Anne: The surname looks like "Cocke" to me. Best wishes Paul Prescott ----- Original Message ----- From: "ath" <higham@clara.net> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 3:09 PM Subject: [OEL] Transcription help please > Hi all ~ > > On my behalf, Judith has kindly uploaded an excerpt from a 1660 deposition > to........ > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/unsolved36.html > > I'd be grateful for help on the surname that appears (twice) in line 3. > Many thanks > Anne H. in Epping, England > > > > ==== 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: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18-03-2004

Hi Anne, I think the surname is YORK or possibly YORKE Nuala ----- Original Message ----- From: "ath" <higham@clara.net> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 3:09 PM Subject: [OEL] Transcription help please > Hi all ~ > > On my behalf, Judith has kindly uploaded an excerpt from a 1660 deposition > to........ > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/unsolved36.html > > I'd be grateful for help on the surname that appears (twice) in line 3. > Many thanks > Anne H. in Epping, England > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > >

Is it "Yorke"? Rog -----Original Message----- From: ath [mailto:higham@clara.net] Sent: 03 April 2004 15:09 To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] Transcription help please Hi all ~ On my behalf, Judith has kindly uploaded an excerpt from a 1660 deposition to........ http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/unsolved36.html I'd be grateful for help on the surname that appears (twice) in line 3. Many thanks Anne H. in Epping, England ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Hi all ~ On my behalf, Judith has kindly uploaded an excerpt from a 1660 deposition to........ http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/unsolved36.html I'd be grateful for help on the surname that appears (twice) in line 3. Many thanks Anne H. in Epping, England

Here they're called "herdsman." There's quite a lot to the job if it's a large farm, the herdsman is responsible for the health of the herd and keeping all the records as to milk production for each cow, breeding records and getting the cows bred at the proper time, plus probably more that I'm not aware of. Ruth At 9:58 AM -0800 4/2/04, John Drewell wrote: >hello Elizabeth, > >I grew up on a farm int the thirties and the man in >charge of the cattle was always the cowman. > >Several of my Drewells in the 19th century called themselves >COWKEEPERS, but later upgraded themselves to DAIRYMEN. >A bit of social climbing, I guess! >..... >John Drewell in Vancouver BC >(searching all DREWELL mentions) -- Ruth Barton mrgjb@sover.net Dummerston, VT

Hello Anne: I am quite sure the name is "Yorke" Art Lengkeek, Chilliwack, BC

The herdsmen that I know DO NOT do the mucking out. That's for the lower down farm hands to do. Ruth At 7:11 AM +0100 4/3/04, Roy wrote: >Mucking out, as they so politely put it today! > >Kind Regards > >June & Roy >http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -- Ruth Barton mrgjb@sover.net Dummerston, VT

Mucking out, as they so politely put it today! Kind Regards June & Roy http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Ruth Barton [mailto:mrgjb@sover.net] Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 12:09 AM To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] Re: Cowkeepers Here they're called "herdsman." There's quite a lot to the job if it's a large farm, the herdsman is responsible for the health of the herd and keeping all the records as to milk production for each cow, breeding records and getting the cows bred at the proper time, plus probably more that I'm not aware of. Ruth At 9:58 AM -0800 4/2/04, John Drewell wrote: >hello Elizabeth, > >I grew up on a farm int the thirties and the man in charge of the >cattle was always the cowman. > >Several of my Drewells in the 19th century called themselves >COWKEEPERS, but later upgraded themselves to DAIRYMEN. >A bit of social climbing, I guess! >..... >John Drewell in Vancouver BC >(searching all DREWELL mentions) -- Ruth Barton mrgjb@sover.net Dummerston, VT ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Absolutely! Apprentices getting paid, WOW! 18th century they had to pay the master to teach them, or at least their parents did if they were known!! Kind Regards June & Roy http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Eve McLaughlin [mailto:eve@varneys.demon.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 12:17 AM To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: spam: Re: [OEL] low pay, 1812 In message <6b.25ee860d.2d9ec9b1@aol.com>, Grahampollett@aol.com writes >Things had not improved much by 1889 when my grandfather, aged 15, was >apprenticed for four years as a seaman. He was paid (quote) the sum of >26 pounds in manner following; that is to say Two pounds for the first >year, four for the second, eight for the third and twelve for the >fourth and last. Cor, there's spoiling him. Earlier apprentices got nothing but their bed and board (and tuition) unless the master felt generous, when he might tip them a few pennies at Christmas. What could a lad spend such enormous amounts of money on? Riotous living, booze and naughty ladies? (Don't answer that) -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

In message <6b.25ee860d.2d9ec9b1@aol.com>, Grahampollett@aol.com writes >Things had not improved much by 1889 when my grandfather, aged 15, was >apprenticed for four years as a seaman. He was paid (quote) the sum of 26 >pounds in >manner following; that is to say Two pounds for the first year, four for the >second, eight for the third and twelve for the fourth and last. Cor, there's spoiling him. Earlier apprentices got nothing but their bed and board (and tuition) unless the master felt generous, when he might tip them a few pennies at Christmas. What could a lad spend such enormous amounts of money on? Riotous living, booze and naughty ladies? (Don't answer that) -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

You are so right. I suppose the equivalent today is someone losing his job and having a mortgage still to pay and various other taxes besides with very little coming in from the various benefits that are also taxed. It is not only the reduction in wages but the loss of status and dignity in the community that goes with it. You only have to read of the hardship of the day and also depicted in some of the literature around at the time, reports in the newspapers and so on, to see how desperate people could be. As you say, it's hardly surprising they rioted. But then, there were the hellish new machines that they blamed for their distress as well as the mill owners who employed them. Now a days buildings are set on fire and then machines were smashed. Reactions differ little and causes can also be similar, even though we often fail to appreciate them at the time. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Barlow" <barlow@candw.ky> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 5:17 PM Subject: [OEL] Fw: low pay, 1812 > More than for the general interest of the wage levels, my posting (below) > was intended to highlight the drastic reduction of the wage. A reduction > from 28 to 11 1/2 of anything is a massive chop. What was left over for > food and clothing dropped from 20s1d to 4s1d. In any economy it is not the > ordinary level of income that has the impact, but the difference between the > old and the new. To lose four fifths of one's income (unless the rent > dropped by the same amount, which it probably did not) would have had a > devastating effect. No wonder they rioted! We don't see that sort of thing > today, of course. > > Gordon > > > > From my notes, the following snippet on Carlisle: 1812 riots over low pay > > etc. (A weaver's wages had been reduced from 28/- for "working a piece of > > gingham" to 11/6 less rent of machinery etc = net 7/5; house-rent, firing > > etc cost 3/4 p.w., leaving 4/1 for food & clothing.) Amazing! > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Good Evening Gordon - Maybe not in Canada does one see that sort of thing to-day! However, my Army pension is now taken up entirely by the new rate of the Community Charge; which leaves me with not a lot, but I do have (when do I get it?) an extra £100 pounds from our beloved chancellor to help pay this "Is It Fair" Tax! Must admit though, a 40% drop in wages is not a very desirable occurrence and I think you are right also that rent stayed as it was, as maybe, did other costs? I'm not a statistician or even much of a mathematician, but it would be interesting to view average weekly wages between 1800 to 2000 for an average family. An Army Sergeant I knew in 1947 received the massive amount of £4 per week, he was quite pleased with his rise from £3 10s. or thereabouts! Kind Regards June & Roy http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Barlow [mailto:barlow@candw.ky] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 5:18 PM To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] Fw: low pay, 1812 More than for the general interest of the wage levels, my posting (below) was intended to highlight the drastic reduction of the wage. A reduction from 28 to 11 1/2 of anything is a massive chop. What was left over for food and clothing dropped from 20s1d to 4s1d. In any economy it is not the ordinary level of income that has the impact, but the difference between the old and the new. To lose four fifths of one's income (unless the rent dropped by the same amount, which it probably did not) would have had a devastating effect. No wonder they rioted! We don't see that sort of thing today, of course. Gordon > From my notes, the following snippet on Carlisle: 1812 riots over low > pay etc. (A weaver's wages had been reduced from 28/- for "working a > piece of gingham" to 11/6 less rent of machinery etc = net 7/5; > house-rent, firing etc cost 3/4 p.w., leaving 4/1 for food & clothing.) Amazing! ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Don't you also have to look at any possible fringe benefits available to them at the time, also employment opportunities for their wives and children. Surely income into a household is a better indicator than one man's wage and opportunities to grow food and keep animals, as well as the outgoings in the form of rent, food and clothing. My policeman had his work clothes provided, i.e. his uniform, for 2/- a week. Even when, in 1841, his pay rose to £1/2/6 as a sergeant and he had his wife and six children to care for with a whole house to rent, the family income was far greater than his wage after reductions. His wife and one of his daughters were laundresses, three of his other daughters were also working (probably from home and not earning a great deal as bonnet trimmers and the like) and his son worked as a dock messenger. There was just one child who was described as a scholar in 1851. Poplar, in 1891, a family consisting of a widow, two sons and two grandchildren had a combined income of 11s., earned by one of the sons. The other son brought in what he could from odd jobs, having had his hand crushed in an industrial accident. The children were not apparently earning and nor was the widow. Their rent was 4 shillings a week. On the worst weeks, their combined income, after rent, must have been just 7shillings for everything else for all five of them. These were poor but not by any means the poorest of those living around them. Consider the plight of their related daughter in law, deserted with four children at the time of her death. Her income came from work in a shirt factory, whatever that amounted to, and if she didn't work, she wasn't paid and the family starved. Occasionally her estranged husband gave them some money but they were all starving when she died as a result of child birth complications. The workhouse was the last place of call for all of them, after which they went their separate ways. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] low pay, 1812 > In message <005501c4179a$01f9d850$a9f0a1cd@preferred>, Gordon Barlow > <barlow@candw.ky> writes > >>From my notes, the following snippet on Carlisle: 1812 riots over low pay > >etc. (A weaver's wages had been reduced from 28/- for "working a piece of > >gingham" to 11/6 less rent of machinery etc = net 7/5; house-rent, firing > >etc cost 3/4 p.w., leaving 4/1 for food & clothing.) Amazing! > > Cor what riches! Those textile workers didn't know they were born. An > agricultural labourer was earning about 6 to 7s a week, IF he was in > work (and that was a big if. There is an interesting comment by a local > magistrate in 1830, sentencing a man who snared a rabbit on his farmer > master's land, with no objection from the farmer. However, a local gent > had leased the shooting rights over the farm for fun shooting and wanted > the lot. Richard said his mother and the younger children were hungry, > and he only earned 6s a week. The magistrate piped up 'Six shillings? > Why I spend more than that on feeding my dog. But then, so I should, for > HE is a valuable animal'. Richard got a fortnight in gaol. And Mum and > the kids presumably had to do without even the 6s. > > > > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >

hello Elizabeth, I grew up on a farm int the thirties and the man in charge of the cattle was always the cowman. Several of my Drewells in the 19th century called themselves COWKEEPERS, but later upgraded themselves to DAIRYMEN. A bit of social climbing, I guess! ..... John Drewell in Vancouver BC (searching all DREWELL mentions) ======================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Atherton" <elizabeth.atherton@tesco.net> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 1:44 AM Subject: [OEL] Re: Cowkeepers > That's quite true - our milk was delivered - in bottles - by a Liverpool > city cowkeeper in the mid 1960's. It was quite a sight to see cows being > taken to pasture about half a mile away along city streets. In the winter > they were kept in stalls. > Now, in Chester, we garage our car in a yard once owned by such a cowkeeper. > .. Elizabeth Atherton > > I wonder if the cowman was literally a keeper of cows which were kept in > the > city to provide milk. > Christopher Richards > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >

Thanks Liz and Audrey - Regards Narelle "Just off the Road to Gundagai....." ************************************************** www.annforbes.org ************************************************* www.jmi.net.au ************************************************* AntiVir Installed ----- Original Message ----- From: <emagar@hotkey.net.au> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] HUXLEY Doc Number 2 > Dear Audrey, > > Nearly! :-) There are two 'p's as well - one before and one after the [. But > we know what you mean!! :-) > > Must be problems with the clocks? > > Cheers and thanks, > > Liz > > Quoting "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net>: > > > Dear All > > > > You'd never think that I check over my typing, would you. In my previous message I wrote > > 'ap[urtena]ces'. It did need another n i.e. 'ap[urtena]nces'. Sorry for this. Put it down to the > > aging process. > > > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: mjcl > > To: norman.lee1 ; OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com > > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 1:03 PM > > Subject: Re: [OEL] HUXLEY Doc Number 2 > > > > > > Audrey, > > > > That would fit - and the "p" is definitely similar to others. > > > > Regards > > > > Martyn > > > > "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> wrote: > > Liz, Martyn and Narelle > > > > Had another look at line 14 and think it just could be 'apnces' i.e. > > ap[purtena]ces. What do you think? > > > > Audrey > > > asnip > > ______________________________

That's OK Audrey - we have picked it up by cross-referencing with other's contributions - Regards Narelle "Just off the Road to Gundagai....." ************************************************** www.annforbes.org ************************************************* www.jmi.net.au ************************************************* AntiVir Installed ----- Original Message ----- From: "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] HUXLEY Doc Number 2 > Dear All > > You'd never think that I check over my typing, would you. In my previous message I wrote 'ap[urtena]ces'. It did need another n i.e. 'ap[urtena]nces'. Sorry for this. Put it down to the aging process. > > Audrey > ----- Original Message ----- > From: mjcl > To: norman.lee1 ; OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 1:03 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] HUXLEY Doc Number 2 > > > Audrey, > > That would fit - and the "p" is definitely similar to others. > > Regards > > Martyn > > "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> wrote: > Liz, Martyn and Narelle > > Had another look at line 14 and think it just could be 'apnces' i.e. > ap[purtena]ces. What do you think? > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mjcl" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:40 PM > Subject: RE: [OEL] HUXLEY Doc Number 2 > > > > Liz, Audrey, Narelle, > > > > My typos are terrible!! > > > > But I do agree with your other interpretations. Consideration makes > perfect sense in the circumstances, much better than my first attempt, but I > cant get any further with the mystery word on line 14. > > > > Regards, > > > > Martyn > > > > emagar@hotkey.net.au wrote: > > Hi Narelle and Martyn, > > > > Sorry this has taken a while - I am struggling with broken email software > > (my Office CD won't read!) and I've also been helping with other > > transcriptions. Since Martyn's posting, I haven't seen any additional > > comments, so here goes. > > > > A few additions/changes to Martyn's transcription - several of these are > > just typos which it's much easier to see when one hasn't done the > > original transcription. > > > > 2. A typo - 'interest', and I agree it's 'sealed'. > > 5. A couple of typos - shld. be 'interest' and "T.H.' > > 7. 'are respec[tive]ly' ? > > 10. A typo - 'the the' shld be 'the' > > 12. 'with' not 'under' and typo - 'aftermentioned' > > 14. 'that in Cons[iderati]on of the [..?..] & of the sum of' (see also > line 25 re Cons'on) > > 16. A typo - '&' not '7' > > 17. 'full' not 'free' > > 19. "made by' not 'made of' > > 20. 'two sev[era]l Ind[entu]res of Rele[ase]' The R here looks like that > in line 9, page 1. > > 21. '&' not 'and' > > 22. '& of & from the same & every part thereof doth acquit' > > 24. 's[ai]d T. Huxley & their resp[ecti]ve heirs Exec[uto]rs > ad[ministrator]s & ass[igns] - And in' > > 25. 'Cons[iderati]on' rather than 'Com[m]on' > > 26. A typo - 'the' not 'tthe' > > > > In line 14 and line 25 Com[m]on doesn't seem to fit the sense. I think > it's Cons[ideration]. > > The write is a great one for extreme abbreviation! > > > > I have not been able to think of any word to fill the gap in line 14 that > also looks > > like what is written. Perhaps someone else could look at this. I think > it's the only > > word left. > > > > I hope that helps rather than confuses! > > > > Cheers, > > > > Liz in Melbourne > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > > > > ______________________________

More than for the general interest of the wage levels, my posting (below) was intended to highlight the drastic reduction of the wage. A reduction from 28 to 11 1/2 of anything is a massive chop. What was left over for food and clothing dropped from 20s1d to 4s1d. In any economy it is not the ordinary level of income that has the impact, but the difference between the old and the new. To lose four fifths of one's income (unless the rent dropped by the same amount, which it probably did not) would have had a devastating effect. No wonder they rioted! We don't see that sort of thing today, of course. Gordon > From my notes, the following snippet on Carlisle: 1812 riots over low pay > etc. (A weaver's wages had been reduced from 28/- for "working a piece of > gingham" to 11/6 less rent of machinery etc = net 7/5; house-rent, firing > etc cost 3/4 p.w., leaving 4/1 for food & clothing.) Amazing!

Things had not improved much by 1889 when my grandfather, aged 15, was apprenticed for four years as a seaman. He was paid (quote) the sum of 26 pounds in manner following; that is to say Two pounds for the first year, four for the second, eight for the third and twelve for the fourth and last. It is probably not relevant that his master was based in Glasgow :-)) Graham Pollett

Hi Sue, I think it looks like Wm. Culears Mentialley disordered The surname 2nd letter looks like u or even a but the connector to the next letter is at the bottom so I don't think it's an o. The 3rd word could be Martialley but weren't men's "infirmities" supposed to be listed . I'm fairly sure about the last word. Cheers, Liz in Melbourne Quoting S & G Mills <suegar@iinet.net.au>: > Hi everyone, > > I am transcribing a Militia list and need some help please. I have upoaded a scan of the problem > and if you hover over the page an enlarger should pop up. If it doesn't I can email the scan. > > http://members.iinet.net.au/~suegar/militialist.jpg > > Can anyone make out the 18th line down from the left. It looks like William Cale but there are > Cull and Cole families in this place but I haven't seen a Cale. Also need to know what is written > after the name. As it is not his occupation I thought it may be a comment on why he couldn't be > available. First thought it began with Mentially but now think it looks more like Martialley > something. Many thanks in advance. > > Sue Mills. >

Agree about most of this but think it's Martialley disordered. Could it not mean that he's unfit for military service? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: <emagar@hotkey.net.au> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Militia list help wanted > Hi Sue, > > I think it looks like > > Wm. Culears Mentialley disordered > > The surname 2nd letter looks like u or even a but the connector to the next > letter is at the bottom so I don't think it's an o. > > The 3rd word could be Martialley but weren't men's "infirmities" supposed to > be listed . > > I'm fairly sure about the last word. > > Cheers, > > Liz in Melbourne > > Quoting S & G Mills <suegar@iinet.net.au>: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I am transcribing a Militia list and need some help please. I have upoaded a scan of the problem > > and if you hover over the page an enlarger should pop up. If it doesn't I can email the scan. > > > > http://members.iinet.net.au/~suegar/militialist.jpg > > > > Can anyone make out the 18th line down from the left. It looks like William Cale but there are > > Cull and Cole families in this place but I haven't seen a Cale. Also need to know what is written > > after the name. As it is not his occupation I thought it may be a comment on why he couldn't be > > available. First thought it began with Mentially but now think it looks more like Martialley > > something. Many thanks in advance. > > > > Sue Mills. > > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > Going away for a while? > Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > >