Author Topic: 2 / out of ........?  (Read 421 times)

Offline Fresh Fields

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
  • If only they could talk !
    • View Profile
2 / out of ........?
« on: Monday 05 February 18 09:40 GMT (UK) »
Hello from NZ.

I've just been sent a copy of correspondence sent to Parliament.

It's late and I'm tired [and lazy] and would appreciate a second opinion on how I should read that part of this correspondence that reads;

not pass - - Government's hands.

Is it an abreviated form of writing pass "to or out of" Government Lands?

Thanks for any opinion expressed.

Alan.
Early Settlers & Heritage. Family History.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline rjknott

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,066
    • View Profile
Re: 2 / out of ........?
« Reply #1 on: Monday 05 February 18 09:45 GMT (UK) »
I think the 1 and 2 mean that the words should be the other way round:

'...not pass out of Gov.....' (with a 't' not crossed to further confuse).

R
All the families I am researching are listed on the main page here:
www.64regencyancestors.com

Census: Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Trishanne

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,243
    • View Profile
Re: 2 / out of ........?
« Reply #2 on: Monday 05 February 18 10:37 GMT (UK) »
I would agree it seems to read  'out of'
Pat
Bownass - Lancashire & Westmorland
Hoggarth - Lancashire & Westmorland
Jackson- Lancaster
Waller - Dent, Yorkshire dales
Omerod - Lancashire
Redburn - Lancashire
Evans - Hereford

RESTORERS please do not use my restores without my permission THANK YOU

Offline Karen McDonald

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 373
  • ** THINK POSITIVE! **
    • View Profile
Re: 2 / out of ........?
« Reply #3 on: Monday 05 February 18 11:09 GMT (UK) »
In the first line, "out" and "that" are both written without the "t" being crossed. Seems to be a bit of a habit.  :)

I agree about the other-way-round.
McDonald MacDonald M'Donald McGregor MacGregor M'Gregor Twilley Wells Fentiman Carrington Rowe Needham Mitchell Mackie Collingwood Fuller Maides Shilton Hagon Budd

Offline dobfarm

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,258
  • Scarcliffe village Derbyshire
    • View Profile
Re: 2 / out of ........?
« Reply #4 on: Monday 05 February 18 12:51 GMT (UK) »
(also or to or  too)< {2] of our  - Government's hands
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Any transcription of information does not identify or prove anything.
Intended as a Guide only in ancestry research.-It is up to the reader as to any Judgment of assessments of information given! to check from original sources.

In my opinion the marriage residence is not always the place of birth. Never forget Workhouse and overseers accounts records of birth

Offline Fresh Fields

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
  • If only they could talk !
    • View Profile
COMPLETED Re: 2 / out of ........?
« Reply #5 on: Monday 05 February 18 18:35 GMT (UK) »
Good morning.

I'm refreshed now and agree with you that the writing should be read as "out of" that is in keeping with the context of the Accessors report, from the Land and Deeds office of the Crown.

Just in all my years of research of archival materal I had not come across such writing. The writing was distinctive, but a clear hand to read, and there in the middle of it were two strokes of the pen that looked like numerals.

Thank you all for your opinions expressed.

Alan.
Early Settlers & Heritage. Family History.

Offline rjknott

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,066
    • View Profile
Re: COMPLETED Re: 2 / out of ........?
« Reply #6 on: Tuesday 06 February 18 09:51 GMT (UK) »
, and there in the middle of it were two strokes of the pen that looked like numerals.

They were numerals! - showing that the order of the words needed to be changed.
R
All the families I am researching are listed on the main page here:
www.64regencyancestors.com

Census: Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Skoosh

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,892
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 2 / out of ........?
« Reply #7 on: Tuesday 06 February 18 10:20 GMT (UK) »
Could there be a note at the bottom of the page. 1 & 2 etc'

Skoosh.

Offline Fresh Fields

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
  • If only they could talk !
    • View Profile
Re: 2 / out of ........?
« Reply #8 on: Saturday 10 February 18 08:49 GMT (UK) »
Could there be a note at the bottom of the page. 1 & 2 etc'

Skoosh.

Hello.

Good piont, but in this case no foot note, nor corner fold with forwarding or processing instructions on the reverse.

There was however extensive pencil underlining of key points in the report, with a margin dash of the pencil at each place. [one example in clip] Two of those mumerous dashes, over several pages, also had the number 2 in pencil along side of a dash, but there were no numeral 1 notations, so I'm assuming just a notation to swap the order of the two words as written.

Thanks.

Alan.
Early Settlers & Heritage. Family History.