To all:- I would love to know how many names have been listed on the many pages which now comprise the British Home Children site:- http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~britishhomechildren/ Our hats are off to Perry Snow and Bryan Keddy for "a job well done!" Twice this evening, I clicked on the URL and found a name that a writer had been searching for some time -- the back button even works. Thanks, Perry and Bryan! Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html

Greetings All. As of this morning the MP Scoreboard of the Post 1901 Census Project website located at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census has been updated to reflect the changes necessary because of the federal election. 48 changes were made to the list of MPs. Should you find any errors on the changes made please let me know. One word of caution, the email addresses shown for new MPs were calculated on the same basis as the addresses for the old MPs and may be subject to error. It may also take a short time for the government webmasters to get up to date on MPs email addresses. Any problems with mail bouncing when using the addresses shown should be reported to me. Thank you. Gordon A. WATTS gordon_watts@telus.net Port Coquitlam, BC Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm This message has been sent to the Alberta-L, Canada-Census-Campaign-L, Can-British-Columbia-L, Census-Chat-L, Colchester, Lunen-Links-L, Nova-Scotia-L, Ontario-L, PictouRoots, Roots-L, Watts-L, and Wiltshire-EMI-L mail lists. Permission to forward without notification is granted.

Hi Gail and many others:- Have you checked the BHC site today???? Perry Snow has worked many long hours, some in consultation with Bryan Keddy, and I just clicked on the URL -- up popped two BROCKLEBANK people. The site BRITISH HOME CHILDREN has been linked to one of our census sites http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Bryan Keddy and I have this site, it includes genealogy from coast-to-coast-to-coast -- Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic. One of the main problems, as Bryan found, was the size of the files. Perry has made, for example, more than one page for the "B" listings. This was one that would NOT open for me at all -- no problem this evening. Enjoy!!! If there are problems, let Perry or Bryan know what the problem is, please. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> gsmith wrote: > I thought this was an interesting tidbit of information, and worth sharing, in the event someone else found it to be potentially relevant in their search. I received it today via e-mail from Mary Munk, Genealogical Consultant, from the National Archives of Canada: > > "Further to my reply of 17 November, I recently learned that ships travelling > down the St. Lawrence River to Quebec City stopped at Rimouski to take a > river pilot on board. Apparently, while stopped at Rimouski, some passengers > disembarked there, in particular those destined for the Maritime provinces, > including some children sent by the Middlemore Homes." > > Since the only thing I know of my father in Canada is that he was known to be in Rimouski around 1910, with no clue as to how he got there, it was one small ray of hope for me. > > Also today, via snail-mail, I received a letter from Middlemore Homes confirming receipt of my inquiry. They informed me that there is approximately an 8-10 week delay in dealing with searches. > > So, I continue to wait, but now, at least, with one extra little shred of hope to cling to! > > Gail > Snowing in the UP of Michigan > Searching for information on my father, BHC Thomas Gordon BROCKLEBANK > > ==== BRITISHHOMECHILDREN Mailing List ==== > BHC Registry (Database)and BHC Website: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~britishhomechildren > BHC Chat: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/descendantsofhomechildren > > ============================== > Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp > Search over 2500 databases with one easy query!

Hi Harold. I thank you for your kind words for our efforts to obtain public access to Historic Census Records. Like you I have connections in England, specifically in the Ramsbury Parish, Wiltshire area. As I have stated a number of times, our problem is because of a misinterpretation of legislation going back as far as 1905. In regards to your suggestion that we might get a better response if we limited the information we seek, this is something that has been suggested a number of times. The problem is that most of the records have been transferred to microfiche and the paper originals have been destroyed. Because of this it would be next to impossible to separate part of the information for release, while withholding the rest of it, and Statistics Canada has rejected this idea out of hand. The information contained in the 1901 Census of Canada (which has been released and is available) is essentially that which you indicate was contained in the English censuses for 1881 and 1891. Up until about the 1970s, questions on census were relatively unobtrusive, however since then the long form of census has asked things that many would find intrusive, at least in the present time. For your information I copy here a few paragraphs from a letter that I have just completed to be sent to the newly appointed Privacy Commissioner, George Radwanski. "The few people that have expressed opposition to allowing public access to Historic Census have all been politicians or bureaucrats. Your predecessor Mr. Phillips, and Senator Lowell Murray have both made statements that, in my humble opinion, border on paranoia. Their statements give the impression that there are millions of people, for various nefarious reasons, just waiting to get their hands on their "personal" information. They further give the impression that these millions of villains seek current information on them, rather than 92 year old information on their own ancestors. Nothing could be further from the truth. These opponents to public access of Historic Census records point to the "increasingly intrusive nature of questions asked in Census". No matter how "intrusive" the questions might be in the present time, it is impossible to visualize how these questions could be harmful to someone 92 years in the future. Rather than attempt the permanent suppression of Census records because of these supposedly "intrusive" questions, one might ask why it is necessary to ask them at all, at least in connection with Census. Statistics Canada conducts hundreds of surveys each year, almost all of which respondents are required by law to answer. Questions currently asked on the "long form" of Census distributed to twenty percent of respondents could easily be asked on a separate survey, if necessary, at the same time that Census is conducted.. Indications are that in the United States, following the Census of 2000, the long form of Census will be discontinued. Their Census will be returned to the purpose for which it was originally intended - an enumeration of the population. Canada would do well, as they have done many times in the past, to follow suit." If Statistics Canada returned the Census to it's original purpose, an enumeration of the population of the country, in my opinion we would have little or no problems with it's release. Rather than attempt to suppress Census, other countries of the Western World are making every effort to make their Census records more easily available to the public. Australia, who Statistics Canada have held up as a Nation that destroyed their Census, now has a policy of retention and release to the Public after 100 years. The United States releases their Census, with great public fanfare, after 72 years, and there are at least two commercial enterprises currently digitizing all past US Census records for access via the Internet. In England, rather than using commercial enterprises, the Public Records Office itself is taking steps to digitize the 1901 Census of England and Wales, and will allow access to it via the Internet starting 1 January 2002." See my latest column for the Global Gazette, currently on line at http://globalgazette.com for further information on this. Once again I thank you for your interest and support in our efforts, and I hope that I have answered your questions. Gordon A. WATTS gordon_watts@telus.net Port Coquitlam, BC Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harold Tuthill" <tuthill@amtelecom.net> To: <gordon_watts@telus.net> Sent: Monday, 04 December, 2000 12:27 PM Subject: The Canadian Census Hello Mr. Watts, I have been following the census question with great interest. I must confess that it probably won't make much difference to me because my research is in England, but I hope that you succeed for the benefit of others. You are to be commended for the effort you are putting forth in this respect. Permit me to make a few short observations. I can understand why parliament decided that a confidentiality provision was required. I don't know what is in the 1901 census, but certainly much of the information in the recent census questionnaires should not be released. It would be my opinion that you might get a better response if you requested release of a very limited amount of information for each address. For example, the information that is contained in the English censuses for 1881 and 1891 would suffice - names, ages, place of birth, occupation, relationship to principle householder. That's all that is required. Perhaps you have already limited your request to that, but if so, make it clear to us all. Respectfully, Harold Tuthill

However: I understand the consent age for intercourse in Canada is 14 years. Does this mean an 8 year old can get married, but cannot have sex? I find it really interesting that one could get married, have sex and have a baby, but cannot have a drink until much later in life. duh !!! On 30 Nov 2000, at 22:58, Gordon A. WATTS wrote: > Hi Stella. > > My original read of this was the same as yours, however, further > down the article states; > > "it has been asserted that a marriage before the English Age of > Marriage Act 1929, (90) attempted under the age of seven years, was > void ipso jurs. " > > Gordon > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stella Stanger" <sstanger@coord2.ucs.sfu.ca> > To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, 30 November, 2000 8:36 PM > Subject: Re: [CCC] Marriage laws as early as 7!!!!! legal wording but > may answer why you have such early ages. > > > Hi, Just another thought on the matter of: > <snip> > "[1015] Age > The minimum age requirement at common law, has, for most practical > purposes, been supplanted by provincial legislation. At common law, > derived from ecclesiastical law, the marriage less than seven years > was void <snip> I may have misread this "but" Perhaps this does not > mean that the marriage was not of a 7 year old person - but in fact - > That a "common law marriage - (marriage without benefit of clergy or > licence) that lasted less than 7 years was not considered a marriage > at all. Thus there would be no spousal support, no support for > children of the union, no inheritance rights, no rights to pensions, > and no rights to common property for the female who entered into this > arrangement. I do believe that up until a number of years ago - the > persons (female) involved in this type of arrangement had no legal > rights. Cheers, Stella > > At 12:52 AM 11/30/00 -0500, Muriel M. Davidson wrote: > >Hi all, > >A fellow lister sent me this information which I think may be > useful > >to the Canadian searchers. I hope you are just as amazed as I was! > >Happy hunting, Lori-Ann > > > >MARRIAGE > > > >page 260 CCH Canadian Family Law Guide [1999] > > > >"Marriage Acts have been enacted in all nine common law provinces and > >in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory. The Solemnization > >of marriage in Quebec is dealt with in the Civil Code of Quebec." > > > >"[1010] CAPACITY > >In order to contract a valid marriage, a person must have the > >'capacity' to do so; that is, a person must have a legal right > >to enter into the marital relationship. Notwithstanding the > >jurisdiction of Parliament to legislate in respect of capacity, > >or the essential validity of marriage, the field has largely > >been left to be filled by provincial and territorial legislatures. In > >many cases, resort must be had to the common law." > > > >"[1015] Age > >The minimum age requirement at common law, has, for most practical > purposes, > >been supplanted by provincial legislation. At common law, derived > from > >ecclesiastical law, the marriage less than seven years > >was void. The age of consent was generally considered to be 12 > years > >for a girl and 14 for a boy (see the Ontario Law Reform Commission, > >Report on Family Law, Part II, 'Marriage', 1970 pp.36-38) > > > >In Ontario, the Marriage Act, provides, at subsection 5(1), that a > >person 'who is of the age of majority' may lawfully obtain a license > >or be married under authority of the publication of banns. > >Subsections 5(2), et seq., effectively prohibit the marriage of a > >minor, except where he or she is at least 16 years of age and has the > >consent, in writing, of his or her parent(s) or guardian(s). Where > >the required consent cannot be reasonably obtained, an application > >may be made in accordance with section 6 for an order > dispensing > >consent. > > > >Such an order dispensing with consent was granted in Re Fox, [1973] 1 > >O.R. 146 (Co. Ct.). The Court found that the consent of the father > >to the marriage of his 16 year old daughter was being 'unreasonably > >and arbitrarily withheld'. > > > >In Alberta, the marriage of a female who is under the age of 16 may > lawfully > >take place, provided that she is either pregnant or the > >mother of a living child, subsection 16(2) of the Marriage Act. > >Parental consent, or its equivalent, is required ..." > > > >REPORT ON FAMILY LAW > >ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION > >PART II MARRIAGE > >DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [1970] > > > >page 36 > >"(c) Age for Capacity to Marry > >At common law a valid marriage could be contracted if the female had > >reached the age of twelve and the male had reached the age of > >fourteen years. (85) This rule originated as a presumption of the > >canon law as to the age at which a marriage might be consummated, a > >presumption rebuttable on the facts at any given age. (86) As applied > >by common law, the presumptive nature of the rule ceased and the age > >of marriage was fixed and certain. The canon law further required > >that the parties should have reached an age of rational consent, > >which it settled at seven years. Below this age marriage was, at > >canon law, impossible, a purported union resulting in a matrimonium > >non existens. It seems that this > additional > >requirement of the canon law did not find acceptance > >at common law. Coke said that he would gave dower regardless of the > >late husband's age at marriage 'albeit he were but 4 years > old'. > >(87) Apparently the betrothal or attempted betrothal of children who > >were less than seven years old occurred not infrequently. (88) Comyns > >(89) stated without qualification that by common law persons might > >marry at any age, but more recently, it has been asserted that a > >marriage before the English Age of Marriage Act 1929, (90) attempted > >under the age of seven years, was void ipso jurs. (91) Such a > >question is not likely to arise for a decision today. If it were so, > >it might be noted that the factors which formerly motivated infant > >marriages either are not persuasive or do not exist. (92) > > > >A marriage where a party under the age was not devoid of all > effect, > >but it was inchoate and imperfect. (93) It was open to either of > the > >parties to > >affirm or avoid the marriage on the party under the age of > matrimonial consent > >attaining this age. Such election could not be > >made before this occurred, but, once affirmed, the marriage > thereafter became > >irrevocably binding. If the parties wished to affirm the > >marriage no new ceremony was necessary; it was sufficient evidence of > >affirmation if, for example, the parties continued to live > together. > > > >The power to make laws with regard to marriage and divorce is > >distributed between the Parliament of Canada and the Provincial ... > " > >------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >(85) Kenn's Case (1606), 7 Co. Rep, 42b; Arnold v. Earle > >(1758), 2 Lee. 529; R. V Gordon (1803), Russ. And Ry. 48; > >Pugh v. Pugh, [1951] P. 482; R. V. Ball [1857], 18 U.C.Q.B. > >287; Hobson v. Gray [1958], 13 D.L.R., (2d) 404; Mouton v. > >Mouton, [1942], W.N. (N.S.W.) 49; Re An Infant [1963], 6 > >F.L.R. 12. And see D'Anvers Translation of Rolle's > >Abridgement, Vol. I, 700; Co. Litt. 79; Comyas Digest, Baron > >and Femme (5th ed. 1822) 215. > >(86) Pollack and Maitland, The History of English Law [1959] > >Vol. 2, at pp. 390 and 391; Jackson, The Formation and > >Anulment of Marriage [11951], at pp. 19 and 20. > >(87) Co. Litt, 33a. Also, Jackson, ep. Cil. Supra, note 86 > >at p. 20 "In practice, however, the temperal law seems > >widely to have ignored the doctrine that marriages under hte > >age of seven were absolutely void and non-existant". > >(88) Pollack and Maitland, op. Cit. Supra, note 86, at p. > >391. > >(89) Comyns, op. Cit. Suopra, note 85, at p. 215. > >(90) 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 36; now new section 2 of the > >Marriage Act, 1949, 12, 13, &14 Geo. 6, c. 76. > >(91) Rayden, Practicer and Law of Divorce (9th ed, 1964), at > >p. 79. See also Cartwright and Lovekin, The Law and > >Practice of Divorce in Canada (3rd ed., 1962), at p. 62, "At > >common law no person under the age of seven could contract > >marriage". > >(92) Pollack and Maitland, op. Cit. Supra, note 86, at p. > >391. > >(93) Co. Litt. 79; B1. Comm., Vol. 1, at pp. 435 and 436; > >Comyns, op. Cit. Supra, note 85, at p. 215. But see Hlliatt > >and Sugden v. Gurr [1812], 2 Phill. Ecc. 16, at p. 19 per > >Sir John Nicholl; "...civil liberties, such as ... want of > >age ... make the contract void ab initiv, not merely void > >able ... ". > > > >Page 37 > > > >" ... Legislatures. By Section 91 (26) of the British North > >America Act, exclusive legislative jurisdiction over > >'Marriage and Divorce' is assigned to the Parliament of > >Canada. By section 92 (12) exclusive legislation > >jurisdiction in relation to 'The Solemnization of marriage > >in the Provinces' as assigned to the Provincial > >Legislatures. In the case of Re Marriage Legislation in > >Canada, the Privy Council decided that this head of power > >operates by way of exception to the powers conferred by > >section 91 (26) (94) On the subject of solemnization, The > >Marriage Act of Ontario is therefore to be construed as > >'exhaustive'. (95) > > > >The supreme Court of Canada has recognized the distinction > >between the formalities of the ceremony of marriage and the > >status or capacity required to contract marriage. (96) > >Formalities fall within the head of 'solemnization of > >marriage' which includes not only the ceremony itself, but > >also the various steps leading to it. Provincial > >legislation relating thereto is intra vives. The question > >of capacity to marry, however, is an area outside provincial > >legislature competence. > > > >A consideration of the pertinent case law dealing with > >provincial legislation in this area (97) indicates that > >provincial enactment's may not effect, and will not be > >construed to effect the capacity of a person to marry. > >The result is that while provincial legislation may validly > >require certain conditions to be fulfilled before the > >marriage may be solemnized, failure to comply with these > >formal requirements will not result in invalidity of the > >marriage unless the legislation specifically requires this > >penalty for non-compliance. (98) > > > >For these reasons, the provisions of The Marriage Act of > >Ontario which deal with the matter of age for solemnization > >of marriage can not be construed as affecting the capacity > >of persons to marry. In addition, they are directed at > >issuers of licenses and solemnizes of marriages rather than > >the parties themselves, and the invalidity is a prescribed > >consequence of failure to comply with the requirements. It > >therefore does not appear that the marriage entered in the > >provisions of the Act would be void. Indeed, in cases where > >the parties were acting in good faith, the marriage might be > >saved explicitly by section 46 of the Act. In any event, > >where the capacity of the parties is concerned, in the > >absence of federal legislation the common law must govern. > >Thus, if to prevent illegitimacy of offspring, a license is > >issued to a female person under twelve ... ". > >------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >(94) [1912] A.C. 330, at p.887 per Viscount Haldane, L.C. > >See also Laskin, Canadian Constitutional Law (2nd ed 1960), > >at p. 978. > >(95) Alspector v. Alspector, [1957] O.R., 454, at p. 462 > >(96) Kerr v. Kerr and Attorney General for Ontario [1934] > >S.C.R. 72; Neison v. Underwood [1936] S.C.R. 635; see also > >Re Marriage Legislation in Canada, [1912] A.C. 380, and > >Gilham v. Steele [1953] 2 D.L.R. 89. > >(97) Hobson v. Gray [1958], 13 D.L.R. (2nd) 404 (Alta, > >S.C.); Ross v. MacQueen [1948] 2 D.L.R. 536 (Alta. S.C.); > >and Colvin v. Colvin [1952] 3 D.L.R., S10 (B.C.S.C.) > >(98) See e.g., Kerr v. Kerr and Attorney General for Ontario > >[1934] S.C.R. 72, where the Supreme Court of Canada upheld > >the Constitutional validity of s. 17 (1) of the Marriage > >Act, R.S.O. 1927 c. 81, which prescibed the prior consent of > >a parent or guardian to the marriage of a minor as a > >condition precedent to a valid marriage. The contents > >required were characterized as essential elements in the > >ceremony itself, rather than as matters related to capacity. > >The decision also upheld the validity of those provisions of > >the Marriage Act declaring that marriages solemnized in the > >absence of the required consents were deemed to be void". > > > > > >Sunshine, Rainbows & Smiles Always :o) > >http://www.dreamwater.com/larc/LarcLandindex.html > > Michael Carter University of New Brunswick Department of Physical Plant PO Box 4400 Fredericton NB E3B 5A3 Phone: 506-453-4714 Fax: 506-453-5183 E-mail: carter@unb.ca

To all:- There is a new family member on our coast-to-coast-to-coast genealogy site: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html I suggested this to Bryan as British Home Children and the stories have become very dear to me. At present, many may still have problems opening some of the lists, as these are massive and done on a special format. Bryan has offered to work with Perry Snow so all will be as "smooth as silk" (I also complained). Visit the new LCCCC family member -- BRITISH HOME CHILDREN - you will be surprised how many children were sent from England at various times, names changed, siblings separated -- the search goes on. It is hopeful the 1906 and 1911 census records will hold a number of answers. To BHC:- May I suggest one person collect ALL petitions then forward to Gordon Watts for House of Commons and to myself for the Senate. In this way, we will guarantee your petitions are kept separate. The scoreboard has been updated -- hard-copy letters are read, e-mails are counted as to category, postage is FREE in Canada -- so W-R-I-T-E-!-!-! Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canada Census Campaign Committee member http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm

To all family researchers who use census records:- The election is over, there is a new format for petitions, Gordon Watts has updated the Member of Parliament Scoreboard as of Nov. 29, 2000. I know Senator Lorna Milne will be using the same wording in a Private Member's Bill on our behalf. Murray Calder, MP was re-elected -- he had the duplicate of Senator Milne's Private Member's Bill, but in House of Commons. When both receive approval to present their Private Member's Bills, these will likely have numbers different than S-15 and C-484 -- these are assigned by some department of Parliament -- I will let Gordon Watts and his love of Hansard answer all this. One main and important fact I learned from Senator Milne is that she needs ALL THE CANADIAN PETITIONS she can get -- would like these for the First Reading -- which will be after February 1, 2001. Non-Canadian Petitions are greatly desired, but may only be used with the Second Reading. Canadians -- if you wish the post-1901 census records released, let's get busy and collect signatures from all family and friends, get the petitions out in libraries, genealogical societies -- and back to either Gordon Watts or myself -- our addresses are on the petitions, downloadable in PDF format from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm Groups may send in "packages of petitions" -- for example, British Home Children and other groups. Please do not mark anything extra on the petition -- a "sticky" note will do -- I will put these in a separate envelope for Lorna as I know Gordon will do for Murray Calder. Check http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm Nov. 29, 2000 totals included 97 GOLD, 7 NO, 49 FENCE-SITTING and a total of 148 QUESTION MARKS. [These include new Members of Parliament] For anyone unable to use Adobe Acrobat, contact me -- tell me which petition(s) you need, and I will send attachments {I use Norton - virus-free} Canadians may sign TWO petitions, one for Senate, one House of Commons. Gordon and I will be looking for stuffed mail-boxes from now on -- we have to help Lorna and Murray to help us. Also, you will find many web sites are being linked to a census site -- if a reader has a web page, just ask -- more exposure for your site. My page is linked to http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html with a "designer flag logo" created by Barney Kaufman. A click on this and I am transported to the census pages, with petitions, scoreboard, etc. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canada Census Committee member http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html [OUR coast-to-coast-to-coast genealogy site]

The following address may be given to anyone -- was sent to me by a politician. Mr. Paul Johnson Census Pension Searches Unit Census Operations Division Statistics Canada B 1 E - 34, Jean Talon Building Tunney's Pasture Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0T6 Fax: (613) 951-5969 The above department has worked for several -- all census records are at National Archives -- up to 1996 -- only we cannot view any after 1901. What one would get -- for a small fee -- would be an extract. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canada Census Committee

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~britishhomechildren To all:- The above site is the latest to be linked to the LCCCC pages:- http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html There may still some "bugs" to work out , have been complaints that some of the letters in the various lists did not work. Bryan Keddy and Perry Snow are in contact with each other, and there should be no further complaints -- give them about a week, please. The lists are in alphabetical order, with ships, dates, areas being sent. We know you will enjoy this -- even if not researching British Home Children. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm LCCCC = Lunenburg County's Canadian Census Campaign

Hello Sandy:- I am copying your item of news to CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN list, someone might know more -- it is one of my favorite topics, anyway. I have suggested Non-Canadians assist with petitions to help get our Post-1901 Census records released. The site is given as follows:- http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm Senator Lorna Milne will be presenting a Private Member's Bill when our Canadian Parliament re-convenes following the recent election. All petitions from British Home Children people will be presented in one HUGE (we hope) package and be recorded in official Hansard. The invitation is out -- gather up petitions and send to me -- address given. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canada Census Committee "Sandy, Lenny and Family" wrote: > Hi everyone, > Today there was an article in the paper "The West Australian" talking about > compensation for those sent out here in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's. They > mentioned that other children were also sent to America, but they make no > mention of Canada at all. There is a group of 98 who are appealing to the > British Govt for compensation at the way they were treated when they arrived > here. They are also still trying to get their records to find out if they > have relatives or not. Hopefully something will come out of this, and one > advantage those who were sent to Australia have is that they are still alive > and able to pursue their past whereas a lot of the poor souls who were sent > to Canada died not knowing. > Good luck to everyone in their searches for the truth about their families. > > Sandy > > Sandy and Lenny Jones > 79 Endersbee Street, > MERREDIN WA 6415 > sanjones@wn.com.au > > ==== BRITISHHOMECHILDREN Mailing List ==== > BHC Registry (Database)and BHC Website: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~britishhomechildren > BHC Chat: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/descendantsofhomechildren > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB

To all:- The posting re "marriage, etc." was copied as sent by someone else. I presume, although different today, the seven years applies to the length of time a man and woman lived together without benefit of clergy. This also affects census records -- I have found it in families being researched. No marriage date existed -- luckily, no children!! Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Stella Stanger wrote: > Hi, Just another thought on the matter of: > <snip> > "[1015] Age > The minimum age requirement at common law, has, for most practical purposes, > been supplanted by provincial legislation. At common law, derived from > ecclesiastical law, the marriage less than seven years > was void <snip> > I may have misread this "but" > Perhaps this does not mean that the marriage was not of a 7 year old person > - but in fact - > That a "common law marriage - (marriage without benefit of clergy or > licence) that lasted less than 7 years was not considered a marriage at > all. Thus there would be no spousal support, no support for children of the > union, no inheritance rights, no rights to pensions, and no rights to > common property for the female who entered into this arrangement. > I do believe that up until a number of years ago - the persons (female) > involved in this type of arrangement had no legal rights. > Cheers, Stella > > At 12:52 AM 11/30/00 -0500, Muriel M. Davidson wrote: > >Hi all, > >A fellow lister sent me this information which I think may be useful > >to the Canadian searchers. I hope you are just as amazed as I was! > >Happy hunting, > >Lori-Ann > > > >MARRIAGE > > > >page 260 CCH Canadian Family Law Guide [1999] > > > >"Marriage Acts have been enacted in all nine common law provinces > >and in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory. The > >Solemnization of marriage in Quebec is dealt with in the Civil > >Code of Quebec." > > > >"[1010] CAPACITY > >In order to contract a valid marriage, a person must have the > >'capacity' to do so; that is, a person must have a legal right > >to enter into the marital relationship. Notwithstanding the > >jurisdiction of Parliament to legislate in respect of capacity, > >or the essential validity of marriage, the field has largely > >been left to be filled by provincial and territorial legislatures. > >In many cases, resort must be had to the common law." > > > >"[1015] Age > >The minimum age requirement at common law, has, for most practical purposes, > >been supplanted by provincial legislation. At common law, derived from > >ecclesiastical law, the marriage less than seven years > >was void. The age of consent was generally considered to be 12 years > >for a girl and 14 for a boy (see the Ontario Law Reform Commission, > >Report on Family Law, Part II, 'Marriage', 1970 pp.36-38) > > > >In Ontario, the Marriage Act, provides, at subsection 5(1), that > >a person 'who is of the age of majority' may lawfully obtain a > >license or be married under authority of the publication of > >banns. Subsections > >5(2), et seq., effectively prohibit the marriage of a > >minor, except where he or she is at least 16 years of age and has > >the consent, in writing, of his or her parent(s) or guardian(s). > >Where the required consent cannot be reasonably obtained, an > >application may be made in accordance with section 6 for an order dispensing > >consent. > > > >Such an order dispensing with consent was granted in Re Fox, [1973] > >1 O.R. 146 (Co. Ct.). The Court found that the consent of the > >father to the marriage of his 16 year old daughter was being > >'unreasonably and arbitrarily withheld'. > > > >In Alberta, the marriage of a female who is under the age of 16 may lawfully > >take place, provided that she is either pregnant or the > >mother of a living child, subsection 16(2) of the Marriage Act. > >Parental consent, or its equivalent, is required ..." > > > >REPORT ON FAMILY LAW > >ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION > >PART II MARRIAGE > >DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [1970] > > > >page 36 > >"(c) Age for Capacity to Marry > >At common law a valid marriage could be contracted if the female > >had reached the age of twelve and the male had reached the age > >of fourteen years. (85) This rule originated as a presumption > >of the canon law as to the age at which a marriage might be > >consummated, a presumption rebuttable on the facts at any given > >age. (86) As applied by common law, the presumptive nature of the > >rule ceased and the age of marriage was fixed and certain. The > >canon law further required that the parties should have reached > >an age of rational consent, which it settled at seven years. > >Below this age marriage was, at canon law, impossible, a purported > >union resulting in a matrimonium non existens. It seems that this additional > >requirement of the canon law did not find acceptance > >at common law. Coke said that he would gave dower regardless of > >the late husband's age at marriage 'albeit he were but 4 years old'. > >(87) Apparently the betrothal or attempted betrothal of children > >who were less than seven years old occurred not infrequently. (88) > >Comyns (89) stated without qualification that by common law persons > >might marry at any age, but more recently, it has been asserted > >that a marriage before the English Age of Marriage Act 1929, (90) > >attempted under the age of seven years, was void ipso jurs. (91) > >Such a question is not likely to arise for a decision today. If it > >were so, it might be noted that the factors which formerly > >motivated infant marriages either are not persuasive or do not > >exist. (92) > > > >A marriage where a party under the age was not devoid of all effect, > >but it was inchoate and imperfect. (93) It was open to either of the > >parties to > >affirm or avoid the marriage on the party under the age of matrimonial consent > >attaining this age. Such election could not be > >made before this occurred, but, once affirmed, the marriage thereafter became > >irrevocably binding. If the parties wished to affirm the > >marriage no new ceremony was necessary; it was sufficient evidence > >of affirmation if, for example, the parties continued to live together. > > > >The power to make laws with regard to marriage and divorce is > >distributed between the Parliament of Canada and the Provincial ... " > >------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >(85) Kenn's Case (1606), 7 Co. Rep, 42b; Arnold v. Earle > >(1758), 2 Lee. 529; R. V Gordon (1803), Russ. And Ry. 48; > >Pugh v. Pugh, [1951] P. 482; R. V. Ball [1857], 18 U.C.Q.B. > >287; Hobson v. Gray [1958], 13 D.L.R., (2d) 404; Mouton v. > >Mouton, [1942], W.N. (N.S.W.) 49; Re An Infant [1963], 6 > >F.L.R. 12. And see D'Anvers Translation of Rolle's > >Abridgement, Vol. I, 700; Co. Litt. 79; Comyas Digest, Baron > >and Femme (5th ed. 1822) 215. > >(86) Pollack and Maitland, The History of English Law [1959] > >Vol. 2, at pp. 390 and 391; Jackson, The Formation and > >Anulment of Marriage [11951], at pp. 19 and 20. > >(87) Co. Litt, 33a. Also, Jackson, ep. Cil. Supra, note 86 > >at p. 20 "In practice, however, the temperal law seems > >widely to have ignored the doctrine that marriages under hte > >age of seven were absolutely void and non-existant". > >(88) Pollack and Maitland, op. Cit. Supra, note 86, at p. > >391. > >(89) Comyns, op. Cit. Suopra, note 85, at p. 215. > >(90) 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 36; now new section 2 of the > >Marriage Act, 1949, 12, 13, &14 Geo. 6, c. 76. > >(91) Rayden, Practicer and Law of Divorce (9th ed, 1964), at > >p. 79. See also Cartwright and Lovekin, The Law and > >Practice of Divorce in Canada (3rd ed., 1962), at p. 62, "At > >common law no person under the age of seven could contract > >marriage". > >(92) Pollack and Maitland, op. Cit. Supra, note 86, at p. > >391. > >(93) Co. Litt. 79; B1. Comm., Vol. 1, at pp. 435 and 436; > >Comyns, op. Cit. Supra, note 85, at p. 215. But see Hlliatt > >and Sugden v. Gurr [1812], 2 Phill. Ecc. 16, at p. 19 per > >Sir John Nicholl; "...civil liberties, such as ... want of > >age ... make the contract void ab initiv, not merely void > >able ... ". > > > >Page 37 > > > >" ... Legislatures. By Section 91 (26) of the British North > >America Act, exclusive legislative jurisdiction over > >'Marriage and Divorce' is assigned to the Parliament of > >Canada. By section 92 (12) exclusive legislation > >jurisdiction in relation to 'The Solemnization of marriage > >in the Provinces' as assigned to the Provincial > >Legislatures. In the case of Re Marriage Legislation in > >Canada, the Privy Council decided that this head of power > >operates by way of exception to the powers conferred by > >section 91 (26) (94) On the subject of solemnization, The > >Marriage Act of Ontario is therefore to be construed as > >'exhaustive'. (95) > > > >The supreme Court of Canada has recognized the distinction > >between the formalities of the ceremony of marriage and the > >status or capacity required to contract marriage. (96) > >Formalities fall within the head of 'solemnization of > >marriage' which includes not only the ceremony itself, but > >also the various steps leading to it. Provincial > >legislation relating thereto is intra vives. The question > >of capacity to marry, however, is an area outside provincial > >legislature competence. > > > >A consideration of the pertinent case law dealing with > >provincial legislation in this area (97) indicates that > >provincial enactment's may not effect, and will not be > >construed to effect the capacity of a person to marry. > >The result is that while provincial legislation may validly > >require certain conditions to be fulfilled before the > >marriage may be solemnized, failure to comply with these > >formal requirements will not result in invalidity of the > >marriage unless the legislation specifically requires this > >penalty for non-compliance. (98) > > > >For these reasons, the provisions of The Marriage Act of > >Ontario which deal with the matter of age for solemnization > >of marriage can not be construed as affecting the capacity > >of persons to marry. In addition, they are directed at > >issuers of licenses and solemnizes of marriages rather than > >the parties themselves, and the invalidity is a prescribed > >consequence of failure to comply with the requirements. It > >therefore does not appear that the marriage entered in the > >provisions of the Act would be void. Indeed, in cases where > >the parties were acting in good faith, the marriage might be > >saved explicitly by section 46 of the Act. In any event, > >where the capacity of the parties is concerned, in the > >absence of federal legislation the common law must govern. > >Thus, if to prevent illegitimacy of offspring, a license is > >issued to a female person under twelve ... ". > >------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >(94) [1912] A.C. 330, at p.887 per Viscount Haldane, L.C. > >See also Laskin, Canadian Constitutional Law (2nd ed 1960), > >at p. 978. > >(95) Alspector v. Alspector, [1957] O.R., 454, at p. 462 > >(96) Kerr v. Kerr and Attorney General for Ontario [1934] > >S.C.R. 72; Neison v. Underwood [1936] S.C.R. 635; see also > >Re Marriage Legislation in Canada, [1912] A.C. 380, and > >Gilham v. Steele [1953] 2 D.L.R. 89. > >(97) Hobson v. Gray [1958], 13 D.L.R. (2nd) 404 (Alta, > >S.C.); Ross v. MacQueen [1948] 2 D.L.R. 536 (Alta. S.C.); > >and Colvin v. Colvin [1952] 3 D.L.R., S10 (B.C.S.C.) > >(98) See e.g., Kerr v. Kerr and Attorney General for Ontario > >[1934] S.C.R. 72, where the Supreme Court of Canada upheld > >the Constitutional validity of s. 17 (1) of the Marriage > >Act, R.S.O. 1927 c. 81, which prescibed the prior consent of > >a parent or guardian to the marriage of a minor as a > >condition precedent to a valid marriage. The contents > >required were characterized as essential elements in the > >ceremony itself, rather than as matters related to capacity. > >The decision also upheld the validity of those provisions of > >the Marriage Act declaring that marriages solemnized in the > >absence of the required consents were deemed to be void". > > > > > >Sunshine, Rainbows & Smiles Always :o) > >http://www.dreamwater.com/larc/LarcLandindex.html

Hi Stella. My original read of this was the same as yours, however, further down the article states; "it has been asserted that a marriage before the English Age of Marriage Act 1929, (90) attempted under the age of seven years, was void ipso jurs. " Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stella Stanger" <sstanger@coord2.ucs.sfu.ca> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, 30 November, 2000 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [CCC] Marriage laws as early as 7!!!!! legal wording but may answer why you have such early ages. Hi, Just another thought on the matter of: <snip> "[1015] Age The minimum age requirement at common law, has, for most practical purposes, been supplanted by provincial legislation. At common law, derived from ecclesiastical law, the marriage less than seven years was void <snip> I may have misread this "but" Perhaps this does not mean that the marriage was not of a 7 year old person - but in fact - That a "common law marriage - (marriage without benefit of clergy or licence) that lasted less than 7 years was not considered a marriage at all. Thus there would be no spousal support, no support for children of the union, no inheritance rights, no rights to pensions, and no rights to common property for the female who entered into this arrangement. I do believe that up until a number of years ago - the persons (female) involved in this type of arrangement had no legal rights. Cheers, Stella At 12:52 AM 11/30/00 -0500, Muriel M. Davidson wrote: >Hi all, >A fellow lister sent me this information which I think may be useful >to the Canadian searchers. I hope you are just as amazed as I was! >Happy hunting, >Lori-Ann > >MARRIAGE > >page 260 CCH Canadian Family Law Guide [1999] > >"Marriage Acts have been enacted in all nine common law provinces >and in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory. The >Solemnization of marriage in Quebec is dealt with in the Civil >Code of Quebec." > >"[1010] CAPACITY >In order to contract a valid marriage, a person must have the >'capacity' to do so; that is, a person must have a legal right >to enter into the marital relationship. Notwithstanding the >jurisdiction of Parliament to legislate in respect of capacity, >or the essential validity of marriage, the field has largely >been left to be filled by provincial and territorial legislatures. >In many cases, resort must be had to the common law." > >"[1015] Age >The minimum age requirement at common law, has, for most practical purposes, >been supplanted by provincial legislation. At common law, derived from >ecclesiastical law, the marriage less than seven years >was void. The age of consent was generally considered to be 12 years >for a girl and 14 for a boy (see the Ontario Law Reform Commission, >Report on Family Law, Part II, 'Marriage', 1970 pp.36-38) > >In Ontario, the Marriage Act, provides, at subsection 5(1), that >a person 'who is of the age of majority' may lawfully obtain a >license or be married under authority of the publication of >banns. Subsections >5(2), et seq., effectively prohibit the marriage of a >minor, except where he or she is at least 16 years of age and has >the consent, in writing, of his or her parent(s) or guardian(s). >Where the required consent cannot be reasonably obtained, an >application may be made in accordance with section 6 for an order dispensing >consent. > >Such an order dispensing with consent was granted in Re Fox, [1973] >1 O.R. 146 (Co. Ct.). The Court found that the consent of the >father to the marriage of his 16 year old daughter was being >'unreasonably and arbitrarily withheld'. > >In Alberta, the marriage of a female who is under the age of 16 may lawfully >take place, provided that she is either pregnant or the >mother of a living child, subsection 16(2) of the Marriage Act. >Parental consent, or its equivalent, is required ..." > >REPORT ON FAMILY LAW >ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION >PART II MARRIAGE >DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [1970] > >page 36 >"(c) Age for Capacity to Marry >At common law a valid marriage could be contracted if the female >had reached the age of twelve and the male had reached the age >of fourteen years. (85) This rule originated as a presumption >of the canon law as to the age at which a marriage might be >consummated, a presumption rebuttable on the facts at any given >age. (86) As applied by common law, the presumptive nature of the >rule ceased and the age of marriage was fixed and certain. The >canon law further required that the parties should have reached >an age of rational consent, which it settled at seven years. >Below this age marriage was, at canon law, impossible, a purported >union resulting in a matrimonium non existens. It seems that this additional >requirement of the canon law did not find acceptance >at common law. Coke said that he would gave dower regardless of >the late husband's age at marriage 'albeit he were but 4 years old'. >(87) Apparently the betrothal or attempted betrothal of children >who were less than seven years old occurred not infrequently. (88) >Comyns (89) stated without qualification that by common law persons >might marry at any age, but more recently, it has been asserted >that a marriage before the English Age of Marriage Act 1929, (90) >attempted under the age of seven years, was void ipso jurs. (91) >Such a question is not likely to arise for a decision today. If it >were so, it might be noted that the factors which formerly >motivated infant marriages either are not persuasive or do not >exist. (92) > >A marriage where a party under the age was not devoid of all effect, >but it was inchoate and imperfect. (93) It was open to either of the >parties to >affirm or avoid the marriage on the party under the age of matrimonial consent >attaining this age. Such election could not be >made before this occurred, but, once affirmed, the marriage thereafter became >irrevocably binding. If the parties wished to affirm the >marriage no new ceremony was necessary; it was sufficient evidence >of affirmation if, for example, the parties continued to live together. > >The power to make laws with regard to marriage and divorce is >distributed between the Parliament of Canada and the Provincial ... " >------------------------------------------------------------ > >(85) Kenn's Case (1606), 7 Co. Rep, 42b; Arnold v. Earle >(1758), 2 Lee. 529; R. V Gordon (1803), Russ. And Ry. 48; >Pugh v. Pugh, [1951] P. 482; R. V. Ball [1857], 18 U.C.Q.B. >287; Hobson v. Gray [1958], 13 D.L.R., (2d) 404; Mouton v. >Mouton, [1942], W.N. (N.S.W.) 49; Re An Infant [1963], 6 >F.L.R. 12. And see D'Anvers Translation of Rolle's >Abridgement, Vol. I, 700; Co. Litt. 79; Comyas Digest, Baron >and Femme (5th ed. 1822) 215. >(86) Pollack and Maitland, The History of English Law [1959] >Vol. 2, at pp. 390 and 391; Jackson, The Formation and >Anulment of Marriage [11951], at pp. 19 and 20. >(87) Co. Litt, 33a. Also, Jackson, ep. Cil. Supra, note 86 >at p. 20 "In practice, however, the temperal law seems >widely to have ignored the doctrine that marriages under hte >age of seven were absolutely void and non-existant". >(88) Pollack and Maitland, op. Cit. Supra, note 86, at p. >391. >(89) Comyns, op. Cit. Suopra, note 85, at p. 215. >(90) 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 36; now new section 2 of the >Marriage Act, 1949, 12, 13, &14 Geo. 6, c. 76. >(91) Rayden, Practicer and Law of Divorce (9th ed, 1964), at >p. 79. See also Cartwright and Lovekin, The Law and >Practice of Divorce in Canada (3rd ed., 1962), at p. 62, "At >common law no person under the age of seven could contract >marriage". >(92) Pollack and Maitland, op. Cit. Supra, note 86, at p. >391. >(93) Co. Litt. 79; B1. Comm., Vol. 1, at pp. 435 and 436; >Comyns, op. Cit. Supra, note 85, at p. 215. But see Hlliatt >and Sugden v. Gurr [1812], 2 Phill. Ecc. 16, at p. 19 per >Sir John Nicholl; "...civil liberties, such as ... want of >age ... make the contract void ab initiv, not merely void >able ... ". > >Page 37 > >" ... Legislatures. By Section 91 (26) of the British North >America Act, exclusive legislative jurisdiction over >'Marriage and Divorce' is assigned to the Parliament of >Canada. By section 92 (12) exclusive legislation >jurisdiction in relation to 'The Solemnization of marriage >in the Provinces' as assigned to the Provincial >Legislatures. In the case of Re Marriage Legislation in >Canada, the Privy Council decided that this head of power >operates by way of exception to the powers conferred by >section 91 (26) (94) On the subject of solemnization, The >Marriage Act of Ontario is therefore to be construed as >'exhaustive'. (95) > >The supreme Court of Canada has recognized the distinction >between the formalities of the ceremony of marriage and the >status or capacity required to contract marriage. (96) >Formalities fall within the head of 'solemnization of >marriage' which includes not only the ceremony itself, but >also the various steps leading to it. Provincial >legislation relating thereto is intra vives. The question >of capacity to marry, however, is an area outside provincial >legislature competence. > >A consideration of the pertinent case law dealing with >provincial legislation in this area (97) indicates that >provincial enactment's may not effect, and will not be >construed to effect the capacity of a person to marry. >The result is that while provincial legislation may validly >require certain conditions to be fulfilled before the >marriage may be solemnized, failure to comply with these >formal requirements will not result in invalidity of the >marriage unless the legislation specifically requires this >penalty for non-compliance. (98) > >For these reasons, the provisions of The Marriage Act of >Ontario which deal with the matter of age for solemnization >of marriage can not be construed as affecting the capacity >of persons to marry. In addition, they are directed at >issuers of licenses and solemnizes of marriages rather than >the parties themselves, and the invalidity is a prescribed >consequence of failure to comply with the requirements. It >therefore does not appear that the marriage entered in the >provisions of the Act would be void. Indeed, in cases where >the parties were acting in good faith, the marriage might be >saved explicitly by section 46 of the Act. In any event, >where the capacity of the parties is concerned, in the >absence of federal legislation the common law must govern. >Thus, if to prevent illegitimacy of offspring, a license is >issued to a female person under twelve ... ". >------------------------------------------------------------ > >(94) [1912] A.C. 330, at p.887 per Viscount Haldane, L.C. >See also Laskin, Canadian Constitutional Law (2nd ed 1960), >at p. 978. >(95) Alspector v. Alspector, [1957] O.R., 454, at p. 462 >(96) Kerr v. Kerr and Attorney General for Ontario [1934] >S.C.R. 72; Neison v. Underwood [1936] S.C.R. 635; see also >Re Marriage Legislation in Canada, [1912] A.C. 380, and >Gilham v. Steele [1953] 2 D.L.R. 89. >(97) Hobson v. Gray [1958], 13 D.L.R. (2nd) 404 (Alta, >S.C.); Ross v. MacQueen [1948] 2 D.L.R. 536 (Alta. S.C.); >and Colvin v. Colvin [1952] 3 D.L.R., S10 (B.C.S.C.) >(98) See e.g., Kerr v. Kerr and Attorney General for Ontario >[1934] S.C.R. 72, where the Supreme Court of Canada upheld >the Constitutional validity of s. 17 (1) of the Marriage >Act, R.S.O. 1927 c. 81, which prescibed the prior consent of >a parent or guardian to the marriage of a minor as a >condition precedent to a valid marriage. The contents >required were characterized as essential elements in the >ceremony itself, rather than as matters related to capacity. >The decision also upheld the validity of those provisions of >the Marriage Act declaring that marriages solemnized in the >absence of the required consents were deemed to be void". > > >Sunshine, Rainbows & Smiles Always :o) >http://www.dreamwater.com/larc/LarcLandindex.html

Hi, Just another thought on the matter of: <snip> "[1015] Age The minimum age requirement at common law, has, for most practical purposes, been supplanted by provincial legislation. At common law, derived from ecclesiastical law, the marriage less than seven years was void <snip> I may have misread this "but" Perhaps this does not mean that the marriage was not of a 7 year old person - but in fact - That a "common law marriage - (marriage without benefit of clergy or licence) that lasted less than 7 years was not considered a marriage at all. Thus there would be no spousal support, no support for children of the union, no inheritance rights, no rights to pensions, and no rights to common property for the female who entered into this arrangement. I do believe that up until a number of years ago - the persons (female) involved in this type of arrangement had no legal rights. Cheers, Stella At 12:52 AM 11/30/00 -0500, Muriel M. Davidson wrote: >Hi all, >A fellow lister sent me this information which I think may be useful >to the Canadian searchers. I hope you are just as amazed as I was! >Happy hunting, >Lori-Ann > >MARRIAGE > >page 260 CCH Canadian Family Law Guide [1999] > >"Marriage Acts have been enacted in all nine common law provinces >and in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory. The >Solemnization of marriage in Quebec is dealt with in the Civil >Code of Quebec." > >"[1010] CAPACITY >In order to contract a valid marriage, a person must have the >'capacity' to do so; that is, a person must have a legal right >to enter into the marital relationship. Notwithstanding the >jurisdiction of Parliament to legislate in respect of capacity, >or the essential validity of marriage, the field has largely >been left to be filled by provincial and territorial legislatures. >In many cases, resort must be had to the common law." > >"[1015] Age >The minimum age requirement at common law, has, for most practical purposes, >been supplanted by provincial legislation. At common law, derived from >ecclesiastical law, the marriage less than seven years >was void. The age of consent was generally considered to be 12 years >for a girl and 14 for a boy (see the Ontario Law Reform Commission, >Report on Family Law, Part II, 'Marriage', 1970 pp.36-38) > >In Ontario, the Marriage Act, provides, at subsection 5(1), that >a person 'who is of the age of majority' may lawfully obtain a >license or be married under authority of the publication of >banns. Subsections >5(2), et seq., effectively prohibit the marriage of a >minor, except where he or she is at least 16 years of age and has >the consent, in writing, of his or her parent(s) or guardian(s). >Where the required consent cannot be reasonably obtained, an >application may be made in accordance with section 6 for an order dispensing >consent. > >Such an order dispensing with consent was granted in Re Fox, [1973] >1 O.R. 146 (Co. Ct.). The Court found that the consent of the >father to the marriage of his 16 year old daughter was being >'unreasonably and arbitrarily withheld'. > >In Alberta, the marriage of a female who is under the age of 16 may lawfully >take place, provided that she is either pregnant or the >mother of a living child, subsection 16(2) of the Marriage Act. >Parental consent, or its equivalent, is required ..." > >REPORT ON FAMILY LAW >ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION >PART II MARRIAGE >DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [1970] > >page 36 >"(c) Age for Capacity to Marry >At common law a valid marriage could be contracted if the female >had reached the age of twelve and the male had reached the age >of fourteen years. (85) This rule originated as a presumption >of the canon law as to the age at which a marriage might be >consummated, a presumption rebuttable on the facts at any given >age. (86) As applied by common law, the presumptive nature of the >rule ceased and the age of marriage was fixed and certain. The >canon law further required that the parties should have reached >an age of rational consent, which it settled at seven years. >Below this age marriage was, at canon law, impossible, a purported >union resulting in a matrimonium non existens. It seems that this additional >requirement of the canon law did not find acceptance >at common law. Coke said that he would gave dower regardless of >the late husband's age at marriage 'albeit he were but 4 years old'. >(87) Apparently the betrothal or attempted betrothal of children >who were less than seven years old occurred not infrequently. (88) >Comyns (89) stated without qualification that by common law persons >might marry at any age, but more recently, it has been asserted >that a marriage before the English Age of Marriage Act 1929, (90) >attempted under the age of seven years, was void ipso jurs. (91) >Such a question is not likely to arise for a decision today. If it >were so, it might be noted that the factors which formerly >motivated infant marriages either are not persuasive or do not >exist. (92) > >A marriage where a party under the age was not devoid of all effect, >but it was inchoate and imperfect. (93) It was open to either of the >parties to >affirm or avoid the marriage on the party under the age of matrimonial consent >attaining this age. Such election could not be >made before this occurred, but, once affirmed, the marriage thereafter became >irrevocably binding. If the parties wished to affirm the >marriage no new ceremony was necessary; it was sufficient evidence >of affirmation if, for example, the parties continued to live together. > >The power to make laws with regard to marriage and divorce is >distributed between the Parliament of Canada and the Provincial ... " >------------------------------------------------------------ > >(85) Kenn's Case (1606), 7 Co. Rep, 42b; Arnold v. Earle >(1758), 2 Lee. 529; R. V Gordon (1803), Russ. And Ry. 48; >Pugh v. Pugh, [1951] P. 482; R. V. Ball [1857], 18 U.C.Q.B. >287; Hobson v. Gray [1958], 13 D.L.R., (2d) 404; Mouton v. >Mouton, [1942], W.N. (N.S.W.) 49; Re An Infant [1963], 6 >F.L.R. 12. And see D'Anvers Translation of Rolle's >Abridgement, Vol. I, 700; Co. Litt. 79; Comyas Digest, Baron >and Femme (5th ed. 1822) 215. >(86) Pollack and Maitland, The History of English Law [1959] >Vol. 2, at pp. 390 and 391; Jackson, The Formation and >Anulment of Marriage [11951], at pp. 19 and 20. >(87) Co. Litt, 33a. Also, Jackson, ep. Cil. Supra, note 86 >at p. 20 "In practice, however, the temperal law seems >widely to have ignored the doctrine that marriages under hte >age of seven were absolutely void and non-existant". >(88) Pollack and Maitland, op. Cit. Supra, note 86, at p. >391. >(89) Comyns, op. Cit. Suopra, note 85, at p. 215. >(90) 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 36; now new section 2 of the >Marriage Act, 1949, 12, 13, &14 Geo. 6, c. 76. >(91) Rayden, Practicer and Law of Divorce (9th ed, 1964), at >p. 79. See also Cartwright and Lovekin, The Law and >Practice of Divorce in Canada (3rd ed., 1962), at p. 62, "At >common law no person under the age of seven could contract >marriage". >(92) Pollack and Maitland, op. Cit. Supra, note 86, at p. >391. >(93) Co. Litt. 79; B1. Comm., Vol. 1, at pp. 435 and 436; >Comyns, op. Cit. Supra, note 85, at p. 215. But see Hlliatt >and Sugden v. Gurr [1812], 2 Phill. Ecc. 16, at p. 19 per >Sir John Nicholl; "...civil liberties, such as ... want of >age ... make the contract void ab initiv, not merely void >able ... ". > >Page 37 > >" ... Legislatures. By Section 91 (26) of the British North >America Act, exclusive legislative jurisdiction over >'Marriage and Divorce' is assigned to the Parliament of >Canada. By section 92 (12) exclusive legislation >jurisdiction in relation to 'The Solemnization of marriage >in the Provinces' as assigned to the Provincial >Legislatures. In the case of Re Marriage Legislation in >Canada, the Privy Council decided that this head of power >operates by way of exception to the powers conferred by >section 91 (26) (94) On the subject of solemnization, The >Marriage Act of Ontario is therefore to be construed as >'exhaustive'. (95) > >The supreme Court of Canada has recognized the distinction >between the formalities of the ceremony of marriage and the >status or capacity required to contract marriage. (96) >Formalities fall within the head of 'solemnization of >marriage' which includes not only the ceremony itself, but >also the various steps leading to it. Provincial >legislation relating thereto is intra vives. The question >of capacity to marry, however, is an area outside provincial >legislature competence. > >A consideration of the pertinent case law dealing with >provincial legislation in this area (97) indicates that >provincial enactment's may not effect, and will not be >construed to effect the capacity of a person to marry. >The result is that while provincial legislation may validly >require certain conditions to be fulfilled before the >marriage may be solemnized, failure to comply with these >formal requirements will not result in invalidity of the >marriage unless the legislation specifically requires this >penalty for non-compliance. (98) > >For these reasons, the provisions of The Marriage Act of >Ontario which deal with the matter of age for solemnization >of marriage can not be construed as affecting the capacity >of persons to marry. In addition, they are directed at >issuers of licenses and solemnizes of marriages rather than >the parties themselves, and the invalidity is a prescribed >consequence of failure to comply with the requirements. It >therefore does not appear that the marriage entered in the >provisions of the Act would be void. Indeed, in cases where >the parties were acting in good faith, the marriage might be >saved explicitly by section 46 of the Act. In any event, >where the capacity of the parties is concerned, in the >absence of federal legislation the common law must govern. >Thus, if to prevent illegitimacy of offspring, a license is >issued to a female person under twelve ... ". >------------------------------------------------------------ > >(94) [1912] A.C. 330, at p.887 per Viscount Haldane, L.C. >See also Laskin, Canadian Constitutional Law (2nd ed 1960), >at p. 978. >(95) Alspector v. Alspector, [1957] O.R., 454, at p. 462 >(96) Kerr v. Kerr and Attorney General for Ontario [1934] >S.C.R. 72; Neison v. Underwood [1936] S.C.R. 635; see also >Re Marriage Legislation in Canada, [1912] A.C. 380, and >Gilham v. Steele [1953] 2 D.L.R. 89. >(97) Hobson v. Gray [1958], 13 D.L.R. (2nd) 404 (Alta, >S.C.); Ross v. MacQueen [1948] 2 D.L.R. 536 (Alta. S.C.); >and Colvin v. Colvin [1952] 3 D.L.R., S10 (B.C.S.C.) >(98) See e.g., Kerr v. Kerr and Attorney General for Ontario >[1934] S.C.R. 72, where the Supreme Court of Canada upheld >the Constitutional validity of s. 17 (1) of the Marriage >Act, R.S.O. 1927 c. 81, which prescibed the prior consent of >a parent or guardian to the marriage of a minor as a >condition precedent to a valid marriage. The contents >required were characterized as essential elements in the >ceremony itself, rather than as matters related to capacity. >The decision also upheld the validity of those provisions of >the Marriage Act declaring that marriages solemnized in the >absence of the required consents were deemed to be void". > > >Sunshine, Rainbows & Smiles Always :o) >http://www.dreamwater.com/larc/LarcLandindex.html

> unsubscribe from CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-D, > > unsubscribe > > > > ______________________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Hi all, A fellow lister sent me this information which I think may be useful to the Canadian searchers. I hope you are just as amazed as I was! Happy hunting, Lori-Ann MARRIAGE page 260 CCH Canadian Family Law Guide [1999] "Marriage Acts have been enacted in all nine common law provinces and in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory. The Solemnization of marriage in Quebec is dealt with in the Civil Code of Quebec." "[1010] CAPACITY In order to contract a valid marriage, a person must have the 'capacity' to do so; that is, a person must have a legal right to enter into the marital relationship. Notwithstanding the jurisdiction of Parliament to legislate in respect of capacity, or the essential validity of marriage, the field has largely been left to be filled by provincial and territorial legislatures. In many cases, resort must be had to the common law." "[1015] Age The minimum age requirement at common law, has, for most practical purposes, been supplanted by provincial legislation. At common law, derived from ecclesiastical law, the marriage less than seven years was void. The age of consent was generally considered to be 12 years for a girl and 14 for a boy (see the Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Family Law, Part II, 'Marriage', 1970 pp.36-38) In Ontario, the Marriage Act, provides, at subsection 5(1), that a person 'who is of the age of majority' may lawfully obtain a license or be married under authority of the publication of banns. Subsections 5(2), et seq., effectively prohibit the marriage of a minor, except where he or she is at least 16 years of age and has the consent, in writing, of his or her parent(s) or guardian(s). Where the required consent cannot be reasonably obtained, an application may be made in accordance with section 6 for an order dispensing consent. Such an order dispensing with consent was granted in Re Fox, [1973] 1 O.R. 146 (Co. Ct.). The Court found that the consent of the father to the marriage of his 16 year old daughter was being 'unreasonably and arbitrarily withheld'. In Alberta, the marriage of a female who is under the age of 16 may lawfully take place, provided that she is either pregnant or the mother of a living child, subsection 16(2) of the Marriage Act. Parental consent, or its equivalent, is required ..." REPORT ON FAMILY LAW ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION PART II MARRIAGE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [1970] page 36 "(c) Age for Capacity to Marry At common law a valid marriage could be contracted if the female had reached the age of twelve and the male had reached the age of fourteen years. (85) This rule originated as a presumption of the canon law as to the age at which a marriage might be consummated, a presumption rebuttable on the facts at any given age. (86) As applied by common law, the presumptive nature of the rule ceased and the age of marriage was fixed and certain. The canon law further required that the parties should have reached an age of rational consent, which it settled at seven years. Below this age marriage was, at canon law, impossible, a purported union resulting in a matrimonium non existens. It seems that this additional requirement of the canon law did not find acceptance at common law. Coke said that he would gave dower regardless of the late husband's age at marriage 'albeit he were but 4 years old'. (87) Apparently the betrothal or attempted betrothal of children who were less than seven years old occurred not infrequently. (88) Comyns (89) stated without qualification that by common law persons might marry at any age, but more recently, it has been asserted that a marriage before the English Age of Marriage Act 1929, (90) attempted under the age of seven years, was void ipso jurs. (91) Such a question is not likely to arise for a decision today. If it were so, it might be noted that the factors which formerly motivated infant marriages either are not persuasive or do not exist. (92) A marriage where a party under the age was not devoid of all effect, but it was inchoate and imperfect. (93) It was open to either of the parties to affirm or avoid the marriage on the party under the age of matrimonial consent attaining this age. Such election could not be made before this occurred, but, once affirmed, the marriage thereafter became irrevocably binding. If the parties wished to affirm the marriage no new ceremony was necessary; it was sufficient evidence of affirmation if, for example, the parties continued to live together. The power to make laws with regard to marriage and divorce is distributed between the Parliament of Canada and the Provincial ... " ------------------------------------------------------------ (85) Kenn's Case (1606), 7 Co. Rep, 42b; Arnold v. Earle (1758), 2 Lee. 529; R. V Gordon (1803), Russ. And Ry. 48; Pugh v. Pugh, [1951] P. 482; R. V. Ball [1857], 18 U.C.Q.B. 287; Hobson v. Gray [1958], 13 D.L.R., (2d) 404; Mouton v. Mouton, [1942], W.N. (N.S.W.) 49; Re An Infant [1963], 6 F.L.R. 12. And see D'Anvers Translation of Rolle's Abridgement, Vol. I, 700; Co. Litt. 79; Comyas Digest, Baron and Femme (5th ed. 1822) 215. (86) Pollack and Maitland, The History of English Law [1959] Vol. 2, at pp. 390 and 391; Jackson, The Formation and Anulment of Marriage [11951], at pp. 19 and 20. (87) Co. Litt, 33a. Also, Jackson, ep. Cil. Supra, note 86 at p. 20 "In practice, however, the temperal law seems widely to have ignored the doctrine that marriages under hte age of seven were absolutely void and non-existant". (88) Pollack and Maitland, op. Cit. Supra, note 86, at p. 391. (89) Comyns, op. Cit. Suopra, note 85, at p. 215. (90) 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 36; now new section 2 of the Marriage Act, 1949, 12, 13, &14 Geo. 6, c. 76. (91) Rayden, Practicer and Law of Divorce (9th ed, 1964), at p. 79. See also Cartwright and Lovekin, The Law and Practice of Divorce in Canada (3rd ed., 1962), at p. 62, "At common law no person under the age of seven could contract marriage". (92) Pollack and Maitland, op. Cit. Supra, note 86, at p. 391. (93) Co. Litt. 79; B1. Comm., Vol. 1, at pp. 435 and 436; Comyns, op. Cit. Supra, note 85, at p. 215. But see Hlliatt and Sugden v. Gurr [1812], 2 Phill. Ecc. 16, at p. 19 per Sir John Nicholl; "...civil liberties, such as ... want of age ... make the contract void ab initiv, not merely void able ... ". Page 37 " ... Legislatures. By Section 91 (26) of the British North America Act, exclusive legislative jurisdiction over 'Marriage and Divorce' is assigned to the Parliament of Canada. By section 92 (12) exclusive legislation jurisdiction in relation to 'The Solemnization of marriage in the Provinces' as assigned to the Provincial Legislatures. In the case of Re Marriage Legislation in Canada, the Privy Council decided that this head of power operates by way of exception to the powers conferred by section 91 (26) (94) On the subject of solemnization, The Marriage Act of Ontario is therefore to be construed as 'exhaustive'. (95) The supreme Court of Canada has recognized the distinction between the formalities of the ceremony of marriage and the status or capacity required to contract marriage. (96) Formalities fall within the head of 'solemnization of marriage' which includes not only the ceremony itself, but also the various steps leading to it. Provincial legislation relating thereto is intra vives. The question of capacity to marry, however, is an area outside provincial legislature competence. A consideration of the pertinent case law dealing with provincial legislation in this area (97) indicates that provincial enactment's may not effect, and will not be construed to effect the capacity of a person to marry. The result is that while provincial legislation may validly require certain conditions to be fulfilled before the marriage may be solemnized, failure to comply with these formal requirements will not result in invalidity of the marriage unless the legislation specifically requires this penalty for non-compliance. (98) For these reasons, the provisions of The Marriage Act of Ontario which deal with the matter of age for solemnization of marriage can not be construed as affecting the capacity of persons to marry. In addition, they are directed at issuers of licenses and solemnizes of marriages rather than the parties themselves, and the invalidity is a prescribed consequence of failure to comply with the requirements. It therefore does not appear that the marriage entered in the provisions of the Act would be void. Indeed, in cases where the parties were acting in good faith, the marriage might be saved explicitly by section 46 of the Act. In any event, where the capacity of the parties is concerned, in the absence of federal legislation the common law must govern. Thus, if to prevent illegitimacy of offspring, a license is issued to a female person under twelve ... ". ------------------------------------------------------------ (94) [1912] A.C. 330, at p.887 per Viscount Haldane, L.C. See also Laskin, Canadian Constitutional Law (2nd ed 1960), at p. 978. (95) Alspector v. Alspector, [1957] O.R., 454, at p. 462 (96) Kerr v. Kerr and Attorney General for Ontario [1934] S.C.R. 72; Neison v. Underwood [1936] S.C.R. 635; see also Re Marriage Legislation in Canada, [1912] A.C. 380, and Gilham v. Steele [1953] 2 D.L.R. 89. (97) Hobson v. Gray [1958], 13 D.L.R. (2nd) 404 (Alta, S.C.); Ross v. MacQueen [1948] 2 D.L.R. 536 (Alta. S.C.); and Colvin v. Colvin [1952] 3 D.L.R., S10 (B.C.S.C.) (98) See e.g., Kerr v. Kerr and Attorney General for Ontario [1934] S.C.R. 72, where the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Constitutional validity of s. 17 (1) of the Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1927 c. 81, which prescibed the prior consent of a parent or guardian to the marriage of a minor as a condition precedent to a valid marriage. The contents required were characterized as essential elements in the ceremony itself, rather than as matters related to capacity. The decision also upheld the validity of those provisions of the Marriage Act declaring that marriages solemnized in the absence of the required consents were deemed to be void". Sunshine, Rainbows & Smiles Always :o) http://www.dreamwater.com/larc/LarcLandindex.html

To all:- Rather than have postings once in a while, Jason Kelly, listowner of the <NewBrunswick-L@rootsweb.com> list, will start with a census tagline, possibly as early as next week. I feel this is far more and frequent coverage than a posting -- these often start controversy and discussions, which Jason hopes to avoid. A tagline will be at the end of ALL postings, and like myself, many read these. When memos are sent to the various lists, I will be sending the same posting to Jason Kelly as I do to Elizabeth Severin, Victor Luce and Barbara Kelly. Then it will be up to Jason to post or forward to the list on my behalf. Sincerely hope this is alright with everyone -- also both Doug Joudrey and I are NewBrunswick list members. LUNEN-LINKS list is another list that uses a tagline, but Jason has asked for the petition URL as well, as a reminder to sign a petition. I posted a sample to him -- and at present I know just how the tagline will look -- GREAT!!!!! >From all of us on Canada Census Committee, THANKS, JASON!!! Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canada Census Committee http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Our coast-to-coast-to-coast genealogy site

The following is taken from the I.O.O.F. NEWS, received today:- WHAT IS A VOLUNTEER? V - Very fragile. Don't crush his/her spirit. O - Only trying to help. Talk to him/her, don't yell. L - Labour. You need him/her, they do not need you. U - Unpaid. The price is right. N - Non-union. He/she can walk away. T - Trained. Use what he/she can offer. E - Eager to help. He/she wouldn't be there otherwise. E - Enabling. Without him/her, you're sunk. R - Retentive. Praise him/her and they'll remember. Sort of think this applies to many of us, whether working as committee members, writing to MPs, getting signatures on petitions -- VOLUNTEERS are wanted and needed. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canada Census Committee http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm [In PDF format -- click and print]

To all: The following memo taken from the BRITISHHOMECHILDREN list details one of the tragedies of our times -- the loss of family members. I have become very interested -- although I do not have anyone to search for. When BHC members forward petitions to me, Senator Lorna Milne will be presenting these in name of BHC and giving some history --- to be recorded in Hansard. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm ====================================== Letter on BHC list from Debbie Harmonic: Whew! What an unbelievable four months this has been. And I do owe my thanks to many wonderful people who have made my search so far so enjoyable and rewarding. So thank you to all of you who take the time to share and sometimes even go the extra mile. I am no where near done, but what I have been able to uncover in four months to me is a miracle and I look forward to the rest of my search. My Grandfather EDWIN ALBERT WEATHERALL was a Banardo Home Boy. He came to Canada in 1913. He knew he had a brother but never knew his name. On Aug 8th I applied for my Grandfathers records from Barnardo's. First time I applied for it as his grand-daughter, then I read what you folks had to say and sent a second set of forms with my Aunt his daughter's signature. Much to my amazement I received a package from Banardo's on Oct. 11. In this package was a picture and info about my Grandfather and his family. There was also information about a brother named VICTOR WEATHERALL who came to Canada in 1911, two years before his younger brother. He was never told he had family, but my grandfather did know he had a brother sent to Canada just like him. I have tried on my own to search out this family Barnardo's has supplied me with. And by my own I mean by asking questions and finding Angels on many sites. On this site I met many wonderful people and one fellow I like to think of as my Robin Hood from Nottingham has supplied me with very valuable information. An extra big thank you goes out to him. But Victor remains a Canadian mystery, one I wasn't able to leave alone. I searched everywhere I possibly could. In my frustration I again by email contacted the Barnardo's. That was about two and a half weeks ago. Wednesday in my mail came a letter from them. They explained that they rechecked their files and they have supplied me with all they can. They can not give me any more info on Victor, that can only be released to his children or grandchildren. But they were able to tell me that they have a record of last corresponding with him in 1949 and his last known address. This piece of information became more valuable then you will ever know. I searched the area and found a Weatherall at the same address they gave. But this person was not home. I phoned other Weatherall's in the area and they thought my great uncle moved to Collingwood. I looked up and found out this was Gray County in Ontario. I searched this direction met some wonderfully helpful people on this site, but something told me to go back to the last address given. I located a board for this area. Within 5 mins of posting yesterday a wonderful lady gave me an awesome contact in that area. From there I was able to find out that my great uncle had one child. And that child is very much alive. We talked for hours on the phone today. I think the greatest crime committed is both his father and my grand father when they were in their fifties contacted Barnardo's and yet even at this time they wouldn't let these brothers know of one another. They always lived within one hundred miles of one another. So I know I have a long ways to go, but I have been given so much in these last four months my cup truly runneth over. Have faith folks and ask questions lots of questions. God Bless and I wish for you as great of rewards Debbie Hamonic <harmonicd@telusplanet.net> ==== BRITISHHOMECHILDREN Mailing List ==== BHC Registry (Database)and BHC Website: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~britishhomechildren BHC Chat: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/descendantsofhomechildren

Hi Jo:- Rather than just answer this privately, as I happened to be doing a memo to our list, CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN, I decided to put 2 and 2 together!! Non-Canadians, whether United States or other parts of the world, with (or without) Canadian roots, may sign the Non-Canadian petition. This will be used in the Senate only. Canadians may sign petitions in either French or English, and for both House of Commons and the Senate. When I knew the election call was coming, I withheld several United States petitions -- now that we are starting fresh, and these had not been recorded in Hansard, they will be going to Senator Lorna Milne this week. There are various ways of locating the petitions site:- Check http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~downhome/ Click on the flag logo -- it will take you to http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html [Often sites are linked by a few words re census] Should any special group do a number of petitions, please send along the name of the group and a brief history for Lorna to announce in the Senate. Looking forward to hearing from you -- with a number of signatures, Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canada Census Committee http://www.globalgenealogy,com/census/index6.htm Jo Branch wrote: > Is there anything that someone living in the US can do? Would it help to > sign a petition? > > Jo Castleberry Branch > Winnfield, LA

To all:- When I posted last evening's memo re this LCCCC site, the number of visitors since July 1, 1999 was only 20,139. A few minutes ago I checked -- the count was up tp 20,572. That means 433 people checked the site -- and if all downloaded petitions, Gordon Watts and I will be busy. Does anyone have bright ideas to get columns of figures to line up when being sent vis Rootsweb? Word definitely does not work, possibly Excel -- will try that next time. (Grandmothers should not be computer "nuts"!) Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com>