CRABTREE, WILLIAM (16101644?

), astronomer, son of John Crabtree, a husbandman of fair estate, was born at Broughton, near Manchester, in 1610, and baptised at the collegiate church of Manchester on 29 June that year. He was educated, it is presumed, at the Manchester grammar school, but did not go to Cambridge, as is sometimes stated. In due time he engaged in the business of a clothier or chapman (equivalent to a merchant of to-day), and seems to have been in comfortable circumstances. In his twenty- third year (14 Sept. 1633) he married Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Pendleton of Manchester, of a family of local repute and good position. He early took up the pursuit of astronomy with great ardour. He was an exact calculator, discovered defects in the tables of Lansberg and other continental astronomers, and simplified the Rudolphian tables and converted them into decimals. When he entered into correspondence in 1636 with Jeremiah Horrox [q. v.], he was able to encourage and instruct that extraordinary youth in his celestial observations. Horrox, who was eight or nine years younger than Crabtree, frequently refers to him in his writings in terms of praise or friendliness. After frequent consultation Horrox and Crabtree prepared to observe the transit of Venus on Sunday, 24 Nov. 1639, the former at Hoole and the latter at Broughton. As is well known, the observations were successful, and the two friends were the first human beings that ever witnessed the phenomenon. It is narrated by Horrox that a little before sunset, namely at 35 m. past 3, certainly between 30 and 40 min., the sun burst forth from behind the clouds. He [Crabtree] at once began to observe, and was gratified by beholding the pleasing spectacle of Venus upon the sun's disc. Rapt in contemplation, he stood for some time motionless, scarcely trusting his own senses through excess of joy. Crabtree corresponded with William Gascoigne (inventor of the micrometer), Christopher Towneley, and Foster of Gresham College. One of his letters to Gascoigne, dated 7 Aug. 1640, was printed by W. Derham in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 330 (vol. xxvii., or vol. v. of Hutton's Abridgment). It is on the nature and appearance of sun spots, and contains some interesting references to astronomical books which he had read. The death of Horrox in January 1640, on the day before he had arranged to visit Broughton, was a great blow to him, as he himself touchingly records. Little is heard of him after the breaking out of the war, and it is uncertain when he died. In the Manchester church register is

the entry 1644, Aug. 1. William Crabtree of Broughton, chapman, and this is assumed to be the astronomer. Wallis, when editing the Opera Posthuma, supposed him to have died a few days after Horrox, but later he was informed, as the result of local inquiries, that he lived till 1652 or 1653. If this is correct, he must have been buried elsewhere than at Manchester. He left a son and two daughters. Crabtree's observations (dated 1 Aug. 1636 to 18 Sept. 1638) are comprised in Horrox's Opera Posthuma, edited by Wallis and published in 1672 and again in 1673 and 1676. They extend from page 405 to 439, and have this special title: Excerpta ex Schediasmatis Guliel. Crabtrii, de Observationibus ab ipso institutis, Broughton prop Mancestriam. Sherburne says that they amount to not a tenth part of what he had made; but the unprinted papers have now been lost. In the Chetham Library there is a manuscript believed to be in his hand, entitled A True and p'fect Booke of all the Rates and Taxacons wch concerne this county of Lanc., dated 1650. A similar volume is among the Lansdowne MSS. in the British Museum. One of the fine series of frescoes in the large room of the Manchester town hall has for its subject the observation of the transit of Venus by Crabtree. It was painted in 1883 by Mr. Ford Madox Brown.
[Palatine Note-book, ii. 262, iii. 17, 52, where Mr. J. E. Bailey has most carefully noted all the information that is available about Horrox and Crabtree; Horroccii Opera Posthuma; Hevelii Mercurius in Sole visus Gedani, 1662, pp. 117, 140; Flamsteed and Wallis's Letters in Corresp. of Scientific Men of the Seventeenth Century (Rigaud), 1841, vol. ii.; Sherburne's Sphere of M. Manilius, 1675, appendix, pp. 92, 117; Worthington's Diary (Chetham Soc.), i. 125, ii. 366, 383; Whatton's Memoirs of Horrox, 1859; Hutton's Mathem. Dict. 1815, i. 375; Grant's Hist. of Physical Astronomy, pp. 421, seq., 4545; Manchester Quarterly, 1882, i. 313; Gent. Mag. xxxi. 225.]

C. W. S.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Crabtree,_William_(DNB00)
Evidence The title 'William Crabtree of Broughton' could have referred to at least nine males born in the small hamlet of Broughton between the years 1580 and 1717, therefore William Crabtree was a resident of more than one house. Which of them was the astronomer? We consulted pedigrees compiled by Ernest Axon for H.T. Crofton to see what they offered. The first pedigree contained errors and was rejected either by Axon or Crofton, or both. However it contains some information that should be retained. It shows family connections between the names 'Crabtree', 'Moss' and 'Brookes', all names linked with the Crabtree home. The second pedigree was published, it too contains errors. A dedicated student [perhaps a sudoku fanatic] is required to unravel the ramifications. I hope there is such a one to complete the research., and prove, or

disprove our findings. Research is necessary to prove or disprove several entries, e.g. births, marriages and deaths. To help follow these two complicated pedigrees I have chosen to colour-code the two branches of the Crabtree families. Red is for the astronomers side of the pedigree. From Crofton's ms. Carl collected some entries in the Manchester Cathedral Registers which proved, for example, that George Crabtree was the son of John Crabtree - not William C, as shown in the first pedigree, but that entry is unimportant in our quest. The sibling Jane entries were interesting. She was placed first on William's branch of the family, then on John'sbirth date omitted. We found the relevant birth entry:'Jane Crabtree, born 18 April 1583, daughter of William Crabtree of Broughton. This makes her sister to John, and aunt to William, the astronomer - as shown in the first pedigree. Her marriage to Robert Moss[e] brings that name into the picture. Two of our astronomer's daughters are named as marrying Benjamin Brooke! It is not important which he married because our evidence shows that Benjamin Brooke held the tenancy of Crabtree's home, the one he built. I was able to establish the following. The first recorded William Crabtree of Broughton, a webster, died in 1587. His brother John, husbandman, registered as tenant in 1583 also died in 1587. Was John the elder brother tenant of the family home? The brothers each had at least one son, John called his son William, and William called his son John [husbandman]. This John called his first-born William, baptised in 1610 he is our astronomer. The proliferation of the names John and William caused a great deal of confusion to researchers, including Axon and Crofton, and adds to the difficulty in finding the house most likely to have been built by the astronomer. Crofton writes 'The marriages of the Astronomer's son William in Dec 1667 and of his cousin William in Feb 1667 render it impossible to distinguish the children of William of Broughton who were baptised at Manchr. between 1667 and 1686' Samuel Crabtree b?-drowned 1681 = Alice [Worrall ? 1624-16 of Broughton, yeoman Granted a tenancy from Edward Stanley in 1632. when his grandfather died!Granted lease in 1667 'for lives of the Worrall sisters' William Crabtree 1655- 1717 [Cousin to astronomer's son William.] He held the tenancy from1681 of Broughton . When Carl brought home this photocopy of Crofton's field map I was overjoyed. Here he names the residents in 1808 on Crabtree Croft. At the side of one entry he states:- 'formerly occupied by the astronomer William Crabtree'!! Can this be true? I read the notes on the next page where he wrote 'his [W. Crabtree] house being probably that which was in 1808 occupied by Charles Shorrock'! He then strikes his pen through this sentence. Perhaps a William Crabtree had lived there, but not the astronomer. It is certain that one of the blobs representing cottages was the Astronomer's, but which one? Searching through Crofton's notes again, on p.48 we find quotes from the Court Book records of 1764:'..order for hedges to be repairedalong the Strangeways Laneto Crabtree Lane End, which was most probably opposite the end of the Scarr Wheel Lane. And at the same Court, an order was made for the repair of the same lane from Crabtree House to John Shorrocks, Chew Broad Closes. Also in 1765 Thomas Wroe was to mend the bridle road through Crabtree Lane'. We trace the three lanes shown on the 1808 map, 1. Broughton Spout on the north of Crabtree Crofts, 2. a short lane leading south from Broughton Spout to Crabtree Lane, 3.Strangeways Lane leading to Chew Broad Close. Crabtree Lane was probably from the junction of Strangeways Lane to Lower Broughton Road. So the house occupied by John Shorrocks in 1808 was not the astronomer's.. We return to Axon's pedigrees. I decided to make enquiries from Chris Hunwick, the archivist at Manchester Cathedral about the note under Samuel Brooke's entry. He knew Samuel Brooke donated the tapestry in 1700. He was unaware that Samuel Brooke was a grandson of William Crabtree, the astronomer! In 1982 the tapestry was sent to Christy's for auction. It was in a very bad condition, and would be too costly to repair. The address was simply 'Samuel Brooke of Broughton'. This is the last name known to have been granted the lease of Crabtree's house not the astronomer's son! Proof?

'In 1658 the Rev. Henry Newcome states in his autobiography on July 2nd, Friday "We kept a private day in the house of Benjamin Brooke in Broughton, the first that was kept in that house, and, as some thought, in that township. It was in the house that was William Crabtree's, whose daughter [Esther] this Benjamin married, a woman well disposed and of a sorrowful spirit. He was that famous mathematician, and built the house, and I hope a better mystery resides in it now". [Chetham Soc. xxvii, 94; Crofton mss p46.] This was only five years after 1653 - a suggested alternative date of Crabtree's death. The alternative date is based on a document of Rates thought to have Crabtree's signature appended. No satisfactory explanation for the existence of this document has been produced. Fifteen years later, on Nov. 4, 1672 he says "I went to Benjamin Brooke's to a private day, on the account of his wife, who is with child, they having been married near twenty years"; and on Dec. 19th he went to see their son Samuel'. [Chetham Soc. xxvii, 94; Crofton mss p46.] Clearly Benjamin Brooke leased the Astronomer's house, and it would probably pass to his son Samuel - eventually. It is reasonable to suppose that Crabtree House was the astronomer's house as his would be the most 'famous' name in the area. The Crabtree men were mostly husbandmen, or yeomen, Crabtree is referred to as 'that famous mathematician'. Also Crabtree House is on Crabtree Lane - according to the Court Book records. There are three houses to consider:- no.1, and the two houses numbered 2 on Crofton's field map. Now if we consider the sketches said to be the home of Crabtree the Astronomer, showing two houses separated by a path [Crabtree Lane perhaps?] the houses numbered 2 on Crofton's map seem best qualified. The present Clifton View and Ivy Cottage on one side of the lane could be the right-hand house no.2. The old Crabtree Lane is now a private path leading to Ivy Cottage. It is interesting to note that the two cottages are strangely linked, a part of Ivy Cottage lies over part of Clifton View! Perhaps it was one building in the seventeenth century. In 1908 reference is made in newspaper cuttings of a house [Crabtree's?] to be demolished. Ivy Cottage retains much if its original features; Clifton View has changed over the years, yet timber beams hidden beneath the modern dcor - match those on the front of Ivy Cottage. Crofton's ms. contains a copy of the 'Will of William Crabtree of Broughton, living at Spout House in 1717'Crofton considered it to be that of the astronomer's son, whereas Axon believed it to be the will of his cousin, William son of Samuel Crabtree. The 1717 will names his wife Rachel, and his son William. William's wife, according to Crofton, is Jane Pendleton. An entry in the list of wills held at Chester suggests that Samuel's son, William was the '1717 man'. I believe Axon is correct here. We found an entry grouped together as one item, 'John Crabtree, Will 1585, probate 1587; John, Inventory 1679; Alice, widow, 1683; William, yeoman, 1717'. These names and dates agree with those in Axon's pedigree:- The original John, husbandman, his grandson John [son of William who died 1632], and William, his grandson. Are you still with me? Axon has another William Crabtree, baptised 1638, the eighth child of John, the Younger, brother to Samuel, and married to Jane Pendleton. This would mean there were three 'William Crabtree of Broughton' living in 1696! This must be incorrect because Crofton lists the Broughton tenants for 1696:- 'widow Brooke, William Crabtree, senior and William Crabtree junior, cousins'. The astronomer's son was referred to as 'senior' because he was fifteen years older than his cousin Samuel's son. An entry in the Palatine notebook, August 1884 reads 'In this year of protestation, about three years after the transit, the adults in Crabtree's household consisted of himself,Elizabeth his wife, Mrs Isabel Crabtree his mother, and Elizabeth and Mary his sisters. He died August 1644'. This raises an interesting question. Why were Crabtree's mother and sisters living in the house he built and not his father's house? It suggests that John the Elder, Crabtree's father did not hold tenancy. Also a reference is made that John the Elder rented land from his younger cousin, John the Younger.

A letter from Axon to Crofton - 'As regards the astronomer's house. The Will of William Crabtree, 1717 shows that he [the 1717 man] lived at Spout House. I believe this William [baptised 1658][1655?L.F.], son of Samuel [baptised 1624], son of John [baptised 1595-6], son of William [d.1632] who was cousin of the astronomer's father.'!![-see simplified diagram above L.F. ]!! 'it is clear that Spout house was not the astronomer's'and 'So that though the Astronomers' house was not Spout house it was probably in the same cluster.' [p25/26 Crofton mss] Probably Spout House was the original Crabtree family home and John Crabtree 'held the tenancy' in 1583. The tenancy passed to his son William d. 1632. The lease did not pass to his son John [date of death unknown] but jumped a generation to Samuel in 1632. He married Alice Worrall in 1649 and in 1667 he was granted lease 'for lives of the Worrall sisters'. He was drowned on 1681 and William, held the lease from 1681, Alice, the widow, lived on for fifty years. It is possible that there is more information to be gleaned from Crofton's ms but it cannot be undertaken by Carl. Carl regrets not being able to complete the scrutiny of this valuable manuscript. The precious book is no longer readily available in the Local History section due to a bureaucratic blunder at the Manchester Reference Library. A mass re-shuffle of staff in October/November 2004 -resulted in the book 'going missing' and re-materialising in Archives. This department is open until 4.00pm and closed Fridays. No photocopying permitted. Crofton's book is not yet one hundred years old and should be more readily available for further studies. On reflection, as Bahoteum wrote to the City News in March 1923:- 'Why is not Crabtree associated with Kepler and others? Surely Crabtree's work deserves recognition.' Carl and Lilian have done their best to bring his name into focus. We have got as close as we can to the actual Crabtree House. Crofton believed that Ivy Cottage is the one, I am inclined to agree with him. Carl prefers to keep an open verdict. Perhaps the last words should be those of Canon Radcliffe on seeing Ivy Cottage:- 'It is a very good contender'! Finally here are Horrox's own words on his observation:

"Anxiously intent therefore on the undertaking through the greater part of the 23rd, and the whole of the 24th, I omitted no available opportunity of observing her ingress. I watched carefully on the 24th from sunrise to nine o'clock, and from a little before ten until noon, and at one in the afternoon, being called away in the intervals by business of the highest importance, which, for these ornamental pursuits I could not with propriety neglect. But during all this time I saw nothing in the sun except a small and common spot, consisting as it were of three points at a distance from the center towards the left, which I noticed on the preceding and following days. This evidently had nothing to do with Venus. About fifteen minutes past three in the afternoon, when I was again at liberty to continue my labors, the clouds, as if by divine interposition, were entirely dispersed, and I was once more invited to the grateful task of repeating my observations. I then beheld a most agreeable spectacle, the object of my sanguine wishes, a spot of unusual magnitude and of a perfectly circular shape, which had already fully entered upon the sun's disc on the left, so that the limbs of the Sun and Venus precisely coincided, forming an angle of contact. Not doubting that this was really the shadow of the planet, I immediately applied myself sedulously to observe it" "...I wrote therefore immediately to my most esteemed friend William Crabtree, a person who has few superiors in mathematical learning, inviting him to be present at this Uranian banquet, if the weather permitted; and my letter, which arrived in good time, found him ready to oblige me; he therefore carefully prepared for the observation, in a manner similar to that which has been mentioned. But the sky was very unfavorable, being obscured during the greater part of the day with thick clouds; and as he was unable to obtain a view of the Sun, he despaired of making an observation, and resolved to take no further trouble in the matter. But a little before sunset, namely about thirty-five minutes past three, certainly between thirty and forty minutes after three, the Sun bursting forth from behind the clouds, he at once began to observe, and was gratified by beholding the pleasing spectacle of Venus upon the Sun's disc. ... but Crabtree's opportunity was so limited that he was not able to observe very minutely either the distance itself; or the

inclination of the planet. As well as he could guess by his eye, and to the best of his recollection, he drew upon paper the situation of Venus, which I found to differ little or nothing from my own observation;... I wrote also of the expected transit to my younger brother, who then resided at Liverpool, hoping that he would exert himself on the occasion. This indeed he did, but it was in vain, for on the 24th, the sky was overcast, and he was unable to see anything, although he watched very carefully....I hope to be excused for not informing other of my friends of the expected phenomenon, but most of them care little for trifles of this kind, preferring rather their hawks and hounds, to say no worse; and although England is not without votaries of astronomy, with some of whom I am acquainted, I was unable to convey to them the agreeable tidings, having myself had so little notice... At Goesa, in Zealand, where Lansberg lately flourished, it [the Transit] commenced at fourteen minutes past three, and the Sun set at fifty-five minutes past three, consequently it might have been seen there. But no one excepting Lansberg and his friend Hortensius, both of whom I hear are dead, would trouble themselves about the matter; nor is it probable that, if living, they would be willing to acknowledge a phenomenon which would convict their much-vaunted tables of gross inaccuracy...In short, Venus was visible in the Sun throughout nearly the whole of Italy, France, and Spain; but in none of those countries during the entire continuance of the transit. But America! O fortunatos nimium bona Si sua norit! Venus! Which riches dost thou squander on unworthy regions, which attempt to repay such favors with gold, the paltry product of their mines. Let these barbarians keep their precious metals to themselves, the incentives to evil, which we are content to do without. These rude people would indeed ask from us too much should they deprive us of those celestial riches, the use of which they are not able to comprehend. But let us cease this complaint O Venus! and attend to thee ere thou dost depart.'

http://dykins.webs.com/williamcrabtree.htm