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
1
The Common Room / Re: Revision Court
« on: Sunday 12 November 23 18:29 GMT (UK)  »
Various statutes provided for hearings before "revising barristers" to determine whether persons were or were not entitled to vote in parliamentary elections, later also in municipal elections.  "Revision court" was simply a name given to such hearings eg Registration Act 1885 s 4(4): "...the said authority may direct the revising barrister for the county to hold a revision court in such town".  There was no standing revision court comparable to (eg) a county court.

2
The Common Room / Re: Electoral Rolls
« on: Thursday 26 October 23 20:33 BST (UK)  »
As CD points out, the parliamentary electoral rolls were not the only ones. Both location and the period need to be considered. In towns after the Reform Act 1832 and the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 the qualifications for registration were different.  In my home town most of the local voters on the "burgess rolls" could not qualify for parliamentary voting and some of the parliamentary voters were not qualified for local voting.  Over the years there were various changes eg unmarried women could vote in local elections from 1869, but not in parliamentary elections. 

3
The Common Room / Re: Poor Rates - were they paid by the owner or occupier?
« on: Sunday 28 May 23 20:16 BST (UK)  »
Andy

Thanks - that was what I meant.  I omitted to mention one further technicality: the legal occupier for rating purposes was not invariably the physical occupier identified by the census enumerator.  If the physical occupier was required by his employment to live in tied accommodation (eg the gardener's cottage in the grounds of a mansion), his employer was often treated as the occupier for rating purposes.

4
The Common Room / Re: Poor Rates - were they paid by the owner or occupier?
« on: Sunday 28 May 23 18:01 BST (UK)  »
In England rates were normally paid by the occupier.  For a very long explanation of who was the occupier see chapters 1 and 2 of "Ryde on Rating" the second (1904) edition of which used to downloadable from Google. Members of the occupier's family were not liable.  Owners were generally not liable, but in some circumstances the owners of low value houses were required to pay under the Small Tenements Rating Act 1850 or other legislation. 

For a detailed explanation of rating in a particular town see https://www.louthlincs1838.org.uk/rating-revaluations/

5
The Common Room / Re: The harrowing lives of Pauper Apprentices in Yorkshire.
« on: Thursday 18 May 23 20:05 BST (UK)  »
The original article, an excellent combination of history and archaeology, can be seen at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284970

6
Lincolnshire / Re: New Pack Horse Inn Lincoln
« on: Thursday 08 September 22 07:49 BST (UK)  »
An advertisement in 1742 (Stamford Mercury 25 Feb) referred to the transfer of a licensee to the "White Hind and new Pack-Horse-Inn over-against the Oat-Market in Lincoln".  This suggests that the buildings were next door the each other; but I do not know where the Oat Market was.  Hill's "Georgian Lincoln" is unhelpful.

7
The Common Room / Re: Received into the church?
« on: Friday 04 March 22 08:18 GMT (UK)  »
Private baptisms shortly after birth were fairly common, especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In theory private baptisms were for sickly babies that might die before being taken to church; but in practice some parents preferred them. Private baptisms should have been recorded in the parish registers, but sometimes were not.  Any subsequent public church ceremony, sometimes called "reception", should not have been recorded as a baptism, but sometimes was. The 1916 entry quoted indicates a meticulous vicar identifying the event, reception, but showing that the event was not baptism, because the child had already been baptised.

8
The Common Room / Re: Second baptism query
« on: Tuesday 21 December 21 16:39 GMT (UK)  »
I think that the formal C of E position was (and is?) that a child cannot be baptised twice.  Private baptisms shortly after birth were frequent in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In theory private baptisms were for sickly babies that might die before being taken to church; but in practice some parents preferred them. Private baptisms should have been recorded in the parish registers, but often were not.  Any subsequent public church ceremony, sometimes called "reception", should not have been recorded as a baptism, but sometimes was.  Provision was made for uncertainty, where the priest at the church ceremony was not entirely satisfied with the validity of the private baptism: "...if thou art not already baptised, N, I baptise thee...".  See J T Law "A Popular System of Eccesiatical Law ..." (1869) p 22.

9
The Common Room / Re: Catholic recusant burial
« on: Tuesday 30 November 21 18:32 GMT (UK)  »
"Alas, poor Yorick"  (Hamlet Act V scene 1), whose skull only lasted 23 years undisturbed. There was a recent post on this in the Lincolnshire forum: Lincolnshire churchyard maps.

Pages: [1] 2 3