It is always moving to see original records from the 17th century, at least I find it so. However I personally can't see that it's either necessary or desirable for those of us who are merely pursuing our personal family history, to see and handle these fragile documents. There is a difference between relying on transcripts found on the internet (including this list), and relying on the published transcripts of the records. Transcripts uploaded to the internet may or may not be correct. But the published transcripts will have been proofread with great care, and should be reliable. Historians and professional genealogists rely on the published transcripts, so it seems to me that us amateurs should do likewise. With regard to the record from the Minutes, about Sarah Maycock receiving land: the question that arose, as I understand it, was whether the item did or did not include a reference to a Mrs Samuel Maycock. Ruth Clark, in one of the two transcripts which she posted to this list, had "Mrs Samuel Maycock"; in the other transcript which she posted to the list, she had "Mr Samuel Maycock". Kim Zapalac has now confirmed that the transcript in the LoC, which is the same transcript that Ruth saw, has "Mr Samuel Maycock". That seems to settle the question, unless I'm missing something. Thanks to Kim for taking the trouble to find it. --------------------------------- Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal