Have you found him on any of the censuses? -----Original Message----- From: R D [mailto:find_family@yahoo.com] Sent: 06 September 2004 20:12 To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [ENG-CAMB] Arthur William BARRINGER - seeking marriage info Hello again from Chicago. One of my grandmother's elder brothers was a 1st class saloon steward on RMS Titanic, according to Encyclopedia-Titanica from which I received most of my information so far (this site has an ongoing project for creating biographies of all crew members). Arthur William Barringer, b 1878 Cambridge, D Apr 1912 (drowned on RMS Titanic) Mansion House records list he left a widow named Ethel Isabel [no maiden name] with 2 children (Dorothy and Eric, ages unknown) living in Southampton. No other information has been uncovered so far, except that the widow remarried (and apparently [placed her children in an orphanage for a while). Marriage date and place is NOT known. How can I locate the correct marriage if I do not know the bride's maiden name or where it was held? One thought was that the wedding announcement may have been placed in the groom's town newspaper as well as the wife's town newspaper, as it is often done in the US these days. But how to I locate this, and was it a custom in the 1890-1910 time frame to announce weddings? Ralph __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== .

Hi List Would just like to say a big thanks for the help i have recieved on my request,a big thanks to JULIA AND JUDY for the help they have given,on just subscribing and puting out one request i have recieved a lot of help thanks again great list good hunting and best wishes wendy.

Hi Thanks a million for your reply and time i have had a email of some one else and they gave me the 2 burials of Robert and Margarets children but not Phebe so thats a great plus, i found a marriage Robert Birt to Margaret Cave Beck 11 feb 1823 Chatteris on the igi so they married just after having Phebe i believe that Joseph who married Susanna could have been Roberts brother from info i have looked at thanks again for all your help best wishes wendy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken & Judy" <kenjudydear@worldnet.att.net> To: <ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 10:57 PM Subject: RE: [ENG-CAMB] ENG-CAM new subscriber researching BIRT/BURT > Found the following on the 1841 and 1851 census indexes. Note there are no > Roberts or Josephs, although the name Birt/Burt seems to center in Chatteris > (note spelling). You can access the indexes by going to www.cfhs.org.uk . > Scroll down. To the left will be a heading of Searchable Databases. Click > on there for access to several helpful databases when searching in > Cambridge. > > This is from the 1841 census > > BURT William 25 Chatteris HO107/80/3 5B > BURT Baxter 45 Chatteris HO107/80/6 6A > BURT Sarah 46 Chatteris HO107/80/6 6A > BURT John 22 Chatteris HO107/80/6 6A > > Following is from the 1851 census: > > Surname Forenames Age Parish or Town Film Folio > BIRT John 30 Chatteris HO107/1765 455A > BIRT Ann 28 Chatteris HO107/1765 455A > BIRT Mary A 3 Chatteris HO107/1765 455A > BIRT George 10 mo Chatteris HO107/1765 455A > BIRT Henry 26 Wisbech St Peter's HO107/1766 451A > BIRT Mary 48 Chesterton HO107/1759 438A > BIRT Emma 13 Cambridge Holy Trinity HO107/1760 675B > > BURT William 62 Chatteris HO107/1765 433B > BURT Mary 60 Chatteris HO107/1765 433B > > The following is from the Baptism Index: > > Year Surname Forenames Age Abode Parents Parish Indictator > 1831 BIRT Ann 1m ----- d. of Joseph & Susanna Chatteris * > 1831 BIRT Marian 1m ----- d. of William D.& Elizabeth Chatteris * > 1831 BIRT Mary 5 ----- d. of Joseph & Susanna Chatteris * > 1824 BIRT Phebe 2 ----- illeg.d.of Robert & M.BECK Chatteris * > 1831 BIRT Sarah 3 ----- d. of Joseph & Susanna Chatteris * > 1831 BIRT William 1 ----- s. of Joseph & Susanna Chatteris * > > The asterisk after the listing indicates there is further information on the > register, so will be worth you while to find and read it. > > You will note that Phoebe Birt, age two, was baptised, the illegitimate > daughter of Robert Birt and M. Beck. If they had a son Joseph in 1826, > there does not seem to be record of his baptism in Cambridge. > > Joseph and Susanna Birt appear to have had four children baptised at once. > > Following is from the Burial Index for Cambridgeshire > > Year Surname Forenames Age Abode Condition Parish Indictator > 1829 BIRT Frederick 5 ----- s. of Robert & Margaret Chatteris * > 1830 BIRT Matthew inf ----- s. of Robert & Margaret Chatteris * > 1829 BIRT Sarah 44 ----- w. of Baxter Chatteris * > > From this it appears that Robert and Margaret may have married. > > > Good luck, > > Judy > > -----Original Message----- > From: wendy.birt [mailto:wendy.birt@btinternet.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 12:11 PM > To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [ENG-CAMB] ENG-CAM new subscriber researching BIRT/BURT > > > Hi List > iI am new to the list and after 3 years just found out that JOSEPH BIRT/BURT > was born abt 1826 in CATTERIS from his marriage cert i know his father was > ROBERT BIRT ihave found a death for a Robert in 1871 age 71 and on the igi > there is a Robert born abt 1802 CATTERIS who married a MARGARET CAVE BECK > could be BECK CAVE is there some one with parish records who could look up > Josephs b/c/b or with the 1841 census for the family thanks in advance for > any info however small > best wishes wendy,Leicester > > > ==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== > . > > > > > ==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== > . >

Hi Jennifer, Just read your mail, and I have a HALL in CHESTERTON, THOMAS IVATT HALL, m. ANN MARY SUTTON in 1850. I don't have too much on this side of the family, but sure looking for more. Does this fit into your tree? Here's hoping, Joan - Canada. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jennifer Burt" <keelawee@hotkey.net.au> To: <ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 11:49 PM Subject: [ENG-CAMB] HALL/RAYNER/WARDALE/NOTTON/SAYWELL/FROST > Does anyone on list of any interest in the above names ... mainly in the Chesterton ..Old & New ...areas? > Cheers > Jennifer > in OZ > > > ==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== > . > >

Hi I am researching my 8x gt grandfather's FULLER family reputedly of Gt Eversden and Wicken, who were his parents, ancestors and are there any other interested descendants? Thomas FULLER bc 1671 ?Gt Eversden, Cmb, m Mary REINOLDS 1698 at Gt Chesterford Ess and lived Myddleton House, Saffron Walden, Ess d 1752. He had 5 children Mary m Edward ENGLISH 1722, Thomas m Mary HANCHETT [she as wid m Alexander FORBES] Anna m John ENGLISH 1724 [my line, br of Edwd] of Bocking & Braintree, Sarah died early and Elizabeth sp d 1777. The English & Fuller families were part of the woollen industry of the area and non conformist. Thanks Jo in Leics jo.mason@swsmail.net holmested@one-name.org

Hello again from Chicago. One of my grandmother's elder brothers was a 1st class saloon steward on RMS Titanic, according to Encyclopedia-Titanica from which I received most of my information so far (this site has an ongoing project for creating biographies of all crew members). Arthur William Barringer, b 1878 Cambridge, D Apr 1912 (drowned on RMS Titanic) Mansion House records list he left a widow named Ethel Isabel [no maiden name] with 2 children (Dorothy and Eric, ages unknown) living in Southampton. No other information has been uncovered so far, except that the widow remarried (and apparently [placed her children in an orphanage for a while). Marriage date and place is NOT known. How can I locate the correct marriage if I do not know the bride's maiden name or where it was held? One thought was that the wedding announcement may have been placed in the groom's town newspaper as well as the wife's town newspaper, as it is often done in the US these days. But how to I locate this, and was it a custom in the 1890-1910 time frame to announce weddings? Ralph __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Dear List, Today I came upon a will which mentions my 4xgreatgrandmother, Keziah Easy. I am curious to know whether she was related to the man who wrote the will, John Martin of Wicken. The will was written 2 April 1832, a codicil was added 4 November 1836 and the will was proved 18 January 1838. The beneficiaries included "all my Brothers and Sisters . . .Robert Martin(,) Nancy Thignell(?)(,) Charles Martin(,). . . Julius Caesar Martin & Mary Ann Barrett" and "Keziah Easy who now lives Servant with me." Robert and Julius Caesar Martin were executors. The witnesses for the original will were James Archer, David Layton and John Palmby; the witnesses for the codicil were James Archer, Chas Pettet and George Collin. Keziah Easy was born in 1825 in Soham the oldest daughter of Simeon Easy of Haddenham and Elizabeth Martin of Barway. Elizabeth's father, William, was possibly the child born to John and Mary Martin of Highfield, Barway, in 1774. Can anyone tell me about the family of John, Robert and Julius Caesar Martin? Best regards, Margaret

Found the following on the 1841 and 1851 census indexes. Note there are no Roberts or Josephs, although the name Birt/Burt seems to center in Chatteris (note spelling). You can access the indexes by going to www.cfhs.org.uk . Scroll down. To the left will be a heading of Searchable Databases. Click on there for access to several helpful databases when searching in Cambridge. This is from the 1841 census BURT William 25 Chatteris HO107/80/3 5B BURT Baxter 45 Chatteris HO107/80/6 6A BURT Sarah 46 Chatteris HO107/80/6 6A BURT John 22 Chatteris HO107/80/6 6A Following is from the 1851 census: Surname Forenames Age Parish or Town Film Folio BIRT John 30 Chatteris HO107/1765 455A BIRT Ann 28 Chatteris HO107/1765 455A BIRT Mary A 3 Chatteris HO107/1765 455A BIRT George 10 mo Chatteris HO107/1765 455A BIRT Henry 26 Wisbech St Peter's HO107/1766 451A BIRT Mary 48 Chesterton HO107/1759 438A BIRT Emma 13 Cambridge Holy Trinity HO107/1760 675B BURT William 62 Chatteris HO107/1765 433B BURT Mary 60 Chatteris HO107/1765 433B The following is from the Baptism Index: Year Surname Forenames Age Abode Parents Parish Indictator 1831 BIRT Ann 1m ----- d. of Joseph & Susanna Chatteris * 1831 BIRT Marian 1m ----- d. of William D.& Elizabeth Chatteris * 1831 BIRT Mary 5 ----- d. of Joseph & Susanna Chatteris * 1824 BIRT Phebe 2 ----- illeg.d.of Robert & M.BECK Chatteris * 1831 BIRT Sarah 3 ----- d. of Joseph & Susanna Chatteris * 1831 BIRT William 1 ----- s. of Joseph & Susanna Chatteris * The asterisk after the listing indicates there is further information on the register, so will be worth you while to find and read it. You will note that Phoebe Birt, age two, was baptised, the illegitimate daughter of Robert Birt and M. Beck. If they had a son Joseph in 1826, there does not seem to be record of his baptism in Cambridge. Joseph and Susanna Birt appear to have had four children baptised at once. Following is from the Burial Index for Cambridgeshire Year Surname Forenames Age Abode Condition Parish Indictator 1829 BIRT Frederick 5 ----- s. of Robert & Margaret Chatteris * 1830 BIRT Matthew inf ----- s. of Robert & Margaret Chatteris * 1829 BIRT Sarah 44 ----- w. of Baxter Chatteris * From this it appears that Robert and Margaret may have married. Good luck, Judy -----Original Message----- From: wendy.birt [mailto:wendy.birt@btinternet.com] Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 12:11 PM To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [ENG-CAMB] ENG-CAM new subscriber researching BIRT/BURT Hi List iI am new to the list and after 3 years just found out that JOSEPH BIRT/BURT was born abt 1826 in CATTERIS from his marriage cert i know his father was ROBERT BIRT ihave found a death for a Robert in 1871 age 71 and on the igi there is a Robert born abt 1802 CATTERIS who married a MARGARET CAVE BECK could be BECK CAVE is there some one with parish records who could look up Josephs b/c/b or with the 1841 census for the family thanks in advance for any info however small best wishes wendy,Leicester ==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== .

Hi List iI am new to the list and after 3 years just found out that JOSEPH BIRT/BURT was born abt 1826 in CATTERIS from his marriage cert i know his father was ROBERT BIRT ihave found a death for a Robert in 1871 age 71 and on the igi there is a Robert born abt 1802 CATTERIS who married a MARGARET CAVE BECK could be BECK CAVE is there some one with parish records who could look up Josephs b/c/b or with the 1841 census for the family thanks in advance for any info however small best wishes wendy,Leicester

Hello from Chicago. Anyone on this list researching this family who lived at 13 Thoday St in 1881 UK census? Would love to learn more about these 4 older children about whom my grandmother never spoke. (Two of the youngest daughters still lived there until mid 1960, and exchanged annual letters with my grandmother.) ** birth years are approximate based on Census ** William BARRINGER, b 1853? Abbotsley Mary Ann [BEARD/BAIRD], b 1850? Hardwick James, b 1872? Hardwick Walter, b 1873? Camb? Arthur W., b 1878? Camb Sarah E., b 1879? Camb (+ 3 younger daughters) I have searched FreeBMD, FamilySearch.org and located some birth and death data that "fits" the ages and parishes from 1881 census. Ralph __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Hi Margaret Thanks very much for the info, find it very interesting and recognize a lot of the names. thanks again for you trouble. Regards Julie Webb: Soham Roots >From: "Margaret Paxton" <mlpaxton@rmci.net> >Reply-To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com >To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [ENG-CAMB] Inquest into the Fire at Soham >Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:42:20 -0600 > >Dear List, > > This is the final report that appeared in The Times. > >The Incendiary Fire at Soham > >Cambridge, Sunday Night > > In compliance with a prevous arrangement, the magistrates of Soham, the >Rev. Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Dobede, were engaged the whole of yesterday >(Saturday) at theCrown Inn, in investigating certain charges preferred >against Mr. Cornelius Harvey, a wealthy farmer, and his nephew, James >Harvey, suppoed to be feloniously concerned in the origin of the recent >fire >in that village. It will be recollected that the prisoners underwent a >brief examination on the day after the fire, and were remanded to the >county >gaol at Cambridge until yesterday, when they were brought up, in the >custody >of Mr. Orridge, the governor. > It was evident, from the crowded state of the room, and the anxiety >evinced in behalf of the elder prisoner, that he was musch respected in the >district. He is between 50 and 60 yers of age, and had lived in the >village >the greater part of his life. The nephew is a young unmarried man, and >from >appearances seemed to have passed an irregular career. > In reference to the inquiry it should be observed, that for the last >two >months the village and neighbourhood had been the scene of much excitement >in consequence of the outbreak of a series of incendiary fires. To such an >extent had the alarm in the district arisen, that the farmers formed >themselves into a body to guard their property at night. Notwithstanding >this protection fires appear to have happened, and even in the very street >where the conflagration occurred on Friday morning ten previous attempts >had >been made evidently to cause the havoc that has at last been accomplished. >The village, as entered by the road from Ely, presents a most desolate >appearance. About a third of it appears to be in ashes; nearly the whole >of >the eastern part of Hall-street—the principal thoroughfare—is consumed, the >entire ruins covdring a space of six or seven acres. Up to yesterday fire >and smoke were still issuing from various parts of the ruins. > The prisoner Cornelius Harvey occupied a neat farmhouse at the extreme >end of Hall-street (the main road that passes through the village from Ely >to New market), apart from the row of houses on that side of the street. >His farming premises are on the opposite side of the road some 200 or 300 >yards distant. The nephew occupied a grocer’s and general provision shop >about the centre of the row of houses already noticed, with a sort of >warehouse at the back, which abutted on the premises of Mr. Pachey, farmer, >where the flames were first seen to issue, On each side of Mr. Pachey’s >premises was a large number of farming buildings, comprising barns, >stables, >granaries, stacks, &c., and a windmill, belonging to Messrs. Staples, >Morden, and others the whole flanked in front by the houses in Hall-street. >Some idea may be formed of the awful extent of the fire when it is stated >that the whole of this property, back and front, together with orchards and >hedges, was destroyed. The most distressing circumstance is, that the >chief >part of the occupants of the houses in Hall-street were hardworking >industrious families, who have lost all they possessed, and, not being >insured, are reduced to much distress. The buildings, 17 in number, >however, were insured in the Suffolk Insurance-office for 6,000l. > The prosecution was instituted by that company, an agent of which >attended to watch the proceedings; and Mr. Isaacson, solicitor, appeared on >behalf of the accused. > Shortly after the inquiry had sommenced the chariman, the Rev. Mr. >Bennett, perceiving the reporter taking notes of the evidence, addressed >him >and begged that he would refrain from taking any portion of the evidence. >It was a private investigation, and with inquiries of that description it >was highly necessary that the evidence should not be published until >adduced >at the trial. He suggested that course with a view of preventing juries >from being prejudiced, or the ends of justice being defeated. He knew one >or two instances where the publication of evidence had had that tendency. > The reporter remarked that he should be happy to attend to any >suggestion >from the Bench; but, from the fact of the court being certainly an open >one, >according to appearances, he thought the same practice was adopted as at >other judicial inquireies. (The proceedings were held in the large room of >the inn, and the door was open for the ingress and egress of the public, >who >crowded it almost to suffocation.) > The rev. Chairman then consulted his clerk, and observed that >magistrates, investigations were certainly private, at least in his >district >(he is the chairman of the Newmarket bench), and, on all grave charges, he >excluded reporters. As the reporter was present, however, he would allow >him to remain, and would leave it to his discretion not to publish any >portion of the evidence that was llikely to have the evil tendency he had >alluded to. > As nothing transpired in the evidence that would have the effect >anticipated by the rev. chairman, we subjoin a brief narrative of the >testimony adduced. It was extremely voluminous, 15 or 16 witnesses being >examined. The elder prisoner’s apprehension apeared to have resulted from >a >voluntary statement made by him. Having been noticed by a private >watchman, >a few minutes before the outbreak, walking from the spot where the flames >were first seen to rise, viz., Mr. Pachey’s farm, he was interrogated on >the >subject. He admitted being the individual, and said that he had been >watching about the neighbourhood the greater part of the night, and that >when he went home he went to bed, but did not pull off his clothes. The >reason he gave was, that he was fearful something would happen, and on >being >further questioned why he watched that particular spot, he replied, that >“he >expected a fire would break out, “ but gave no satisfactory account why he >entertained such a supposition. These and other suspicious circumstances >being reported to the magistrates, his apprehension was ordered, and, in >addition to the watchman’s statement, other witnesses spoke positively to >having seen him walking up and down a by-lane at the back of Mr. Pachey’s >farm, and every now and then peeping through the hedge in the direction of >the spot where the fire broke out. It was attempted to be shown for the >defence that the prisoner had been watching his own property,--that it had >been his practice to be on the watch for several weeks past, but, on the >night in question, the witnesses declared that he had been watching some >distance from his farm; he was viewing the premises of Messrs. Pachey and >Staples. As regards the younger prisoner, he had insured his stock in >trade >in the Suffolk Fire Insurance-office formt he sum of 350l. The fire did >not >originate in his premises, but in one of the barns of Mr. Pachey that stood >within a few feet of his warehouse, which subsequently caught. When broken >open by the inhabitants very little property was found in the place. The >day after the fire he was met by an assistant agent of the company he was >insured in, who, seeing the he had hurt his hand, asked him how it >happened. >He answered that it was done during the fire in attempting to save his >goods. The agent inquired of him if any had been saved, to which he made >answer, “Nothing whatever; and he had lost twice as much as he was insured >for.” In the latter part of the day the prisoner made his claim of the >amount of his loss to the agent, upon which he was given into custody on a >charge of attempting to defraud the company, proof having been adduced >showing that he had, prior to the fire, removed the chief bulk of his >stock, >&c., to various parts of the town. Witness spoke of the prisoner having >frequently alluded to the danger that that part of the village was exposed >to in the event of Mr. Pachey’s premises taking fire. He had pointed to a >barn, observing, “If that goes, my shop must go,” and it was in this barn >that the fire was first perceived. He had been heard to say that he did >not >care for his neighbours who were not insured. He did not care for a fire, >as he was fully insured. “He should like to see all those (alluding to his >neighbours’ dwellings) in flames that were not insured, This conversation >arose after the second attempt to fire the street.. With a view of showing >that the prisoners acted in concert, it was proved that the elder prisoner >had advanced his nephew 300l. to set him up on business, and attempts were >made to show that the uncle urged its payment, and had connived to obtain >the amount of insurance on his nephew’s goods, but a witness swore >positively that the sum was advanced as a gift to start the nephew in >business. Another witness was called, who had valued the salvage of the >nephew’s property, and in the course of his surveys the prisoner begged >that >he would do all he could for him; for it he could not get the money for his >insurance he could not pay his uncle the 300l. he had lent him. The nephew >lived in the uncle’s house, but it did not appear in evidence that he was >seen in the neighbourood of the fire at its outbreak, although on the alarm >being raised he was immediately on the spot dressed. > At the close of the evidence the magistrates retired to a private room, >and after nearly an hour’s consultation returned, when the Chariman, >addressing the prisoner, said they considered the evidence fully warranted >them in committing them both for trial at the ensuing assizes. > Mr. Isaacson trusted that the bench would liberate the elder prisoner >on >bail. He was a highly respectable man, as the crowded court could testify. > The CHAIRMAN replied that the charge was of so grave a character as to >prevent the bench complying with the application. He was aware of the >respectability of the elder prisoner, but justice made no difference in the >conditions of men. > The prisoners were then conveyed to the county gaol at Cambridge. The >amount of bail tendered was upwards of 5,000l. The assizes commence next >week. > >The Times, July 13, 1846; pg. 5; Issure 19287; col F > > >Unfortunately, the trial was not reported in The Times. Perhaps the >Cambridge Chronicle might have followed the story to its conclusion. > >Margaret > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim & Julie webb [mailto:sohamgen@hotmail.com] >Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 2:06 AM >To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [ENG-CAMB] SOHAM 1841 CENSUS ON LINE > > >Hi Margaret, >Yes it would be of great interest to us, and thanks for taking the time to >contact us. >With Best Wishes >Julie Webb, Soham Roots. > > > >From: "Margaret Paxton" <mlpaxton@rmci.net> > >Reply-To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com > >To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com > >Subject: RE: [ENG-CAMB] SOHAM 1841 CENSUS ON LINE > >Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:15:11 -0600 > > > > > >Dear Tim and Julie, > > > > I recently searched the online archives of The Times of London and > >found > >several stories about Soham going back to the 1800s. Just now I found a > >report of a fire in 1846 which destroyed 13 houses. Quite a number of > >indviduals and their businesses are mentioned. Would this be of interest > >to > >you? > > > >Regards, > >Margaret > >mlpaxton@rmci.net > >. > > > > > > > >==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== > >. > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! >http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > > >==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== >. > > > > >==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== >. > _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/

Hi Kathy I have PAPWORTH connections in Toft, Barton and Comberton. I will look at my notes and get back to you Julie Webber webberja@riverland.net.au Researching SEARLE Comberton, Barton and South Australia PAPWORTH Comberton, Barton, Toft WEBBER Holcombe Rogus Devon, Bristol and South Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: <Kfisher69@aol.com> To: <ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [ENG-CAMB] PAPWORTH > Many thanks but mine seem to mainlycome from Toft > > Kathy > > > ==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== > . > > >

Hello, My name is Patrick Payne and I am from King George County, Virginia. I am the coordinator of the PAYNE Family DNA Project at http://home.earthlink.net/~ppayne1203. Through my genealogical research and our DNA data, I have been able to trace my earliest known ancestor to a Thomas PAYNE (d. 1673) and Jane SMALLPEECE (d. 1675) of St. Mary's County, Maryland. They arrived in America in the year 1664 aboard the ship GOLDEN FORTUNE, Edward PEARCE, Master. Beyond this ancestry, I have very little to go on. For this reason, I am subscribing to several rootsweb lists in the hopes that someone will recognize something that might open some doors for my research. I have been stuck in Maryland for far to long and want nothing more than to discover my English heritage. I have three basic lines of thought about my Thomas PAYNE. 1. Thomas PAYNE may have belonged to a PAYNE family that, evidently, lived in the area of Market LAVINGTON, Wilts. This family is said to have fled the Isle of Jersey at the close of the English Civil Wars for Devon. However, in 1795, a descendant of this family, Ralph PAYNE, rose to the peerage as Baron Lavington- a title chosen for him due to the "Wiltshire origin of his ancestors" according to "The History of Parliament" (although Ralph had requested the title "BRAMPTON"). DNA shows that I am distantly related to known descendants of this family that must have settled in Wiltshire rather than Devon as our family traditions maintain. I have also noticed that a SMALLPEECE family is known to have been residing in the area of Cranleigh, Surry, which is not to far from Market Lavington. As an aside, Lord Lavington was a brother (of the half-blood) of Admiral John Willett PAYNE, who was a friend and personal secretary of HRH, the Prince of Wales (later George IV) and they are s! aid to have been kinsmen of the Banker, Rene PAYN, of SMITH, PAYNE and SMITH Bank. Prince George was a nephew of the Duke of Cumberland, who married (against the Royal Marriage Act), Olive WILMOT, whose niece, Olivia WILMOT, was the wife of Capt. William PAYNE of Lancaster County, Virginia, of Warwickshire and of Miles End, London". Capt. Payne is described in records as "Captain of the Hudson from London." Although there appears to be some form of connection here, we have yet to make it. 2. Thomas may have been a member of the PAYNE family of Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, who, during the 16th and 17th century, had been Lords of the manors of NOWTON, WORLINGTON, NETHERALL TINDALLS and SOHAM. Two generations of this family (from bef. 1521 to 1568) had served as Bailiffs of the Manor of HENGRAVE under the 3rd Duke of Buckingham and his successor, Sir Thomas KYTSON. The possible connection here is formed through the marriage of Sir Thomas SMALLPEECE (d. 1673) of METFIELD and WORLINGHAM, with Alice JERMY (d. 1672), daughter of Francis JERMY and Alice IRBY. The PAYNES of Suffolk were connected to the JERMY'S and their circle of friends.

Good stuff, Margaret: thanks very much indeed! Yours, etc. Geoffrey Woollard in Cambridgeshire.

Hi Margaret, Yes it would be of great interest to us, and thanks for taking the time to contact us. With Best Wishes Julie Webb, Soham Roots. >From: "Margaret Paxton" <mlpaxton@rmci.net> >Reply-To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com >To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [ENG-CAMB] SOHAM 1841 CENSUS ON LINE >Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:15:11 -0600 > > >Dear Tim and Julie, > > I recently searched the online archives of The Times of London and >found >several stories about Soham going back to the 1800s. Just now I found a >report of a fire in 1846 which destroyed 13 houses. Quite a number of >indviduals and their businesses are mentioned. Would this be of interest >to >you? > >Regards, >Margaret >mlpaxton@rmci.net >. > > > >==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== >. > _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Dear List, Here is part 2 of the Soham Fire story. The Late Fire at Soham.—We have already published an account of the fire, which commenced on the premises of Mrs. Peachey, of Hall-street, on Friday morning last. An active inquiry into the origin of the calamity was instituted. It resulted in the apprehension of Cornelius Harvey and his nephew, James Harvey; the former is a man of independent property, and the latter a grocer and draper of the town. The premises of the younger prisoner were burned, and the charge preferred against them was the ignition of the house of Mrs. Peachey with a view of the destruction of that of James Harvey. The stock and premises of James are stated to have been over-insured, and he was indebted to his uncle 300l., the desire for the realization of which, by defrauding the Suffolk Fire-office, would seem to have led them to the commission of the act with which they stand charged. The prisoners were examined before Mr. J. Dobede, resident magistrate, at the Crown Hotel, on Friday. It appeared that although the whole of the younger prisoner’s stock was saved, he had claimed from the office the full amount of his insurance. Such other evidence was adduced as warranted the remand of the prisoners. The Times, July 9, 1846; pg 3; Issue 19284; col F

Dear List, This is the final report that appeared in The Times. The Incendiary Fire at Soham Cambridge, Sunday Night In compliance with a prevous arrangement, the magistrates of Soham, the Rev. Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Dobede, were engaged the whole of yesterday (Saturday) at theCrown Inn, in investigating certain charges preferred against Mr. Cornelius Harvey, a wealthy farmer, and his nephew, James Harvey, suppoed to be feloniously concerned in the origin of the recent fire in that village. It will be recollected that the prisoners underwent a brief examination on the day after the fire, and were remanded to the county gaol at Cambridge until yesterday, when they were brought up, in the custody of Mr. Orridge, the governor. It was evident, from the crowded state of the room, and the anxiety evinced in behalf of the elder prisoner, that he was musch respected in the district. He is between 50 and 60 yers of age, and had lived in the village the greater part of his life. The nephew is a young unmarried man, and from appearances seemed to have passed an irregular career. In reference to the inquiry it should be observed, that for the last two months the village and neighbourhood had been the scene of much excitement in consequence of the outbreak of a series of incendiary fires. To such an extent had the alarm in the district arisen, that the farmers formed themselves into a body to guard their property at night. Notwithstanding this protection fires appear to have happened, and even in the very street where the conflagration occurred on Friday morning ten previous attempts had been made evidently to cause the havoc that has at last been accomplished. The village, as entered by the road from Ely, presents a most desolate appearance. About a third of it appears to be in ashes; nearly the whole of the eastern part of Hall-street—the principal thoroughfare—is consumed, the entire ruins covdring a space of six or seven acres. Up to yesterday fire and smoke were still issuing from various parts of the ruins. The prisoner Cornelius Harvey occupied a neat farmhouse at the extreme end of Hall-street (the main road that passes through the village from Ely to New market), apart from the row of houses on that side of the street. His farming premises are on the opposite side of the road some 200 or 300 yards distant. The nephew occupied a grocer’s and general provision shop about the centre of the row of houses already noticed, with a sort of warehouse at the back, which abutted on the premises of Mr. Pachey, farmer, where the flames were first seen to issue, On each side of Mr. Pachey’s premises was a large number of farming buildings, comprising barns, stables, granaries, stacks, &c., and a windmill, belonging to Messrs. Staples, Morden, and others the whole flanked in front by the houses in Hall-street. Some idea may be formed of the awful extent of the fire when it is stated that the whole of this property, back and front, together with orchards and hedges, was destroyed. The most distressing circumstance is, that the chief part of the occupants of the houses in Hall-street were hardworking industrious families, who have lost all they possessed, and, not being insured, are reduced to much distress. The buildings, 17 in number, however, were insured in the Suffolk Insurance-office for 6,000l. The prosecution was instituted by that company, an agent of which attended to watch the proceedings; and Mr. Isaacson, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the accused. Shortly after the inquiry had sommenced the chariman, the Rev. Mr. Bennett, perceiving the reporter taking notes of the evidence, addressed him and begged that he would refrain from taking any portion of the evidence. It was a private investigation, and with inquiries of that description it was highly necessary that the evidence should not be published until adduced at the trial. He suggested that course with a view of preventing juries from being prejudiced, or the ends of justice being defeated. He knew one or two instances where the publication of evidence had had that tendency. The reporter remarked that he should be happy to attend to any suggestion from the Bench; but, from the fact of the court being certainly an open one, according to appearances, he thought the same practice was adopted as at other judicial inquireies. (The proceedings were held in the large room of the inn, and the door was open for the ingress and egress of the public, who crowded it almost to suffocation.) The rev. Chairman then consulted his clerk, and observed that magistrates, investigations were certainly private, at least in his district (he is the chairman of the Newmarket bench), and, on all grave charges, he excluded reporters. As the reporter was present, however, he would allow him to remain, and would leave it to his discretion not to publish any portion of the evidence that was llikely to have the evil tendency he had alluded to. As nothing transpired in the evidence that would have the effect anticipated by the rev. chairman, we subjoin a brief narrative of the testimony adduced. It was extremely voluminous, 15 or 16 witnesses being examined. The elder prisoner’s apprehension apeared to have resulted from a voluntary statement made by him. Having been noticed by a private watchman, a few minutes before the outbreak, walking from the spot where the flames were first seen to rise, viz., Mr. Pachey’s farm, he was interrogated on the subject. He admitted being the individual, and said that he had been watching about the neighbourhood the greater part of the night, and that when he went home he went to bed, but did not pull off his clothes. The reason he gave was, that he was fearful something would happen, and on being further questioned why he watched that particular spot, he replied, that “he expected a fire would break out, “ but gave no satisfactory account why he entertained such a supposition. These and other suspicious circumstances being reported to the magistrates, his apprehension was ordered, and, in addition to the watchman’s statement, other witnesses spoke positively to having seen him walking up and down a by-lane at the back of Mr. Pachey’s farm, and every now and then peeping through the hedge in the direction of the spot where the fire broke out. It was attempted to be shown for the defence that the prisoner had been watching his own property,--that it had been his practice to be on the watch for several weeks past, but, on the night in question, the witnesses declared that he had been watching some distance from his farm; he was viewing the premises of Messrs. Pachey and Staples. As regards the younger prisoner, he had insured his stock in trade in the Suffolk Fire Insurance-office formt he sum of 350l. The fire did not originate in his premises, but in one of the barns of Mr. Pachey that stood within a few feet of his warehouse, which subsequently caught. When broken open by the inhabitants very little property was found in the place. The day after the fire he was met by an assistant agent of the company he was insured in, who, seeing the he had hurt his hand, asked him how it happened. He answered that it was done during the fire in attempting to save his goods. The agent inquired of him if any had been saved, to which he made answer, “Nothing whatever; and he had lost twice as much as he was insured for.” In the latter part of the day the prisoner made his claim of the amount of his loss to the agent, upon which he was given into custody on a charge of attempting to defraud the company, proof having been adduced showing that he had, prior to the fire, removed the chief bulk of his stock, &c., to various parts of the town. Witness spoke of the prisoner having frequently alluded to the danger that that part of the village was exposed to in the event of Mr. Pachey’s premises taking fire. He had pointed to a barn, observing, “If that goes, my shop must go,” and it was in this barn that the fire was first perceived. He had been heard to say that he did not care for his neighbours who were not insured. He did not care for a fire, as he was fully insured. “He should like to see all those (alluding to his neighbours’ dwellings) in flames that were not insured, This conversation arose after the second attempt to fire the street.. With a view of showing that the prisoners acted in concert, it was proved that the elder prisoner had advanced his nephew 300l. to set him up on business, and attempts were made to show that the uncle urged its payment, and had connived to obtain the amount of insurance on his nephew’s goods, but a witness swore positively that the sum was advanced as a gift to start the nephew in business. Another witness was called, who had valued the salvage of the nephew’s property, and in the course of his surveys the prisoner begged that he would do all he could for him; for it he could not get the money for his insurance he could not pay his uncle the 300l. he had lent him. The nephew lived in the uncle’s house, but it did not appear in evidence that he was seen in the neighbourood of the fire at its outbreak, although on the alarm being raised he was immediately on the spot dressed. At the close of the evidence the magistrates retired to a private room, and after nearly an hour’s consultation returned, when the Chariman, addressing the prisoner, said they considered the evidence fully warranted them in committing them both for trial at the ensuing assizes. Mr. Isaacson trusted that the bench would liberate the elder prisoner on bail. He was a highly respectable man, as the crowded court could testify. The CHAIRMAN replied that the charge was of so grave a character as to prevent the bench complying with the application. He was aware of the respectability of the elder prisoner, but justice made no difference in the conditions of men. The prisoners were then conveyed to the county gaol at Cambridge. The amount of bail tendered was upwards of 5,000l. The assizes commence next week. The Times, July 13, 1846; pg. 5; Issure 19287; col F Unfortunately, the trial was not reported in The Times. Perhaps the Cambridge Chronicle might have followed the story to its conclusion. Margaret -----Original Message----- From: Tim & Julie webb [mailto:sohamgen@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 2:06 AM To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [ENG-CAMB] SOHAM 1841 CENSUS ON LINE Hi Margaret, Yes it would be of great interest to us, and thanks for taking the time to contact us. With Best Wishes Julie Webb, Soham Roots. >From: "Margaret Paxton" <mlpaxton@rmci.net> >Reply-To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com >To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [ENG-CAMB] SOHAM 1841 CENSUS ON LINE >Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:15:11 -0600 > > >Dear Tim and Julie, > > I recently searched the online archives of The Times of London and >found >several stories about Soham going back to the 1800s. Just now I found a >report of a fire in 1846 which destroyed 13 houses. Quite a number of >indviduals and their businesses are mentioned. Would this be of interest >to >you? > >Regards, >Margaret >mlpaxton@rmci.net >. > > > >==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== >. > _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger ==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== .

Dear list, Here is the story as it was reported in The Times of London. There are three articles and I will send them separately. Margaret Conflagration at Soham (From the Cambridge Chronicle) About half-past 1 o’clock yesterday morning the town of Soham was again aroused by the dreadful cry of “Fire,” which commenced on the premises of Mrs. Peachey, widow, in Hall-street, and near the spot where two other fires have happened within the last fortnight. We have not time to state full particulars, having only now left the spot where the fire is still raging, althought somewhat abated. The following will give a brief sketch of the extent of this awful calamity :--13 houses have been burnt to the ground, namely the Globe public-house; the house at the back, in the occupation of W. King, shoemaker; the shop,&c., of Mr. R. Collen, wheelwright; the house, &c., of Mr. E. Munns, blacksmith; the house, shop and goods of Mr. Harvey, grocer and draper; the house, &c., of Mr. Hicks, carpenter; the whole of the extensive farming premises of Mr. E. Staples, together with a newly-erected mill of five stories; the house, &c., of Job Myson, wheelwright; the house and shop of Mrs. Horsley, blacksmith; the house, &c., of Robert Ginn, shoemaker; all the extensive premises and farm buildings (with the exception of the dwelling-house) of Mrs. John Malden; house and premises of Mrs. Sarah Peachey, Mr. John Pettit, &c. There can be no doubt but that this is a diabolical act of incendiarism, as it evidently broke out in various places at the same time. But for the active and persevering efforts of the inhabitants of the town generally, one end of the town must have been a complete ruin. The part of the town in which this awful calamity has occurred is that nearest Ely, and the scene presented to the traveller from that city upon his entrance is deplorable in the extreme. The first ruin he meets with is that of Mrs. Gawtrey’s premises. It may be remembered that there was a fire here on Sunday week, which was arrested before it had made very destructive progress. Many things that were saved were put into the barn; and on Sunday last a second fire occurred there, by which the barn and all that it contained were consumed, as well as the dwelling-house of Mr. Fenn, adjoining. The principal destruction is witnessed upon the premises of Mr. Staples, a farmer and large miller. Here stood one of the finest mills in the county; it was built ten years ago, and was five stories high. After burning some time the sails got set agoing, and the effect they produced was most peculiar and beautiful; they had the appearance of a gigantic firework. A large quantity of flour, &c., was destroyed in this mill. The value of the whole of the household articles belonging to the 13 houses which were saved is less than 200l., and of course many of these are materially injuried by rough handling, &c., as is invariably the case in fires. Amongst the singular occurrences upon the occasion was the removal of an old woman named Stedman, who had been bedridden for three months. She was carried out of harm’s way upon her bed by two surgeons. The fire was arrested at the Globe public-house, occupied by Mr. Norman Kidd, who deals in hay; one large stack was put up close to a tree; and the tree and stack being kept wet was the means of staying the flames. Beyond this there were many thatched houses, so that the destruction would in all likelihood have been much greater if there had caught fire. On the opposite side of the way the house of Mr. Stedman caught fire three times; but it was got out by means of wet blankets. And fortunate it was that this was so, for the chances are the destruction would otherwise have been double that which it now is. The supply of water was small, there was nothing but pumps, and these had been almost exhausted by the previous fires and the dry weather. An area of at least five acres has been laid waste, the buildings burnt down, and even the trees in the gardens and all the hedges burnt up. Of course it is impossible to estimate accurately the amont of damage done by this shocking occurrence, but we apprehend it cannot be less than 5,000l., nearly the whole of which is insured in the Suffolk, and some in the Norwich Union-office. The vicar (Mr. Tasker), the Rev. Mr. Bull, Mr. Dobede, and the principal inhabitants, were very active and useful in their endeavours to stay the progress of the flames; and, with honour be it said, many ladies, seeing the lack of hands, formed into lines, and did all they could in the way of passing along the buckets of water. A large quantity of new hay and corn has been burnt, but all the live stock was saved, except a sow and two small pigs. The number of persons rendered homeless by this calamity is 79, and the condition of some of them is very deplorable. But they will be cared for by their neighbours in the best way that circumstances will allow. The Times, Jul. 6, 1846; pg. 3; Issue 19281; col F

Hi list The 1841 Census for Wicken including Upware & Padney is now on-line at www.sohamroots.co.uk Regards Tim Webb _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

I would be verry interested too. Carole