Hi I was at the AGM (but haven't been on this list for a while) and have to say I was and still am very concerned as to the conduct of the meeting. I actually suggested to the SoG Chairman (not our president who chaired the AGM) prior to the meeting that he should abstain the proxies as he would be determining the outcome of the vote and effectively no one else. I have no axe to grind for or against any of the candidates but do believe in democracy in action which in my view hasn't happened in this case. Firstly it states in the Articles of Association - article 40 that the conduct of an election should be held according to Standing Orders. I requested said Standing Orders, There is nothing in them relating to the conduct of an election for trustees. That in itself should have rang an alarm bell somewhere and at least have been discussed by the Trustees prior to the AGM - not so according to the Trustees I have spoken to. Secondly Article 27 gives two forms of proxy, the form sent to members and another type which allows for members to instruct their proxy how to act i.e. for whom to vote for. This raises a couple of very serious questions, Why wasn't this form used in this case, as it is in every other charity, building society and company in which I have shares, when electing the trustees/board? Secondly even more serious - if not the election of our trustees, what circumstances would the current trustees use this second form of proxy if at all?? Thirdly because of the change in the Articles that took place in 2009, it was necessary to send a form of proxy to every member. But it would be interesting to note if many members had picked up on the fact of an election from the notice of AGM which accompanied the proxy.It doesn't indicate that fact at all. In all probability, if I was not attending myself ,I would have given my proxy to someone without realizing this fact. It is obvious from the voting that the Chairman had around 180 proxies. It may not have made any difference to the vote but did mean that it was effectively pointless those members attending voting at all (not sure of the numbers but it must have been over 60). It would though be interesting to know the Chairman's rationale for choosing the candidates he selected as the unsuccessful candidate was chairman of the education sub-committee and from the members on that committee that I have spoken to - he did a very good job. I would like to say what I think it was ..... but until I have spoken to my solicitor am not prepared to do so in open forum. He is currently away on holiday. I will though happily email anyone privately. The conduct of this election was abhorrent to me and must never happen again. The Articles must be changed to, at the very least, remove article 27 (2) and standing orders changed to have a conduct of an election section that can be referred to by Trustees in the future. If you wish to look at the Articles they can all be found at http://www.sog.org.uk/governance/governance.shtml as well as the form of proxy and AGM notice Alec Tritton Former Chairman of the Federation of Family History Societies At 16:37 01/07/2011, you wrote: >Why have proxy voting anyway? Presumably the agenda, including any >proposals to be voted on, is made known to members in advance of the AGM, so >it seems to me that even if you are willing to leave it to the chairman >you will still have to communicate that fact to the Society. You might just >as well send your votes. > >Regards > >George Bush > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 1 Jul at 7:03, Christopher Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > Tim, > > While I support the principle behind your suggestion, I'm unsure as to > its practicality. > > I presume that, if a nominee has conflicting requests, then they cast > the associated numbers of votes in each direction. That's easy. > However, what I'm concerned about is the limit of two. If I was to > require the Chairman (for example) to vote for option A, and there > were a hundred others requesting voting for the other options, then I > would expect the Chairman to place all the votes - e.g. 20 for option > A, 40 for B and 40 for C - plus his own choice. Why limit to two? Good point. Perhaps we need to distinguish between: (a) Postal Votes where the member states exactly what they are voting for. (b) Proxy votes where the member states exactly what they wish to vote for and some nominee exercises that vote. Perhaps no limit per nominee is needed for that. (c) Carte Blanche Proxy Votes where the member says to his nominee that they can vote for whatever the nominee wants. This should be controlled if it is allowed at all. My vote would be for (A) only; but as the UK Parliamentary Elections have proved, postal votes can be abused. <snip for brevity> -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On 1 Jul at 12:02, Adrian Bruce <[email protected]> wrote: > Tim, <snip> Re your proposals: > > "1. Specify what the vote should consist of. No powers of carte > blanche are to be allowed." Seems reasonable. Arguably if you give > carte blanche, then you personally deserve everything you get but > that's a touch unhelpful for others. It is debatable whether carte blanche should be allowed. Certainly block voting, where blocks are more than three voles, should not be allowed as it is undemocratic when all members are equal. > "2. Not give more than two proxy votes to any one nominee." I don't > think you gain anything from this. If you've tied the nominee down, I > don't think it matters whether they have 2 proxy votes to wield or > 102. Unless you imagine anyone is likely to be swayed by "My proxy > votes are bigger than your proxy votes" arguments, and I'd hope we > weren't. I agree that this was confusing. The point I was trying to cover was where we did allow a measure of carte blanche proxy voting and therefore wished to limited those proxy votes to two plus the members themselves. > "3. Be specifically authorised in advance requesting particular > nominees to vote for particular motions in a particular way. > Preferably the nominee and the requestor should get together > beforehand to ensure that no nominee is even asked to vote for more > than two people." I think the first sentence just repeats 1, doesn't > it? Unless I'm missing something? And the second sentence is not > required if we discard 2. Again this only deals with the problems of controlling carte blanche proxy voting. I trust I am not revealing anything but one member was informed at the last minute that he had two votes. He did not know who he was voting for and would have liked to have known and what their preferences were. So the questions really are whether: (a) We allow Proxy Voting at all, (b) We allow any proxies to be carte blanche. Personally I think we ought to allow (a) to cover the lame, the halt and the weak, etc. I would also prefer that we did not allow (b) but if it was to be allowed, it should be controlled to forbid the insidious evil of block voting. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Why have proxy voting anyway? Presumably the agenda, including any proposals to be voted on, is made known to members in advance of the AGM, so it seems to me that even if you are willing to leave it to the chairman you will still have to communicate that fact to the Society. You might just as well send your votes. Regards George Bush

On 30 Jun at 14:59, J F Wilby <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tim > > it does seem a bit of an odd arrangement > > when I get voting papers from other organisations they usually give > you a choice of > > listing who you want to vote for > OR > allowing the Chairman to vote as they see fit > > but the voter has the choice > > would something similar be suitable do you think ? The problem is that of the block vote. I do not think anyone should have the right to decide the votes of more than one person, thereby exercising a block vote. Carte blanche choice by a nominee is undemocratic in a member based social organisation where each memebr has the same amount of votes. Note that the nominee at SoG AGMs does not have to be the Chairman of Trustees, it can, I understand, be anyone and this is what happened, to a small extent, at the AGM. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Hi George, We have proxy voting because some members, like me, live outside the UK and could NOT make it to an AGM. For the records, I too belong to many organizations where proxy voting is done by more than 50% of the membership. In all of those organization I receive a list of nominees and the choice to direct my vote to a specific person or to someone else to vote on my behalf, one choice being the person in charge. Of course, if I am given the opportunity to vote ahead of time I would, but that is not always the case. I've never seen any problem with this format. Usually the people more closely involved with the organization, such as an incumbant director, are in a better position to decide on who should fill the vacancy or whatever I am supposed to vote on. If you are a member, you should know who your incumbant directors are, and I usually assign my vote to one of them. While block voting may seem bad to some, if it is done by someone with a genuine interest in the organization, it would ensure that the correct person gets into office rather than someone who has no knowledge or interest in the organization. Just MHO Regards, Nancy Frey 137 Wilmot Trail Newcastle, Ontario CANADA L1B 1B9 905-623-0918 "I'm a Genealogist and I Raise Dust Bunnies as Pets." ----- Original Message ----- From: "bush.lyme" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Proxy Voting at the Annual General meetings > Why have proxy voting anyway? Presumably the agenda, including any > proposals to be voted on, is made known to members in advance of the AGM, so > it seems to me that even if you are willing to leave it to the chairman > you will still have to communicate that fact to the Society. You might just > as well send your votes. > > Regards > > George Bush

Tim, <<snipped>> If I was involved in this I apologise for not being my more usual pernickety self. <<snipped>> I like pernickety where rules are concerned! Re your proposals: "1. Specify what the vote should consist of. No powers of carte blanche are to be allowed." Seems reasonable. Arguably if you give carte blanche, then you personally deserve everything you get but that's a touch unhelpful for others. "2. Not give more than two proxy votes to any one nominee." I don't think you gain anything from this. If you've tied the nominee down, I don't think it matters whether they have 2 proxy votes to wield or 102. Unless you imagine anyone is likely to be swayed by "My proxy votes are bigger than your proxy votes" arguments, and I'd hope we weren't. "3. Be specifically authorised in advance requesting particular nominees to vote for particular motions in a particular way. Preferably the nominee and the requestor should get together beforehand to ensure that no nominee is even asked to vote for more than two people." I think the first sentence just repeats 1, doesn't it? Unless I'm missing something? And the second sentence is not required if we discard 2. Adrian B

Tim, While I support the principle behind your suggestion, I'm unsure as to its practicality. I presume that, if a nominee has conflicting requests, then they cast the associated numbers of votes in each direction. That's easy. However, what I'm concerned about is the limit of two. If I was to require the Chairman (for example) to vote for option A, and there were a hundred others requesting voting for the other options, then I would expect the Chairman to place all the votes - e.g. 20 for option A, 40 for B and 40 for C - plus his own choice. Why limit to two? Chris -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Powys-Lybbe Sent: 30 June 2011 12:23 To: [email protected] Subject: [SOG-UK] Proxy Voting at the Annual General meetings We had a very interesting constitutional anomaly appear at the AGM this week. Apparently two years ago the trustees had debated and approved a change to our constitution that allows members to give anyone, normally the Chairman of Trustees, the right to vote on their behalf at an AGM. (If I was involved in this I apologise for not being my more usual pernickety self.) Further the proxy power did not require the members to state what vote they wished their nominee to exercise. So this meant that the nominee had towards two hundred votes which they could use for whatever purpose they wished and apparently did. This is nothing other that the old fashioned block votes at political conferences where vast number of votes could be assigned to any motion that the nominee supported. Interestingly it appears that the current public legislation for proxy voting at elections is that no nominee may exercise this for any more than two people, hardly a block vote. My view is firmly that this clause in our constitution is undemocratic and that it gives unwarranted power to the nominee to completely overturn the views of those actually attending and voting at the AGM, as seems to have happened on this occasion, though we were not given the details. I would propose that we veto this practice. Perhaps we may have to allow some form of proxy voting for those too ill to attend, etc. But the proxy voting must: 1. Specify what the vote should consist of. No powers of carte blanche are to be allowed. 2. Not give more than two proxy votes to any one nominee. 3. Be specifically authorised in advance requesting particular nominees to vote for particular motions in a particular way. Preferably the nominee and the requestor should get together beforehand to ensure that no nominee is even asked to vote for more than two people. If there is a motion put to the next AGM on this matter, I would also propose that it be put as near to the top of the agenda as possible to prevent any further undemocratic proxy votes being made beforehand. Any views anyone? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Tim it does seem a bit of an odd arrangement when I get voting papers from other organisations they usually give you a choice of listing who you want to vote for OR allowing the Chairman to vote as they see fit but the voter has the choice would something similar be suitable do you think ? cheers Jean Wilby

Tom, I am with you 100%. I also think that a nominee should have been a SoG member for at least three years and served on at least two sub-committees during that time before becoming a Trustee. Jeanne Bunting On 30 Jun 2011, at 12:22, Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]> wrote: > We had a very interesting constitutional anomaly appear at the AGM this > week. > > Apparently two years ago the trustees had debated and approved a change > to our constitution that allows members to give anyone, normally the > Chairman of Trustees, the right to vote on their behalf at an AGM. (If > I was involved in this I apologise for not being my more usual > pernickety self.) > > Further the proxy power did not require the members to state what vote > they wished their nominee to exercise. So this meant that the nominee > had towards two hundred votes which they could use for whatever purpose > they wished and apparently did. This is nothing other that the old > fashioned block votes at political conferences where vast number of > votes could be assigned to any motion that the nominee supported. > > Interestingly it appears that the current public legislation for proxy > voting at elections is that no nominee may exercise this for any more > than two people, hardly a block vote. > > My view is firmly that this clause in our constitution is undemocratic > and that it gives unwarranted power to the nominee to completely > overturn the views of those actually attending and voting at the AGM, as > seems to have happened on this occasion, though we were not given the > details. > > I would propose that we veto this practice. Perhaps we may have to > allow some form of proxy voting for those too ill to attend, etc. But > the proxy voting must: > > 1. Specify what the vote should consist of. No powers of carte blanche > are to be allowed. > > 2. Not give more than two proxy votes to any one nominee. > > 3. Be specifically authorised in advance requesting particular nominees > to vote for particular motions in a particular way. Preferably the > nominee and the requestor should get together beforehand to ensure that > no nominee is even asked to vote for more than two people. > > If there is a motion put to the next AGM on this matter, I would also > propose that it be put as near to the top of the agenda as possible to > prevent any further undemocratic proxy votes being made beforehand. > > Any views anyone? > > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] > for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

We had a very interesting constitutional anomaly appear at the AGM this week. Apparently two years ago the trustees had debated and approved a change to our constitution that allows members to give anyone, normally the Chairman of Trustees, the right to vote on their behalf at an AGM. (If I was involved in this I apologise for not being my more usual pernickety self.) Further the proxy power did not require the members to state what vote they wished their nominee to exercise. So this meant that the nominee had towards two hundred votes which they could use for whatever purpose they wished and apparently did. This is nothing other that the old fashioned block votes at political conferences where vast number of votes could be assigned to any motion that the nominee supported. Interestingly it appears that the current public legislation for proxy voting at elections is that no nominee may exercise this for any more than two people, hardly a block vote. My view is firmly that this clause in our constitution is undemocratic and that it gives unwarranted power to the nominee to completely overturn the views of those actually attending and voting at the AGM, as seems to have happened on this occasion, though we were not given the details. I would propose that we veto this practice. Perhaps we may have to allow some form of proxy voting for those too ill to attend, etc. But the proxy voting must: 1. Specify what the vote should consist of. No powers of carte blanche are to be allowed. 2. Not give more than two proxy votes to any one nominee. 3. Be specifically authorised in advance requesting particular nominees to vote for particular motions in a particular way. Preferably the nominee and the requestor should get together beforehand to ensure that no nominee is even asked to vote for more than two people. If there is a motion put to the next AGM on this matter, I would also propose that it be put as near to the top of the agenda as possible to prevent any further undemocratic proxy votes being made beforehand. Any views anyone? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

We had a very productive visit with the Army Medical Services Museum in Aldershot. They did have EG Ffrench's service record in a large sized register of RAMC Officers Service and an obituary from the RAMC News magazine. The curator, Derek Marrison, is extremly helpful & knowledgeable Thanks for the suggestion We found Haigh's WW1list of MIDs but no individual citation so far Rgds Nancy Ffrench Atkinson ----- Original Message ----- From: Blair Southerden To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:30 PM Subject: Mentioned in Dispatches Nancy As your grandfather was reasonably senior, the RAMC Museum may have some information about him. The will not have his service record but its probable that information may be held in any histories which proliferated after the Great War. The museum is at Ash Vale, Aldershot and their web site is at http://www.ams-museum.org.uk/museum/contact-us/ They may make a charge for researching their records but an email to the Curator should elicit the situation. It may also be possible to find Earl Haigh's despatch, TNA at Kew would be the starting point. Good hunting. Blair

In case anyone is interested a report of The TNA User Advisory Group has been posted on the SoG News blog http://www.societyofgenealogists.com/sog-report-of-tna-user-advisory-group-m eeting-a-genealogist-reflects/ Else Churchill Genealogist Society of Genealogists 14 Charterhouse Buildings Goswell Road London EC1M 7BA direct phone 020 7702 5488 visit the Society of Genealogists' Website www.sog.org.uk <file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Else\Application%20Data\Microsoft\Sig natures\www.Findmypast.co.uk> www.Findmypast.co.uk proud to sponsor the Society's centenary year WOULD YOU LIKE ADVICE ON YOUR FAMILY HISTORY? >From beginners onwards: all queries and problems welcomed. Phone our dedicated family history advice line on 020 7490 8911 Thursdays 6pm - 7.45 pm; Saturdays 11 am - 1pm and 2pm - 4 pm The Society also runs regular one-to-one advice half hour advice sessions with experts at the Society's library on alternate Saturdays from 2pm. Telephone the library direct on 020 7702 5485 to book an advice session or library tour. This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. You must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication unless explicitly permitted to do so. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and then delete this email from your system without further distribution or use. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The Society of Genealogists are neither given nor endorsed by it. Registered Charity No. 233701. Company limited by guarantee. Registered No. 115703. Registered office as above

Chris, Thank you again. I've looked at TNA online catalogue for those refs. and it looks as if they will have what I'm looking for. Brilliant. Angela On 22 Jun 2011, at 9:28 pm, Chris Watts wrote: > Ah, you should have said that before! > Have you tried the records of the Treasury Solicitor at TNA eg TS17, TS30 > and TS33? > Chris > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ag.hamilton" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:38 PM > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Death Duty Register > > > Thank you Chris, > > The person I'm interested in died intestate aged 74 in 1939. The Probate > Index just says 'Administration to the Treasury Solicitor'. She left nearly > £7000 which seems quite a lot. There were no surviving siblings and no > nephews or nieces and I'd wondered if details of the death duties might > prove interesting. It looks as if I'll just have to go on wondering! > > Angela > > > > > On 22 Jun 2011, at 6:08 pm, Chris Watts wrote: > >> The short answer is no. >> These records cease to be kept in register form from 1903. They were then >> continued in file form and those have not been selected for preservation. >> It is always possible (but doubtful) that some maybe with the Inland >> Revenue >> but access will require the permission of the current legal >> represenetative. >> >> Chris Watts >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "ag.hamilton" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:31 PM >> Subject: [SOG-UK] Death Duty Register >> >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Is it possible to look at the Death Duty Register for 1939/40? If so >>> where? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Angela >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Ah, you should have said that before! Have you tried the records of the Treasury Solicitor at TNA eg TS17, TS30 and TS33? Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "ag.hamilton" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:38 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Death Duty Register Thank you Chris, The person I'm interested in died intestate aged 74 in 1939. The Probate Index just says 'Administration to the Treasury Solicitor'. She left nearly £7000 which seems quite a lot. There were no surviving siblings and no nephews or nieces and I'd wondered if details of the death duties might prove interesting. It looks as if I'll just have to go on wondering! Angela On 22 Jun 2011, at 6:08 pm, Chris Watts wrote: > The short answer is no. > These records cease to be kept in register form from 1903. They were then > continued in file form and those have not been selected for preservation. > It is always possible (but doubtful) that some maybe with the Inland > Revenue > but access will require the permission of the current legal > represenetative. > > Chris Watts > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ag.hamilton" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:31 PM > Subject: [SOG-UK] Death Duty Register > > >> Hello, >> >> Is it possible to look at the Death Duty Register for 1939/40? If so >> where? >> >> Thanks >> >> Angela >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you Chris, The person I'm interested in died intestate aged 74 in 1939. The Probate Index just says 'Administration to the Treasury Solicitor'. She left nearly £7000 which seems quite a lot. There were no surviving siblings and no nephews or nieces and I'd wondered if details of the death duties might prove interesting. It looks as if I'll just have to go on wondering! Angela On 22 Jun 2011, at 6:08 pm, Chris Watts wrote: > The short answer is no. > These records cease to be kept in register form from 1903. They were then > continued in file form and those have not been selected for preservation. > It is always possible (but doubtful) that some maybe with the Inland Revenue > but access will require the permission of the current legal represenetative. > > Chris Watts > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ag.hamilton" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:31 PM > Subject: [SOG-UK] Death Duty Register > > >> Hello, >> >> Is it possible to look at the Death Duty Register for 1939/40? If so >> where? >> >> Thanks >> >> Angela >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The short answer is no. These records cease to be kept in register form from 1903. They were then continued in file form and those have not been selected for preservation. It is always possible (but doubtful) that some maybe with the Inland Revenue but access will require the permission of the current legal represenetative. Chris Watts ----- Original Message ----- From: "ag.hamilton" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:31 PM Subject: [SOG-UK] Death Duty Register > Hello, > > Is it possible to look at the Death Duty Register for 1939/40? If so > where? > > Thanks > > Angela > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Hello, Is it possible to look at the Death Duty Register for 1939/40? If so where? Thanks Angela

Thank you Blair I'll follow up both lines of enquiry Rgds Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: Blair Southerden To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:30 PM Subject: Mentioned in Dispatches Nancy As your grandfather was reasonably senior, the RAMC Museum may have some information about him. The will not have his service record but its probable that information may be held in any histories which proliferated after the Great War. The museum is at Ash Vale, Aldershot and their web site is at http://www.ams-museum.org.uk/museum/contact-us/ They may make a charge for researching their records but an email to the Curator should elicit the situation. It may also be possible to find Earl Haigh's despatch, TNA at Kew would be the starting point. Good hunting. Blair

Thanks Andrew The additional resources you mention should be well worth waiting for. Colin On 22 June 2011 14:05, MILLARD A.R. <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Colin Moretti >> Sent: 22 June 2011 13:16 >> >> I've used the Vision of Britain website >> (www.visionofbritain.org.uk/) >> on a number of occasions in the past, and very useful it has been; >> however, trying to access it every day this week I have been >> unsuccessful. Does anyone know if there are problems with the site, >> or has it shut down or moved? > > It must be a technical problem, as no announcement has been made on the GBHGIS list where information about Vision of Britain and the wider Great Britain Historical GIS project is posted. The last announcement (in April) was that they had secured a funding to start work on adding earlier administrative units - ancient parishes, hundreds, manors and vills. > > > Andrew