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!