In message <mailman.1.1445975737.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, johnfhhgen via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: [] >For Norfolk to Northumberland, sea passage was always a possibility. As (As another has said, my ancestors probably were too late for this discussion. But let's proceed anyway, as I for one find it interesting:) >well as fishing, for that particular route there was coal traffic from >the 16th.century if not earlier (coals to Newcastle!) Well, I guess the boats that took coals from Newcastle had to go back the other way! >Sea passage was always a possibility for anywhere in reasonable reach >of the coast. In earlier times places now thought of as "inland" were >also ports - e.g. Norwich, Gloucester, and so on. >From late 17th.cent increasing number of places linked by canal. >Water was the transport of choice for goods from time immemorial - >think of stone and timber for castles and cathedrals. I've always thought of canal traffic as goods rather than passengers ... > >The less affluent, if fit and healthy, could presumably 'work their >passage'. ... with the canal boat operator and his one or two crew being sufficient for the labour required. But you may be right - especially perhaps for seagoing vessels rather than canal-. Though presumably, as you say, limited to fit and healthy - a young widow with a gaggle of children, say, probably couldn't move. > >Regards, >John Henley > -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I am the person for whom 'one size fits all' never fits. - Chris McMillan in UMRA, 2011-11-12