Hello All So where does the Chirurgeon fit in and what would his part have been Were his duties simply bleeding a couple of times a year. Despite parents who could not sign their own signatures my 3ggrandfather was the local schoolmaster and chirurgeon in a small country village on the Shropshire Worcestershire border from about 1825 regards Chris Bartlett

>".Item I give and bequeath unto my Bretheren Mr >Thomas Thorneton and Mr Robert Dorsett to eyther >of them eight pounds for and towards the Chardge >wch they shalbe at in the bringinge upp my other >twoo bretheren Richard and Roberte Thorneton nowe >wth them uppon." > > > >Use of the word "bretheren" in this passage >puzzling. The plural of brother, usually brethren so big brother and brother in law are to look after the younger brothers. >Jerome was the son of Thomas Thornton of Great > > >1. Why does Jerome will say "Mr Thomas" instead of >just "Thomas" ? Could it be that he wasn't >Jerome's brother? #Mr' is an honorific - presumably Mr Thomas is either rich, nobly bred (in Vis Ped, so he is) or in an important position about the court, or any combination. > > > >2. I never before encountered the use of >"bretheren" (once capitalized and once not to add >more confusion). simple plural > Elsewhere in the will Jerome uses >the normal "my brother Henry Thornton" singular form >3. Why does Jerome include "Mr Robert Dorsett" as >part of "Bretheren" when his surname is not >Thornton. Could he have been a brother in law? yes -= either husband of sister or wife's brother is a 'brother' just as much as an own sibling -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Bob: At the time of this will, "bretheren" or "brethren" was simply an alternative plural of "brother" and so meant "brothers"; and a "brother" could be either what we now call a brother or what we now call a brother-in-law. Best wishes Paul Prescott ----- Original Message ----- From: "bob2626" <bob2626@charter.net> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 12:13 PM Subject: [OEL] Puzzling Use Of "Bretheren" in 1578 Will > Thanks to Chris Phillps' gracious and competent > help I have this transcription of a portion of the > 1578 will of Jerome Thornton, Yeoman of Greenford, > Middlesex: > > > > ".Item I give and bequeath unto my Bretheren Mr > Thomas Thorneton and Mr Robert Dorsett to eyther > of them eight pounds for and towards the Chardge > wch they shalbe at in the bringinge upp my other > twoo bretheren Richard and Roberte Thorneton nowe > wth them uppon." > > > > Use of the word "bretheren" in this passage > puzzling. > > > > First ,some background info and then my questions. > > > > Jerome was the son of Thomas Thornton of Great > Greenford who died in 1573. I compare the list of > Thomas' children from his will with that from the > pedigree by Richard Mundy (Harleian Society, > Volume 65, MIDDLESEX PEDIGREES, London 1914 > (available as CD290 from Quintin Publications at > www.quintinpublications.com > <http://www.quintinpublications.com/> ): > > > > > 1573 Thomas Will > > Mundy Middlesex Pedigree > > > Elizabeth > > > > > Catherine > > > > > Margaret > > Margaret > > > Dorothy > > > > > Katherine Parson* > > > > > John > > > > > Richard > > > > > Robert > > > > > Peter > > Peter > > > Edward > > Edward > > > Henry > > Henry > > > Jerome > > Jeromy > > > > > Petronell > > > > > Mary > > > > > Thomas > > > > Note that Mundy has a son Thomas but the 1573 will > doesn't include him. > > > > My questions: > > > > 1. Why does Jerome will say "Mr Thomas" instead of > just "Thomas" ? Could it be that he wasn't > Jerome's brother? > > > > 2. I never before encountered the use of > "bretheren" (once capitalized and once not to add > more confusion). Elsewhere in the will Jerome uses > the normal "my brother Henry Thornton" and "my > sonne." Anyone have a theory on that? > > > > 3. Why does Jerome include "Mr Robert Dorsett" as > part of "Bretheren" when his surname is not > Thornton. Could he have been a brother in law? > > > > Best regards to all, > > > > Bob Thornton > > Duluth, Georgia > > USA > > bob2626@charter.net > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 27-08-2004

There seems to be a general impression that the 17th and early 18th centuries were a bad time to get ill. But in fact, as Peter Amsden said, "All in all the history of medicine in the UK is one of immense complication". As compared with today, things were very uneven; anatomy was way ahead, perfectly adequate for most purposes. Surgical instruments had been manufactured with beautiful skill and ingenuity since at least the time of the Pompei eruption. Physiology, the function of body parts, lagged considerably. Perhaps worst of all was the lack of medical registration and accreditation - it was difficult to detect quacks. And lack of social welfare; most couldn't afford treatment. Home knowledge and treatment were good - better than today (servants performed many small operations that would today be done in a G.P.'s surgery till about 1800 -bleeding, cupping, eexcising tumours. And mothers knew incubation periods for infectious diseases until about 50 years ago, without books). Nursing, before 1850 (Nightingale) was not a serious subject. Just sentimental twaddle. Diagnostic procedures were rudimentary except for surgical lesions. Probably worst of all, was the stigma attached to surgeons and their profession, combined with a corresponding ridiculous over-valuation of physicians. Surgery was enormously hampered by lack of anaesthesia and asepsis, or blood-transfusions (which were I think still illegal after disastrous early attempts) even more than was physics by lack of present-day antibiotics and other drugs. Understandably, if there was the slightest chance that your gangrene could be cured by a tobacco-smoke enema, you would prefer that to amputation. Bleeding was no doubt a sensible way of reducing BP, but was used even for gun-shot wounds. Snail-water went out only in the 20th C. Vile and useless ingredients were common in prescriptions till around 1800; probably only about a quarter of receipts did any good at all. Deaths tended to be blamed on surgeons rather than inappropriate medication, because of the shorter time-lapse. Today, observation and auscultation skills have been almost lost due to the ready and over-used tools such as lab tests and Xrays. Many doctors who jeer at herbal remedies forget modern drugs evolved from them, and they would be lost - unlike their predecessors- if a war destroyed their hospitals. The high reputation of 17th C physicians was on the whole quite undeserved, and the low one of the surgeons they so despised, equally so. Surgeons moved with the times, always developing new skills (such as amputations in a record time), whilst physicians were conceited fops and quacks, still immersed in Galen and Hippocrates. Only in recent times do surgery and medicine unite sucessfully. Superstition dies slowly; I recall (recovering from scarlet fever 50 years ago) that health authorities had no faith in disinfectants unless they were black, evil-smelling, and toxic. Drastic meant good, like white dogs' faeces in medicine earlier on! What we call 'progress' is largely chance change of focus, in that dignosis of chest diseases (without the aid of 'cheats' such as Xrays) reached a never-surpassed peak around 1900. And even uroscopy (diagnosis of everything by urine inspection) might have reached perfection if nothing else had replaced it for six centuries. John Barton

I seem to recall that in my youth all these measures were tabulated neatly on the shiny back covers of "Silvine" exercise books, along with Apothecaries' measures (pennyweights, drachms, etc.) and some strange mumbo-jumbo called "metric measure". SANDRA LOVEGROVE Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Barton" <bartonlander@free.net.nz> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 29 August 2004 22:14 Subject: Re: [OEL] Acres, roods and perches > Rods, poles and perches are alternative names for 5 1/2 yards. So here it is > apparently square perches. > Long measure: > 3 barleycorns = 1 inch > 4 inches = 1 hand > 12 inches = 1 foot > 3 feet = 1 yard > 5 1/2 yards = 1 rod, pole, or perch > 40 poles (220 yards) = 1 furlong > 8 furlongs (1760 yards) = 1 mile > 3 miles = 1 league > > In surveying: > 100 links = 1 chain (22 yards) > 10 chains = 1 furlong > Nautical: > 6 feet = 1 fathom > 6080 feet or 1.1516 statute miles = 1 nautical mile. > A knot is not a measure, but a speed of 1 nautical mile per hour. > Area: > 144 square inches = 1 square foot > 9 square feet = 1 square yard > 30 1/4 square yards = 1 square pole > 40 square poles = 1 rood > 4 roods = 1 acre (4840 square yards) > 640 acres = 1 square mile. > 6 feet = 1 fathom > > John Barton > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <YeagerLA@aol.com> > To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 7:58 AM > Subject: [OEL] Acres, roods and perches > > > > Hi > > Apologies for this - I'm sure this has been asked and answered before but > > being a dunce I can't seem to work out how to search the archives - I > can't even > > find the mailing list on Rootsweb's main site! > > I'm transcribing an 1807 Enclosure Award and have allotments such as 29a > 7r > > 38p > > but have no idea how many 'p's in an 'r' and similarly how many 'r's in an > > 'a'! > > I've Googled it but every site I visit seems to give me a different > answer. > > Some even say a perch is the same as a rood or is it a rod? > > Can anyone help me? > > Many thanks > > All the best > > Leigh Driver > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > > > > ______________________________

Good Morning All - Used to recite all this at one time but memory dictates the reference books: Now where did I put those books? AH! - Terrick VH Fitzhugh in his Dictionary of Genealogy comments: "The word ACRE sometimes means nothing more than a piece of arable land without reference to size. It is never safe to assume that it corresponded to our present statute acre. In Lancashire there were three different acres in use well into the nineteenth century" My 1941 reference to ALL measurements states the following regarding Area (Square Measure) 144 inches = 1 square foot 9 square feet = 1 square yard 30 1/4 square yards = 1 square pole 40 square poles = 1 rood 4 roods = 1 Acre (4840 square yards) 640 acres = 1 square miles A Perch (not the birdie or fishy kind!) is a Rod or Pole measuring 5 1/2 yards [5.03metres]) or (Square Perch) 30 1/4 Square Yards - as above - IT can also be taken as a measure of stone work, 24 3/4 or 25 cubic feet. Keep dry out there - Kind Regards Roy & June Cox www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: YeagerLA@aol.com [mailto:YeagerLA@aol.com] Sent: 29 August 2004 20:59 To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] Acres, roods and perches Hi Apologies for this - I'm sure this has been asked and answered before but being a dunce I can't seem to work out how to search the archives - I can't even find the mailing list on Rootsweb's main site! I'm transcribing an 1807 Enclosure Award and have allotments such as 29a 7r 38p but have no idea how many 'p's in an 'r' and similarly how many 'r's in an 'a'! I've Googled it but every site I visit seems to give me a different answer. Some even say a perch is the same as a rood or is it a rod? Can anyone help me? Many thanks All the best Leigh Driver ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Good grief! Can't those west britons get anything right? ----- Original Message ----- From: "CMR" <cmr1ch6rd7@blueyonder.co.uk> To: "John Barton" <bartonlander@free.net.nz>; <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Acres, roods and perches > Just to complete the picture Irish Acres were a lot larger than statute > ones: > 1 Acre Irish = 1.619835 Statute acres > Christopher Richards

Rods, poles and perches are alternative names for 5 1/2 yards. So here it is apparently square perches. Long measure: 3 barleycorns = 1 inch 4 inches = 1 hand 12 inches = 1 foot 3 feet = 1 yard 5 1/2 yards = 1 rod, pole, or perch 40 poles (220 yards) = 1 furlong 8 furlongs (1760 yards) = 1 mile 3 miles = 1 league In surveying: 100 links = 1 chain (22 yards) 10 chains = 1 furlong Nautical: 6 feet = 1 fathom 6080 feet or 1.1516 statute miles = 1 nautical mile. A knot is not a measure, but a speed of 1 nautical mile per hour. Area: 144 square inches = 1 square foot 9 square feet = 1 square yard 30 1/4 square yards = 1 square pole 40 square poles = 1 rood 4 roods = 1 acre (4840 square yards) 640 acres = 1 square mile. 6 feet = 1 fathom John Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: <YeagerLA@aol.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 7:58 AM Subject: [OEL] Acres, roods and perches > Hi > Apologies for this - I'm sure this has been asked and answered before but > being a dunce I can't seem to work out how to search the archives - I can't even > find the mailing list on Rootsweb's main site! > I'm transcribing an 1807 Enclosure Award and have allotments such as 29a 7r > 38p > but have no idea how many 'p's in an 'r' and similarly how many 'r's in an > 'a'! > I've Googled it but every site I visit seems to give me a different answer. > Some even say a perch is the same as a rood or is it a rod? > Can anyone help me? > Many thanks > All the best > Leigh Driver > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

> inclined to think that the interest on the sum left would be sufficient to maintain her agreeable to her wishes if so beg'd". Withough having seen the handwriting itself, I should be inclined, from its context, to interpret it as 'bequeathed'. It was not unknown for scribes to misalign the 'tails' in letters 'g'g and 'q'. IB

Sorry, I didn't know that the table would not come through properly formatted. Here it is again with the table replaced with a list. Thanks to Chris Phillps' gracious and competent help I have this transcription of a portion of the 1578 will of Jerome Thornton, Yeoman of Greenford, Middlesex: ".Item I give and bequeath unto my Bretheren Mr Thomas Thorneton and Mr Robert Dorsett to eyther of them eight pounds for and towards the Chardge wch they shalbe at in the bringinge upp my other twoo bretheren Richard and Roberte Thorneton nowe wth them uppon." Use of the word "bretheren" in this passage puzzling. First ,some background info and then my questions. Jerome was the son of Thomas Thornton of Great Greenford who died in 1573. I compare the list of Thomas' children from his will with that from the pedigree by Richard Mundy (Harleian Society, Volume 65, MIDDLESEX PEDIGREES, London 1914 (available as CD290 from Quintin Publications at www.quintinpublications.com) 1573 Thomas Will: Elizabeth Catherine Margaret Dorothy Katherine Parson John Richard Robert Peter Edward Henry Jerome Mundy Middlesex Pedigree: Margaret Peter Edward Henry Jeromy Petronell Mary Thomas Note that Mundy has a son Thomas but the 1573 will doesn't include him. My questions: 1. Why does Jerome will say "Mr Thomas" instead of just "Thomas" ? Could it be that he wasn't Jerome's brother? 2. I never before encountered the use of "bretheren" (once capitalized and once not to add more confusion). Elsewhere in the will Jerome uses the normal "my brother Henry Thornton" and "my sonne." Anyone have a theory on that? 3. Why does Jerome include "Mr Robert Dorsett" as part of "Bretheren" when his surname is not Thornton. Could he have been a brother in law? Best regards to all, Bob Thornton Duluth, Georgia USA bob2626@charter.net

Thanks to Chris Phillps' gracious and competent help I have this transcription of a portion of the 1578 will of Jerome Thornton, Yeoman of Greenford, Middlesex: ".Item I give and bequeath unto my Bretheren Mr Thomas Thorneton and Mr Robert Dorsett to eyther of them eight pounds for and towards the Chardge wch they shalbe at in the bringinge upp my other twoo bretheren Richard and Roberte Thorneton nowe wth them uppon." Use of the word "bretheren" in this passage puzzling. First ,some background info and then my questions. Jerome was the son of Thomas Thornton of Great Greenford who died in 1573. I compare the list of Thomas' children from his will with that from the pedigree by Richard Mundy (Harleian Society, Volume 65, MIDDLESEX PEDIGREES, London 1914 (available as CD290 from Quintin Publications at www.quintinpublications.com <http://www.quintinpublications.com/> ): 1573 Thomas Will Mundy Middlesex Pedigree Elizabeth Catherine Margaret Margaret Dorothy Katherine Parson* John Richard Robert Peter Peter Edward Edward Henry Henry Jerome Jeromy Petronell Mary Thomas Note that Mundy has a son Thomas but the 1573 will doesn't include him. My questions: 1. Why does Jerome will say "Mr Thomas" instead of just "Thomas" ? Could it be that he wasn't Jerome's brother? 2. I never before encountered the use of "bretheren" (once capitalized and once not to add more confusion). Elsewhere in the will Jerome uses the normal "my brother Henry Thornton" and "my sonne." Anyone have a theory on that? 3. Why does Jerome include "Mr Robert Dorsett" as part of "Bretheren" when his surname is not Thornton. Could he have been a brother in law? Best regards to all, Bob Thornton Duluth, Georgia USA bob2626@charter.net

In message <84.32239b12.2e638f70@aol.com>, YeagerLA@aol.com writes >Hi >Apologies for this - I'm sure this has been asked and answered before but >being a dunce I can't seem to work out how to search the archives - I can't even >find the mailing list on Rootsweb's main site! >I'm transcribing an 1807 Enclosure Award and have allotments such as 29a 7r >38p >but have no idea how many 'p's in an 'r' and similarly how many 'r's in an >'a'! >I've Googled it but every site I visit seems to give me a different answer. >Some even say a perch is the same as a rood or is it a rod? 40 perches (p) (rods, poles or) = one rood (r) 4 roods one acre (a) It is true that in loose speech, rood is sometimes used for rod - a detail designed to confuse -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Just to complete the picture Irish Acres were a lot larger than statute ones: 1 Acre Irish = 1.619835 Statute acres Christopher Richards ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Barton" <bartonlander@free.net.nz> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Acres, roods and perches > Rods, poles and perches are alternative names for 5 1/2 yards. So here it > is > apparently square perches. > Long measure: > 3 barleycorns = 1 inch > 4 inches = 1 hand > 12 inches = 1 foot > 3 feet = 1 yard > 5 1/2 yards = 1 rod, pole, or perch > 40 poles (220 yards) = 1 furlong > 8 furlongs (1760 yards) = 1 mile > 3 miles = 1 league > > In surveying: > 100 links = 1 chain (22 yards) > 10 chains = 1 furlong > Nautical: > 6 feet = 1 fathom > 6080 feet or 1.1516 statute miles = 1 nautical mile. > A knot is not a measure, but a speed of 1 nautical mile per hour. > Area: > 144 square inches = 1 square foot > 9 square feet = 1 square yard > 30 1/4 square yards = 1 square pole > 40 square poles = 1 rood > 4 roods = 1 acre (4840 square yards) > 640 acres = 1 square mile. > 6 feet = 1 fathom > > John Barton > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <YeagerLA@aol.com> > To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 7:58 AM > Subject: [OEL] Acres, roods and perches > > >> Hi >> Apologies for this - I'm sure this has been asked and answered before but >> being a dunce I can't seem to work out how to search the archives - I > can't even >> find the mailing list on Rootsweb's main site! >> I'm transcribing an 1807 Enclosure Award and have allotments such as 29a > 7r >> 38p >> but have no idea how many 'p's in an 'r' and similarly how many 'r's in >> an >> 'a'! >> I've Googled it but every site I visit seems to give me a different > answer. >> Some even say a perch is the same as a rood or is it a rod? >> Can anyone help me? >> Many thanks >> All the best >> Leigh Driver >> >> >> ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >> OLD-ENGLISH Web Page >> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >> >> > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > > >

In many ways the apothecaries were the forerunners of the GPs. They were grandfathered into the medical profession when the medical acts were passed in the 19th century. This was when the GMC was set up. You are right about money being behind many medical practices. For instance an major reason why you can't see a consultant except through a GP was to protect the income of GPs - why see a GP if you can go straight to a physician. (There can also be advantages in this restriction on trading because it can be disastrous if you get into the hands of the wrong specialist - a good GP will usually be able to steer you in the right direction.) Christopher Richards (I stopped being a GP in 1990) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Amsden" <amsden@btinternet.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 6:37 PM Subject: [OEL] Apothecaries Rhinocerous >I can find no mention of such a sign in "The History of The Society of > Apothecaries", Penelope Hunting, 1998. > > What is apparent is that there was nothing less than warfare between the > Surgeons, physicians and the apothecaries during the 17th Century. This > continued for a considerable period, until in 1858 there were no less than > nineteen different licensing corporations in England. Scotland and Ireland > also had its own oddities. > > In earlier times licences to practice medicine could be obtained from the > Church and there are still lists of those licensed to practice medicine to > be found in the records various Archdeaconries. > > By the late 1800s it was possible to obtain the qualification of LSA > (Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries). This allowed apothecaries to > practice medicine, but not to charge for it. They could only charge for > medicines that they dispensed. Non the less these practitioners were > usually > referred to as Doctor. > > All in all the history of medicine in the UK is one of immense > complication, > containing political overtones and the taking over of the apothecaries > role > by the emerging pharmaceutical giants. Money was clearly the objective and > I > detect that this attitude still persists to this day. > > > Peter Amsden, > Argyll, Scotland > > Researching Amsden World Wide > Outline History: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~amsden > Amsden Forum: http://www.genforum.com/amsden > Books I have written: http://www.btinternet.com/~amsden > AllExperts: http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=38044 > > Never dump originals - they may be all that is left after the computer > age. > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > THREADED archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > >

In a very long but interesting Will, that I just received from the PRO and have transcribed, I found an abbreviated word in one sentence. I can't figure out what it stands for and I am quite sure I transcribed it correctly. Here is the sentence: ". Mungo Langcake, in his Last Will, dated 9 March, 1770, after "several particular legacies", left everything to his "tender and affectionate mother and hoped and was inclined to think that the interest on the sum left would be sufficient to maintain her agreeable to her wishes if so beg'd". It is the last word that has me baffled: "beg'd" (without the quotation marks). What does it mean, any ideas? I am afraid it is really easy but I just don't get it. From the context you might think it means something like "desired". Art Lengkeek Researching Langcake and Longcake surnames in Cumberland and Westmorland, UK in 16th and 17th centuries.

I can find no mention of such a sign in "The History of The Society of Apothecaries", Penelope Hunting, 1998. What is apparent is that there was nothing less than warfare between the Surgeons, physicians and the apothecaries during the 17th Century. This continued for a considerable period, until in 1858 there were no less than nineteen different licensing corporations in England. Scotland and Ireland also had its own oddities. In earlier times licences to practice medicine could be obtained from the Church and there are still lists of those licensed to practice medicine to be found in the records various Archdeaconries. By the late 1800s it was possible to obtain the qualification of LSA (Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries). This allowed apothecaries to practice medicine, but not to charge for it. They could only charge for medicines that they dispensed. Non the less these practitioners were usually referred to as Doctor. All in all the history of medicine in the UK is one of immense complication, containing political overtones and the taking over of the apothecaries role by the emerging pharmaceutical giants. Money was clearly the objective and I detect that this attitude still persists to this day. Peter Amsden, Argyll, Scotland Researching Amsden World Wide Outline History: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~amsden Amsden Forum: http://www.genforum.com/amsden Books I have written: http://www.btinternet.com/~amsden AllExperts: http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=38044 Never dump originals - they may be all that is left after the computer age.

Hi Apologies for this - I'm sure this has been asked and answered before but being a dunce I can't seem to work out how to search the archives - I can't even find the mailing list on Rootsweb's main site! I'm transcribing an 1807 Enclosure Award and have allotments such as 29a 7r 38p but have no idea how many 'p's in an 'r' and similarly how many 'r's in an 'a'! I've Googled it but every site I visit seems to give me a different answer. Some even say a perch is the same as a rood or is it a rod? Can anyone help me? Many thanks All the best Leigh Driver

Dr. Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, man of vision and letters and well educated, called himself "Doctor of Physick," at his office in Philadelphia, USA. ~~Dixie in Indianapolis

Many thanks to those who responded to my queries. Once again I received authoritative advice for which I am very grateful. Don Tomkinson

Sorry, Readers. I couldn't resist it!! Lyn Boothman said: The surgeon and physician thing was a major difference, they were completely different professions, or throught they were. They still do!!