> >In a will of 1655, the following occurs >"...Thomas Ham[m]ond of Threshfield gent hath by Indenture of mortgage secured >some landes in Threshfield to my [sic - me] my Executors administrators >and Assignes for twoe thousand yeares with a Provisoe that the >estate thereof be voyd upon payment of Twoe hundreth poundes >to me my executors or Assignes upon the second day of February >which shalbe in the yeare of our Lord 1656 and of Interest >yearlie for the same untill it be paid..." > >Was there some reason in particular why a mortgage would be for two thousand >years? Was this wording common? 1000 was, as an incentive to the borrower to get up and scrape together the money and repay it on time. So 2000 is just a doubly sure incentive? However, these were difficult times (Commonwealth) hence possibly Thomas was a crypto royalist, and what he was really doing was apparently giving his estate away, to avoid having it confiscated by Parliament under the provision for 'malignants' estates'. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <001901c4117d$d9994020$2bd0fc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >What about squatters in relation to the waste? If you tried that on a mediaeval manor, you ended up with important bits of you anatomy missing. There was a provision for raising a shelter (cottage-let) on the waste in C17, usually late C17, if you could do it and get a fire going within 24 hours. Of course, this needed to cooperation of carpenters and a team of helpers, so it could only be accomplished if you were acceptable to the locals anyway. It was a stopgap provision between allowing no incomers and allowing those who came with a settlement certificate. You tend to get retrospective planning permission from the magistrates. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

My thanks to all who replied to my query re poor rates It seems that old addage there is nothing so certain in life as Death and Taxes was a true then as now I had been puzzled by the fact that his neighbours were all rated at different amounts however have now discoved that the new houses on the south side of covent garden were not of a uniform sytle as had originally been specified by Indego Jones for the rest of the Piazza how was the ratable value of a house (on which the poor rate was based) made up is it just the window tax chris glass ruislip uk

Perhaps PT is more appropriate? Physical Training and not Poll Tax:-) Kind Regards June & Roy http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Eve McLaughlin [mailto:eve@varneys.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:38 AM To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] Poor Rates >In tracing the painter Christian Frederick Zincke i have found him in >the Poor Rates 1715-1748 for St pauls covent garden london > >ive found several good sites on the poor laws but none that explain who >was liable to pay and how their liabilty was calculated any householder who was not himself on the bread line. The amount rental value for the property the person lived in > >CFZ's stayed about the the same at 6sh 6pence 1710 till 1729 but it >jumps to >£1 16sh in 1733 a great dearth, price of bread shot up round about then, so more people needed poor relief. Don't mention words like council tax - God knows what they do with it, but very little beneficial to me. -- 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

What about squatters in relation to the waste? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] tenants rights > In message <006601c41043$b8808460$ebcefc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" > <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes > >What 's the difference between a cottar and a cottager? > about 500-=700 years - the term cottager is rarely used before the C19, > when it referred to someone owning (or occasionally renting long term) a > cottage with a large garden, enough room to grow produce or keep-say- > chickens -enough to support his family and from time to time sell the > surplus, but not big enough to count as a market gardener or husbandman. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > THREADED archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >

Hello All In my experience occupiers of farm land whether rented or freehold and in town trades and business people seem to be those who were rated. I do not know how they assessed businessmen but the land farmers occupied (whether their own or not had a rateable value and sometime this did not seem to change for 40 years or more. A rate was set that seemed to depend on need. In some parish this seemed to vary considerably and I have one parish where it went up to 6 shillings and 8 pence for each pound of rateable value for the overseers accounts and on top of that they paid a further 3 to 4 cents per pound for the churchwardens accounts. This was a very high year and some years the rate for the overseers accounts were half this amount. The churchwardens accounts seemed more consistent. regards Chris Bartlett > -----Original Message----- > From: J.C.Christopher Glass [mailto:chrisx@jccglass.fsnet.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2004 9:14 a.m. > To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [OEL] Poor Rates > > > In tracing the painter Christian Frederick Zincke i have found him in the > Poor Rates 1715-1748 for St pauls covent garden london > > ive found several good sites on the poor laws > but none that explain who was liable to pay > and how their liabilty was calculated > > CFZ's stayed about the the same at 6sh 6pence 1710 till 1729 > but it jumps > to > £1 16sh in 1733 and by 1741 had risen to £2 15sh > > having just recieved my council tax bill for this year i know just how he > must of felt > > chris Glass > ruislip Uk > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > >

>In tracing the painter Christian Frederick Zincke i have found him in the >Poor Rates 1715-1748 for St pauls covent garden london > >ive found several good sites on the poor laws >but none that explain who was liable to pay > and how their liabilty was calculated any householder who was not himself on the bread line. The amount rental value for the property the person lived in > >CFZ's stayed about the the same at 6sh 6pence 1710 till 1729 but it jumps >to >£1 16sh in 1733 a great dearth, price of bread shot up round about then, so more people needed poor relief. Don't mention words like council tax - God knows what they do with it, but very little beneficial to me. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <006601c41043$b8808460$ebcefc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >What 's the difference between a cottar and a cottager? about 500-=700 years - the term cottager is rarely used before the C19, when it referred to someone owning (or occasionally renting long term) a cottage with a large garden, enough room to grow produce or keep-say- chickens -enough to support his family and from time to time sell the surplus, but not big enough to count as a market gardener or husbandman. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

I can't speak for any parish other than my own and then only hazarding a guess based on a couple of very large sheets of rates accounts and assessments. The people mentioned on these sheets (and it has also to be said that it's a long time since I consulted them) seem to have had a property requirement, possibly similar to hearth tax assessments in a way. From what I remember, I think a certain amount of land either owned or rented was required before they would be rated. I can't remember if it stated anywhere how this was to be done and think I just went off the people I knew about who were on the list and how much they had to pay. The overseer for the poor, appointed by the vestry, was responsible for their collection and answerable to the vestry for it. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "J.C.Christopher Glass" <chrisx@jccglass.fsnet.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:14 PM Subject: [OEL] Poor Rates > In tracing the painter Christian Frederick Zincke i have found him in the > Poor Rates 1715-1748 for St pauls covent garden london > > ive found several good sites on the poor laws > but none that explain who was liable to pay > and how their liabilty was calculated > > CFZ's stayed about the the same at 6sh 6pence 1710 till 1729 but it jumps > to > £1 16sh in 1733 and by 1741 had risen to £2 15sh > > having just recieved my council tax bill for this year i know just how he > must of felt > > chris Glass > ruislip Uk > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Although not an example of a LONDON Poor Law Tax Assessment, I have transcribed an example of a Poor Law Tax Assessment for 1618 for my own local area: http://members.aol.com/gayjoliver/PoorLaw1618Part1.htm In addition to this, by the late 18th Century people were also paying Land Tax and a Highways Maintenance Tax. Audrey was correct in stating that the collection of this tax was the responsibility of the Overseers of the Poor appointed by the Vestry. GAY Stalybridge Cheshire http://members.aol.com/gayjoliver/Tameside.htm http://members.aol.com/victoroly/genealogy.htm http://members.aol.com/gayandmike/photogallery.htm http://www/fhsc.org.uk/fhsc/dukinfield.htm

In tracing the painter Christian Frederick Zincke i have found him in the Poor Rates 1715-1748 for St pauls covent garden london ive found several good sites on the poor laws but none that explain who was liable to pay and how their liabilty was calculated CFZ's stayed about the the same at 6sh 6pence 1710 till 1729 but it jumps to £1 16sh in 1733 and by 1741 had risen to £2 15sh having just recieved my council tax bill for this year i know just how he must of felt chris Glass ruislip Uk

What 's the difference between a cottar and a cottager? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 3:19 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] tenants rights > In message <016701c40fb7$53eadff0$c201a8c0@Carlasp4>, 1carla > <cbodette@wi.rr.com> writes > >Since the discussion has turned to "farmer" and his leasees/lease holders. > >Perhaps I could ask about the terms cottar > cottar is a very early mediaeval term for a serf on a manor holding a > relatively small amount of land (provided by the lord in return for work > services. He had less than a villein and probably more than a bordar > (who could increase his by breaking new land in the waste). The land at > that stage would have been returned to the lord on death, for > reallocation. After a time, the custom became to let the son take over > what his father had worked, but this was a privilege, not a right. > > a crofter, largely a Scottish term. held a small piece of tenanted land > enclosed from the moors, often broken by himself, in the early days, and > the small homestead was usually central to the patch. Crofters paid > rent and the great complaint was that they were not compensated for > imporvements or given security of tenure. > > -- > 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 > >

In message <016701c40fb7$53eadff0$c201a8c0@Carlasp4>, 1carla <cbodette@wi.rr.com> writes >Since the discussion has turned to "farmer" and his leasees/lease holders. >Perhaps I could ask about the terms cottar cottar is a very early mediaeval term for a serf on a manor holding a relatively small amount of land (provided by the lord in return for work services. He had less than a villein and probably more than a bordar (who could increase his by breaking new land in the waste). The land at that stage would have been returned to the lord on death, for reallocation. After a time, the custom became to let the son take over what his father had worked, but this was a privilege, not a right. a crofter, largely a Scottish term. held a small piece of tenanted land enclosed from the moors, often broken by himself, in the early days, and the small homestead was usually central to the patch. Crofters paid rent and the great complaint was that they were not compensated for imporvements or given security of tenure. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <002701c40fa2$3d6d2c20$4dccfc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >Baby farming and puppy farming have more sinister inferences, don't they. I >remember a while ago the list having a discussion on the baby sort occurring >in and around 19th London and a very nasty practice it seemed to be. It was still a version of a 'commodity' handed over to a user who then made what profit could be made out of it. (and often that meant disposing of or starving the infant) Kilburn was reckoned to be a major place for farming babies in the 1890s -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Cottars had four acres or less and were considered the lowest of the serfs. See Domesday Book. Gary

In message <005101c40f25$f0c40000$14d0fc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >To the best of my knowledge(?) it originally meant 'lease holder' special kind - the ordinary lease for a fixed period might forbid subletting. the farm lease specifically envisaged this, and whatever sums the 'farmer' could screw out of people. > - to farm >out. The change possibly came between the 15th and 16th centuries but I'd >love someone to correct me on this. a century later, and variably -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Baby farming and puppy farming have more sinister inferences, don't they. I remember a while ago the list having a discussion on the baby sort occurring in and around 19th London and a very nasty practice it seemed to be. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] tenants rights > In message <005c01c40efc$d0b64490$84f1a1cd@preferred>, Gordon Barlow > <barlow@candw.ky> writes > >> The word 'farmer' only came in slowly (and meant something else > >> originally) > >> Eve McLaughlin > >> > >Excuse my ignorance, but what did "farmer" mean originally? > a person who leased either land or some kind of money making scheme > (like a taxgathering) for a set sum, on the understanding that he could > make as much out of it as the market would bear. So originally he sublet > land at unfixed rents or went round collecting the tax, making as much > profit as he thought he could in a set period of time./ Gradually, men > who had leased land in this way probably farm let (at a high rent) parts > of it, and kept the rest in hand, to 'agriculture' it and make as much > as they could out of it that way. Gradually, 'farming' of taxes more or > less ceased, (c early 18C) so a 'farmer' was taking on agricultural > land, and the two terms, for the man who was leasing land and what he > did with it, became more or less synonymous. > > Think 'farmed out' referring to work (outsourcing now) and babyfarming. > The actual job of agriculturing a field was referred to as husbandry. > > -- > 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 <005c01c40efc$d0b64490$84f1a1cd@preferred>, Gordon Barlow <barlow@candw.ky> writes >> The word 'farmer' only came in slowly (and meant something else >> originally) >> Eve McLaughlin >> >Excuse my ignorance, but what did "farmer" mean originally? a person who leased either land or some kind of money making scheme (like a taxgathering) for a set sum, on the understanding that he could make as much out of it as the market would bear. So originally he sublet land at unfixed rents or went round collecting the tax, making as much profit as he thought he could in a set period of time./ Gradually, men who had leased land in this way probably farm let (at a high rent) parts of it, and kept the rest in hand, to 'agriculture' it and make as much as they could out of it that way. Gradually, 'farming' of taxes more or less ceased, (c early 18C) so a 'farmer' was taking on agricultural land, and the two terms, for the man who was leasing land and what he did with it, became more or less synonymous. Think 'farmed out' referring to work (outsourcing now) and babyfarming. The actual job of agriculturing a field was referred to as husbandry. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Since the discussion has turned to "farmer" and his leasees/lease holders. Perhaps I could ask about the terms cottar and crofter? They too were leasees but with different rent forms and taxes. Also, when would these terms have come into and out of use? carlab - Denne meldingen er sjekket for virus av Norton Anti-virus - This message was checked for virus by Norton Anti-virus

To the best of my knowledge(?) it originally meant 'lease holder' - to farm out. The change possibly came between the 15th and 16th centuries but I'd love someone to correct me on this. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Barlow" <barlow@candw.ky> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 4:25 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] tenants rights > > The word 'farmer' only came in slowly (and meant something else > > originally) > > Eve McLaughlin > > > Excuse my ignorance, but what did "farmer" mean originally? And, from when > till when (roughly) did the change occur? > > Gordon Barlow > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > Going away for a while? > Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > >