Dear Geoff, I know you think this is quite straight forward, and it is - now that you've explained it. I had it completely around the wrong way, thinking the land was going to (3) John BIRD. Also, you are correct about a close link between these people, as my ggg grandfather William JACKSON, named one of his sons John Bird JACKSON. Thank you so much for taking the time to send such a detailed reply. Regards Barbara TONES (nee JACKSON) born Sunderland - living Melbourne Australia. ----- Original Message ----- From: <GNicresearch@aol.com> > In a message dated 14/03/2004 04:56:42 GMT Standard Time, > btones@bigpond.net.au writes: > > > 2537. 24 May 1834. > > > > (1) Edward Wylam of Findon Cottage, Co. Durham, Esq. > > (2) Jane Bird of Chester le Street, Co. Durham, widow. > > *William Jackson of Chester le Street, surgeon. > > (3) John Bird of Chester le Street, gent. > > Copies of 2 Admittances by the court for the manor of Chester Deanery of > > (1), each to 3 acres in the West Field of Chester surrendered by (2) in trust > > for (3). (Lot 3). Paper 3ff. > > > > I wonder if anyone can explain to me (in simple terms) what this means? > > > This sounds to me like an extract from either the Durham Record Office > on-line catalogue or else from that of Durham University Library, Archives > and Special Collections. It is in the standard format for describing Deeds in > any cartulary or Record Office catalogue, and I would have thought it fairly > straightforward. > > There were two small (3 acres each) pieces of land which lay within > the Manor of Chester Deanery. That was a small manor close to Chester le > Street, the Lord of which was not the Bishop of Durham, who was Lord of the Manor of > Chester le Street itself, but the owner of the estate known as Chester > Deanery. Jane Bird and William Jackson had been the effective joint "owners" of the > land. They were copyholders, that is their proof of their right to the land > was their copy of the Roll, or record, of the Lord of the Manor's Halmote > (Manorial) Court, at which they had been "admitted" (ie permitted to occupy the > land), on payment of a "fine" or fee, plus a small nominal rent (usually 4d per > acre per year, which would be 1/- per year for each of the plots here). > However, Jane and William were not the copyholders on their own behalf, but held > the land in trust for John Bird. It is likely that the previous owner, perhaps > John Bird's father or uncle, had left the land (or money) in that way in his > Will, possibly because John was under age when the Will was written. > > However, Jane and William had "surrendered", ie given up, the land to > Edward Wylam, no doubt for a "consideration" or price not mentioned in this > abstract of the Deed, though possibly (not always) mentioned in the Deed itself. > Presumably the terms of the Trust allowed them to invest the money other > than in that piece of land - the Trust may have given them that land in the first > place, with power to sell if they thought fit, or it may have been in money > at the start they having bought the land with it as an investment, which they > now wished to change. > > The process of selling copyhold land was one which had to involve the > Lord of the Manor's Halmote Court, as the original owners (Jane and William) > had to surrender it to the Court, and only the Court could then grant it out > again, this time to Edward, presumably at the request of Jane and William, who > had taken Edward's money on that understanding. Edward would then have had to > pay the fine to the Court for entry onto the land, and he would have had to > agree to pay the nominal rent, whereupon he would have been given his own copy > of the Court Roll and would have become the copyholder. > > Note that when I say "fine" I am not implying there had to be any > recognition of law-breaking. The word was used with its original meaning of "an > end" - ie a payment which settled any outstanding disputes, satisfied all > parties and so "put and end to the matter". Fines were often required when legal > agreements were entered into. > > As for the precise nature of the land, a lot depends on whether the > West Field of Chester, no doubt originally one of the "open fields", farmed on > the old mediaeval system of one-acre strips, had been enclosed or not. If it > hadn't been enclosed then the total of six acres were probably in six separate > strips, perhaps having originated several ownerships ago as two holdings of > three acres each. If it had been enclosed by 1834 then we are probably talking > about two small three-acre fields or paddocks which may or may not have been > adjacent to each other. > > I would say there is a good likelihood that Jane Bird was John Bird's > mother, his father being the one who had set up the trust, and that William > Jackson might have been another close relative - perhaps Jane's brother. Note > that none of the parties was described as a farmer, so the land concerned was > being held purely as an investment, and was no doubt sub-let to some local > farmer who would do the actual work on it. > > One little niggle - you call this query "Non-gen". I don't agree. > Not only may it shed light on the parentage of John Bird, but it might provide > evidence of a relationship of some sort with William Jackson. On a wider > scale, it is certainly not non-family history. I would regard this Deed as an > important piece of evidence of the standing and finances of the family, and one > which helps flesh out the persons concerned as real people. It is quite > definitely something which should come into the scope of interest of a family > historian as well as of a genealogist. > > Geoff Nicholson > > 57 Manor Park, Concord, WASHINGTON, Tyne & Wear NE37 2BU > NBL/DUR family history research in depth by THE local expert. > Record searching service: you name the records, I search them! > > > ==== ENG-DURHAM Mailing List ==== > query board for Durham gen web > http://www.britishislesgenweb.org/cgi-bin/data/durham.cgi > >