Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - David Outner

Pages: 1 2 [3]
19
The Common Room / Re: Burials in C18 English Parish Registers
« on: Saturday 28 March 20 10:33 GMT (UK)  »
My thanks to both respondents.  Your comments on Cromwell's edict have prompted me to check the Canons of 1603: it was in substance repeated by Canon 70, which every eighteenth century clergyman ought to have read.

I think that the prevalent eighteenth century view should  have been that every parishioner was entitled to be buried in the parish churchyard.  The Complete Parish Officer 1772 stated (p 132, citing as authority a case in the reign of James I):

"Though the freehold of the church and church yard be in the parson; yet as he can hinder no parishioner from having a place in the body of the church, so he may not hinder any such from being buried in the church yard; but for burying in the church, it is otherwise." 

However, not hindering a burial is a different matter from registering it. I suspect that in practice it all came down to fees: the sexton would dig a grave for a fee but, if the custom of the parish was that the clergyman or churchwardens would be paid a fee for the burial service, it would have been a case of "no fee, no registration", particularly in the period 1783-94 when there was a tax on registration.

David

20
The Common Room / Burials in C18 English Parish Registers
« on: Wednesday 25 March 20 19:17 GMT (UK)  »
Were the lists of burials in eighteenth century English parish registers intended to record only burial services?  If a deceased parishioner was physically buried in the parish churchyard but the clergyman refused a burial service (eg because the deceased had never been baptised), ought nevertheless the burial to have been registered?

21
Lincolnshire / Re: Trade Directories
« on: Wednesday 06 November 19 19:30 GMT (UK)  »
I don't know of any specifically Lincolnshire directory as early as 1799.  Some Lincolnshire towns were covered by the Universal British Directory, published in parts 1790-99.  I have an extract covering Louth, but no other towns.

22
Lincolnshire / Re: Thomas Colton x 3; Usage of "Senior" and "Junior"
« on: Monday 30 April 18 08:31 BST (UK)  »
Thank you for these references.  Census returns show that TC2's wife was called Jane and the 1813/14 correspondence of names and occupations seems to me to make the relationship between TC2 and TC3 extremely probable. 

23
Lincolnshire / Re: Thomas Colton x 3; Usage of "Senior" and "Junior"
« on: Friday 27 April 18 18:10 BST (UK)  »
Thank you.  I had missed the Normanby 1767 record.  It might well relate to TC1.  A Louth rating list for that year shows no Coltans.

The earliest record that I can find that certainly relates him was a vote in a parliamentary election in 1818, although there is another possible in the form of a marriage in 1791.

24
Lincolnshire / Thomas Colton x 3; Usage of "Senior" and "Junior"
« on: Thursday 26 April 18 20:29 BST (UK)  »
Three Thomas Coltons were active in nineteenth century Louth: TC1 (c 1768-1839), TC2 (c 1793-1886) and TC3 (c 1814-1859).  For all three I have found no records of births/baptisms and the approximate dates of birth come from the stated ages at death.  "Colton" was the early spelling; later spellings were more often "Coulton" or "Coultan".

Between them TC1 and TC2 appear to have commissioned about 35 houses yielding a significant rental income.  On a property basis, the rating and voting records suggest that TC1 was the father of TC2 and probably the grandfather of TC3. 

This view is supported by references in rating lists dated 1823 and 1838 and in voting records to TC2 as "Thomas  Colton junior" and some references to TC1 as "Thomas Colton senior".  However after the death of TC1, TC2 becomes (in two burgess rolls) "senior" and TC3 appears as "junior" in these rolls and also in the 1851 rating list.

How strong is this evidence of father/son relationships?  To put the question another way, does anyone know of Lincolnshire cases in this period when "senior" and "junior" have been used in formal documents without indicating a family relationship?

25
Lincolnshire / Louth 1823 to 1851
« on: Saturday 24 March 18 08:53 GMT (UK)  »
People with Louth connections may be interested in a new website www.louthlincs1838.org.uk.  It is based on rating lists and so is largely confined to ratepayers (householders), but it gives much information not otherwise available online.

Pages: 1 2 [3]