer, perfumer, Samuel Harris, wool-merchant, Robert Cowne, druggist, William Hurrell, and John Swymmer, to be the first Common-councilmen under the
new charter. Westminster. 8 Dec.-8 Wm. Ill. 
Common Councillor effectively ran the Corporation as Councillors run a council today.
He was a receiver 1692-3 and 1696-7
A Receiver was the equivalent of the Borough treasurer or bookkeeper. Clearly the person holding this post had to be numerate and considered honest. This was an annual appointment. It would seem that payments
wee made by the Receiver out of his own pocket and then he was reimbursed.
The 1684 charter set out the duties in more detail
“attend on the profit of the Town and improve ye same in reparation and buildings and every other thing.....you shall nothing diminish, withdraw, lose, consume, waste purloyne, convey or abate...and of ye receipts as well as rents,
revenue, issues and profits and also expense any charge done and to be done for the Towns needs.... “
The Receivers Book shows
Nathaniel Younge – John Bedford schoolmaster had £20 a year. £98,14s.6d spent on the quays taking in and building New Quay, repairing Foxhole quay, and all the quays at Southside and repairing streets.
1696-7 – Nathaniel Younge Item paid to Mr John Helliar the limner for drawing the Kings picture at large with a gilt
carved frame and for repairing other pictures in the Guildhall fourteen pounds.
Assistant and Recorder
James in his Plymouth Memoirs, records:
1692 My Brother [Nathaniel] chosen Assistant and Recorder
This is interesting as it shows that though under the 1684 Charter of Charles 11 Whigs and non conformists could be and were largely excluded that under William 111, there
was a more liberal approach with William 111, even before there was a new charter. Nathaniel's surname in that document is spelled “Yonge.” James was at the same time appointed an alderman. The 1684 charter had provided that the Mayor, alderman,
assistants, recorder and all other officers should be nominated by the King.
Recorder was a Justice of the Peace but seemingly with additional dutes of advising the Borough its its duties and obligations.. An Assistant was just that , to help in the running of the Town. The oath does not specify any particular duties.
Plymouth Borough records show that for five years from 1681 Nathaniel acted as a constable (one of 20) in Vinners
Ward – the ward lay to the south of the Barbican and included St Andrews and the Guildhall. There were four constables in his ward.
In the 17th century the responsibility for law and order fell on the community through
its constables; though actually only a proportion of the community were eligible for this post – that is the householders. The office was usually held yearly amongst the wealthiest householders who were obliged to serve, or provide a deputy in their
stead. fulfilling this role.
Unlike later police, the position was strictly amateur, with the constable receiving no remuneration for his services, which could be both dangerous and cumbersome. However, what it did do was
to promote a shared citizenship. Once a year, the constables were sworn in.
The duties of the constable combined the duties of our police force with the duties of a charitable institution, and the constable was at the heart of the community. His house might taken over for a year as a gaol, a minor court, a meeting
house, and a poor man's soup kitchen.
Their duties also included disputes over land particularly with regard to tenancies, but also after the Excise Act of 1642 they were also charged with collecting tax and duty on goods. A duty
was put on provisions coming into the cities from the country – on beer and cider and soap, and the next year on salt, hats, starch, and copper goods. This law was extremely unpopular, as these were not imported items from abroad, as before, but everyday
necessities, and the enforcing of this law, and the collection of these monthly excise duties must have been a great burden on the elected constables.
Constables were constantly ‘on call’, meaning they often had to leave their dinner or their sleep to deal with the drunk and disorderly, street fights, or
criminal activities. If a murder or robbery had been committed, or a criminal had escaped, the Constable was responsible for recruiting a search party. The pay for chasing a criminal was anything from one penny to one shilling, depending on the perceived danger.
The constable could call upon the townspeople for help, and anyone who refused to give chase or lend his horse to the party, was fined. The chases were known as Hue and Cry.
When the miscreant was caught, that was not the end of the constable's responsibility. If no gaol or lock-up was available, the constable had to find suitable premises and a watchman to keep the wrong-doer
under lock and key.
Minor offences could be punished by a stay in the stocks, but more serious offences had to wait for the Justice at the Quarterly Assizes, known as the Quarter Sessions. Justice was a hit and miss affair, though, as the constable
was often responsible for choosing the jurymen, to his own advantage in disputes.
A constable could call
upon the trained band of soldiers to help quell a disturbance, and was responsible for enforcing that men of the parish trained in pike duty or other defensive arts as stipulated by law.
The constable was supposed to keep an eye on the morals of the parishioners. During the Interregnum, with Cromwell in charge, staunch attacks on vice were demanded. Once the King was restored, a whole new raft of rules appeared,
including persecution of religious dissenters such as the Quakers.
The constable had to be a record keeper
and thus was required to be literate and numerate. Why did Nathaniel accept this thankless role five years in a row from 1681. Possibly to keep in with those running Plymouth. He would not have wanted to prejudice his position as a city merchant.
Church warden and the Admiralty
It was in this role as churchwarden Nathaniel got into hot water with the Authorities in London, when he forbade Plymouth dockyard
workers working on the Sabbath. This was the time of war with France and the Admiralty needed ships repaired and built as fast as possible
Copy of a letter
from the Navy Commissioners dated 2nd August 1693 – Captain Greenhill informs us that the Master shipright
at Plymouth Dockyard and several of his workmen are put into the spiritual court by one Nathaniel Young one of the churchwardens of that Town for working on the last fast day and the workmen are hereby so affrighted that it will be impossible to persuade them
to work on Sundays or any other holidays though the necessity be never so great. We acquaint you hereof, not remembering anything of the like kind ever to have been done before, though nothing has been more familiar than employing our workmen in the yards
on Sundays etc as occasion requires [ibid no 49i
Churchwardens, were the guardians of the public parts of the church (the nave, porch and belfry, but not
the chancel), the silver, books and furnishings, and of other possessions such as the churchyard and any land. They were responsible for their upkeep and maintenance and for any fund-raising involved. Also by a court rulings of 1637 money collected for the
poor at communion services was to be distributed by the warden . By the 16th century most parishes had
two wardens, one appointed by the vicar (the vicar’s warden) who might remain in office for years, and the other elected annually by the parishioners (the people’s warden), an arrangement approved by Canon in 1603. However, practice varied.
The Lords of the Admiralty to Sir John Trenchard
It is our intention to lay the enclosed
before our Lords in Council that some care may be taken to prevent such proceedings in future Ho Admiralty No 6 49
10th August 1
Letter from the Secretary of State [Earl of Nottingham] to Bishop of Exeter [Trewlaney] dated 10th August 1693. The Queen Mary has been informed that the Master shipright together with several workmen of their majesty’s yard at Plymouth are put into
spiritual court by Nathaniel Young a churchwarden of that town for working on the fast day which was July last. As she has been informed it has been for them to work both on Sundays and holidays upon urgent occasions, she wishes me to tell you that she would
have you do what is proper to put an end to this prosecution which is discouraging to those workmen and may be of ill consequence in time of war. HO letter book (secretaries) 2 p683
In taking this position Nathaniel was adopting a literal interpretation of the bible, which was the hallmark of a strict non conformist. This might suggest that his membership of the established Anglican Church was out of self interest
rather than anything else. The predominant Anglican argument for a Sunday Sabbath lay in church tradition and authority, not in biblical law. The Puritan doctrine of a Sunday Sabbath appealed primarily to biblical law. While Anglican leaders came to insist
that church and state were the final authorities in regulating Sunday activities, Puritans denied them any such authority.
For may years Nathaniel is described in Plymouth Borough Records as a “Free Tenant” It is not entirely clear what this means. In mediaeval England it meant a tenant who paid a minimal rent and
had few obligations to his landlord. Perhaps it had a similar meaning in Stuart Plymouth where Nathaniel was one of some 130 odd free tenants.
As well as quoting from official documents Dr James gives his own very personal account in his “Plymouth Memoirs” of the governance of Plymouth and he also touches on his family.
this yeare  my Brother Nath. dyed. he w[as] a zealot In this new model [the charter of William
111] & beleive the disappointment they met, & ye odium they contracted, helpt to bring that Asthma upon him
of wch he dyed.
In his Journal Dr James wrote:
14th this year [the burial entry for St Andrews Plymouth records that he was buried on March 11th] my
brother Nathaniel died of a scorbutic asthma. I was not concerned with him, there being some disgust on account of his being ingaged with Sir Francis Drake to change the charter, and put that indignity upon me. He was a zealous Whig and thought to have got
that cause rampant here, of which failing and for which being hated, he sickened and died.
Asthma is is a condition in which airways narrow and swell and may produce extra mucus. This can make breathing difficult and trigger coughing, a whistling sound when breathing out. “Scorbutic” is another term for scurvy and there is some connection between the two and indeed in the past the conditions could be confused. It seems unlikely however
that Nathaniel would have suffered from scurvy.
that Nathaniel was closely involved with Sir Francis Drake and it was Drake who incurred Dr James particularly ire, over many years and who played a leading part in “cancelling out” the charter of Charles 11.
The will is quite conventional
and it tells us little about him except perhaps unusually for the time, he made his wife his sole executor. Nathaniel's
full will is set out in the Appendix.
is the life of a Plymouth merchant who clearly wanted to play a role in the civic life of his Town but who was hindered by his political and religious beliefs.
had numerous and some notable descendants. The male line however died out in 1970. Some notable descendants
Admiral James Young 1717-1789
Admiral William Young 1751-1821
Vice Admiral James Young 1764-1833
© R.I Yonge 2007 and 2021
Journal of Dr James Yonge
Plymouth Memoirs by Dr James Yonge
Plymouth Municipal Records
Plymouth and West Devon Record Office
IN THE NAME OF GOD AMEN I Nathaniel Young of Plymouth in the County of Devon merchant being ill and weak of body but
of a sound disposing mind and memory I thank almighty God and knowing of a certainty that is appointed for all men come to dye yet more certain than the time thereof for whilst God has left me this opportunity make this my last will and testament now being
and making null and void of and every former will and other will and wills by me made by word of writing and this to contain and be my last will and testament in the manner following that is to say first and most especially I give and bequeath my soul into
the hands of almighty God my maker, savour and redeemer my body to the earth when it shall please God to dispose thereof by death steadfastly assuredly by the passion all sufficient mentis and mediation of his son Jesus Christ to inherit eternal life. I give
and bequeath unto the poor of Plymouth thirty shillings and fifteen shillings to the poor of Fowey which from whenever when I intermarried with my new wife Joan Young the two messuages or tenements lying upon south side quay were settled by me and by her and
my desire is that after the decease of my said wife the fee simple and share and inheritance thereof with their and every of their appurtenances may remain and require and be unto my son Nathaniel Young and his heirs for ever more give and bequeath after the
death of my honoured mother Mrs John Young the two shop and tenancies. Thereunto belonging and appurtenances belonging thereto to my younger son William Young directing the residue and remainder of the same which shall be then to come therein the land thereof
belonging to the mayor and commonality of the Borough of Plymouth then it is my will that if my said son William shall happen to dye before he attain the age of one and twenty years that then the remainder of the term shall be and the rents issues and profits
of the said two shops with the appurtenances now in the tenure of the present tenants [Binure] and Roberts equally between the rest of my younger children after the decease of my said son William Young and the child or children wherewith my said wife is now
pregnant to be in equal share or shares with the said younger children. From all the residue of my personal effects and goods and chattels I give devise and bequeath unto my said wife Joan Young and my children boys and girls and the child or children of my
said wife is now pregnant with equally between them and my will is as if my sons or any or either of them shall happen todye before her or they shall attain
the age of 18 years or any or either of my daughters shall happen to dye before they or any or either of them attain the age of one and twenty years or be married the part or portion of his her or their issue as well borne as not already borne but now in their
mother's womb shall from and remain be one the survivor or survivors of my said children equally between them then I give and bequeath unto my present servant John Harries and my former late servant John Stevens forty shilIings [£2] a pair to buy each
of them a gold mourning ring, then I give and bequeath unto my two maid servants as shall be with me in my service at the time of my death ten shillings a pair. Then it is my will that in some short and convenient time after my death my executors hereinafter
named doo all publish survey for such of my household goods as will be more then necessary for her and her families uses of the house whereof I now give and dispose thereof accordingly And also such of my books as my trustees hereinafter named shall think
fit to be sold which may or may not judge useful or necessary for my children or any of them. I make nominate and appoint my wife Joan Young whom I dearly love the whole and sole executrix of this my last will and testament and lastly I do hereby nominate
and desire my brother Mr James Young and Mr Jonathan Toller [ ] of Fowey in trust for this my last will and testament to see my mind and memory performed and to be kind to my said wife and children giving them assistance and advice after I am dead I give to
my said brother James Young and Jonathan Toller a guinea apiece in gold to buy each of them mourning ring as a memorial of my love. In witness whereof I have to this my last will and testament set my hand and seal the 11 th day of March in the year of our
Lord God one thousand six hundred and ninety eight and in the 7th year of the reign of King William the third over England. Nath Young Signed sealed and published by the said Nathaniel Young to be his last will and testament in the presence of Thomas [ ] Charity
Stephens, Joanna Burton, Joseph Cooper [ ] [Details of grant of probate in Latin]