Hello Michael I've had a lot of problems finding my Hawkes relatives in and around Haggerston, Shoreditch. However, they did move about from street to street and that may have been the reason they used different churches despite being within a stone's throw of the last move. What is more, I can find no marriage (of course there may not have been one even though they did call themselves man and wife in the 51 census). I can also find no baptism of the wife/mother even though her husband appears in the same place for the same time as quoted in the census. I've tried looking in different churches, those that existed in and around 1801 that is, but can't find any baptism for her. I'm almost at the point of giving up for her. However, not all children were baptised, as far as I can see so there's no surety of finding any of the missing links, worst luck. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Scott" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 5:49 PM Subject: [OEL] missing baptisms > Hello, > > I've found a puzzling case of a late c18 Whitechapel family who did not > baptise their first two children. I have quite a lot of background > information about them and can find no obvious explanation. I wonder if > anyone has further ideas? > > Phineas Johnson and Mary Taylor married 1772 and lived on White Lyon > Street > in Whitechapel (the South end of today's Leman Street). The baptisms of > nine > of their children are registered at St Mary Whitechapel between 1777 and > 1792. However, there are (at least) two more: > > (1) Henry George Johnson, apprenticed a Painter Stainer and baptised in > his > 40s at St Mary Lambeth (giving his date of birth 1773) > (2) James Taylor Johnson, apprenticed a Stationer in 1790. Presumably born > 1776 or earlier. > > Two explanations occurred to me, but neither seems probable: > > I wondered if Phineas might be a nonconformist -- certainly a popular > option > in Whitechapel at this time. But I've found no evidence for this. He was > baptised himself, as were all his brothers and sisters, at St Mary > Whitechapel and he married at St John Wapping. > > Also, Phineas appears to have been financially ok for most of his life, if > not particularly wealthy. He was apprenticed a Painter Stainer, became > free > of the City and worked as an oilman or colourman. He paid taxes on the > property in White Lyon St until his death in 1804; he also inherited > property in Hendon which he sold in the 1780s. None of the parish records > identify him as poor. > > thanks, > > Michael > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.4/399 - Release Date: 25/07/2006 > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 28/07/2006 > >

Hello Michael, I should think a transfer of loyalties to a non-conformist church might be the reason - personalities, relatives and friends all play a part in making choices, even on the church you attend. But it could be the 3d tax on register entries between ( from memory) Oct 1783 to 1792 or thereabouts that was to blame. The tax was resented (aren't all taxes resented??!) by people and clergy (who had enough trouble collecting tithes let alone taxes for Whitehall) and so did not survive for long, and it seems to have had the effect while it lasted of reducing to some extent the number of baptisms . I somehow doubt if marriage or, in particular, burial numbers were much affected !!! So in the sense that it was difficilt to avoid if you had a relative to bury it was quite clever work by the Chancellor of the day !! Jim Halsey