RootsChat.Com

Back to JC the Convict,  and specifically to the evidence from WO97 that he served in the RHA.

The master index of miners that the Durham Mining Museum made (mainly) from the 1881 census includes entries for Clishes called George (3),  Jeremiah,  Joseph, Matthew (2),  Robert,  Richard (2),  Thomas,  William (3) -- and five Johns.  One of the Johns catches the eye,  because he was born Woolwich ca.1806.  That PoB,  given the presence there of the famous artillery arsenal,  when combined with the fact that he had come north to work in the Durham mines and was enumerated at Heworth in '81,  looks like strong circumstantial evidence that he was a son of the WO97 John Clish -- who,  it seems,  later and coincidently became [re-?]acquainted with Woolwich via the occasional glimpse from the decks of a prison-hulk.  The census ref. given is RG11/5029 fo.116 p.2.

(One might pause to note in passing that the 1881 John looks like one more of the tough and courageous old men who struggled on with hard manual labour rather than lapse onto parish indoor/outdoor relief,  pre the start of L-G's state contributory pension scheme.)

So,  off to quiz the IGI.  Nothing at Woolwich.  However . . . there was a John Clish (only candidate ± 2 years),  son of John,  who was bapt. Ringmer,  Sussex,  15 Sept. 1805.  And a little Googling reveals that the RHA maintained a barracks at Ringmer.  Exploring the IGI batch (J148331) further discloses two more children,  William Clish bapt. 9 Sept. 1804 and Richard Clish bapt. 10 May 1807.

The mother's name rather thickens the plot:  in each case it is Elizabeth,  not Frances.  But the Newburn marriage of 11 June 1804 is the only one on the IGI for a John Clish in the relevant period.  Which leaves two obvious scenarios:  either,  against the apparent odds,  there were two separate John Clishes;  or there was only one,  and he kept the army equivalent of an RN man's "girl in every port".  For the latter theory,  the dates are certainly rather uncomfortable:  they require him to have come north on leave to marry at the very time when a Sussex woman was already six months pregnant with his son-to-be William.  We know that he had few claims to sainthood -- but even the practicalities seem rather challenging!

If anyone were prepared to pull out a little plastic card,  the search engine has also served up a possible evidential "decider".  By great good fortune a poor law settlement examination has survived in Ringmer parish chest for:

John Clish, private in the artillery drivers at Ringmer

Settlement examination  4 Oct 1811

PAR461/32/4/8

The fact that John Clish,  the 75 year old miner at Heworth in 1881,  gave his place of birth as Woolwich is at the very least a major co-incidence,  and if anything it does rather strengthen the case that JC the Convict was indeed the same man as JC the Ringmer RHA man.  But the puzzle is far from unravelled.


Rol



Postscript: I see that other RootsChat users have already ploughed furrows in the RHA-Ringmer field -- per this thread,  dating from 2007-08.

… I'm still trying to find more bits and pieces but am off on my travels early tomorrow so hope you will join in, Rol. We've done a few searches together in the past    ...

Slow response to that invitation,  I am afraid -- been away from the computer.  Plus all the foregoing is a tough act to follow -- it's not merely the "low-hanging fruit" that's already been plucked!   Originally I landed on the thread fortuitously,  simply looking for material about transportation in general -- and then innocently thought I would just stick my oar in for a mere sentence or two,  in order to utter about "uttering".  Just shows how one can get led astray;  got me hooked now!

Well,  yesterday I belatedly did some digging into Mr Clish and his connections,  so here goes -- with my trademark brevity.

By way of supplement to the Courant's 1826 report about Clish's first sentence of transportation,  and as a direct response to this in "the OP's OP" --

… John CLISH was tried and sentenced to 14 years tranportation to NSW at Durhan Quarter Sessions on the 30 June 1834. Can any one advise as to where I might find on line the details of the court hearings. Alternatively, can any one do a look up for me. ...

-- here is the paper's short para about the conviction which lead to the second and decisive sentence of transportation:

Newcastle Courant,  Sat. 5 July 1834:

DURHAM MIDSUMMER SESSIONS
The following prisoners were tried at the quarter sessions, held at Durham, on Monday last:--
… JOHN CLISH, charged with having stolen one poke and a boll of wheatmeal, from the mill of Edward Edwards, of Heworth; transported for 14 years.

Presumably poke was used there in the sense of a bag or sack,  as in the phrase to buy a pig in a poke -- meaning to buy or accept something without proper inspection in advance.

(Terry -- I fear that it is highly unlikely that anybody would have made any more detailed record of the hearing than that.  Just as now,  the press would only have made some attempt at a transcript of the proceedings if the facts were unusual or salacious,  or if the accused was well known in the local community.  There would only be any chance of a brief law report if the case went to a higher court on some point of law.  And even if there had indeed been some procedural defect or other injustice at trial,  someone without a lawyer -- as he very probably was -- would have had virtually zero chance of organising such an appeal.  No "official transcript" would have been made.)

Someone in Tulsa USA has put up basic data (including census extracts) about Edward Edwards the Heworth miller on a genealogical website,  here:

http://members.cox.net/ggthomp/edwardedwards.html

Looks as though Edwards took on the mill at some date between 1827 and 1829,  and died in 1846.  His household's address on the 1841 census appears as "Windy Nook,  Heworth Mill".  (Just as well it was windy,  I suppose . . . ).

As to Clish's 1826 sentence of transportation and subsequent detention in the prison hulks,  if the abbreviation spotted by Gnu does mean that he was pardoned in 1831 it may be that a petition for clemency survives in TNA class HO 17;  the off-line index to these petitions is contained in nine paper volumes under the ref. HO 19.  See http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=7574&CATLN=3&FullDetails=True

Background information is to be found in para 4.2 of the relevant TNA guide here.  (N.B. that it is sometimes necessary to click twice on TNA web links,  with a three or four second gap between the clicks,  so as to penetrate beyond their search page.)


Rol

Well found -- seems this chap's got quite a fascinating history.

I wouldn't like this to be information overload and  hide my finds on the Prison Hulks and the Napoleonic Wars (above)  but ...

(Feathers in cap all still fully visible )


Rol

... As you say "brother" William ap John could have been a half brother or brother in law.    Sorry if I raised false hopes regarding Hugh (d1661).  ... the brick walls are as strong as ever

Oh well . . . did rather expect that would be the answer,  though hope springs eternal.  Somewhere there simply must be a revealing deed or will mention,  or a chancery suit!

Just tried fishing for (Salisbury OR Salsbury OR Salusbury OR Salesbury OR Salbri) /10/ (Clocaenog OR Cyffylliog OR Gyffylliog) in the ISYS:web pond,  but the net still comes up pretty empty.


Rol

Mmm.  An enduring puzzle.  I think John's side of the family is hooked into the Salusbury pedigrees reasonably satisfactorily via documentary sources and NLW Wynnstay MS. 144 p.727.  Ales's side -- i.e. the descent of her father Hugh Salesbury of Clocaenog (d.1661) -- is the source of the mystery.

For everyone's convenience:

[Link]
Hi Listers
I'm trying to learn more about Hugh Salesbury of Clocaenog.
I've found his 1661 will on the NLW site and he mentions a daughter Alice who is married to a John Wynne Salisbury. …

plus

[Link]
… I wish that I could tell you where Hugh of Clocaenog fits in, but I failed to unearth any satisfactory evidence about that question when I last looked at it (years ago now). The best compendium of the junior lines of the clan is to be found in NLW Wynnstay MSS 143-4; but it does not seem to provide a clear match for this particular man. I once looked at several local deed schedules without success, but my guess back then was that either deeds or litigation records could offer the best hope of making a sound link up -- even if Hugh himself was only a tenant of his richer (presumed) cousins.

The Charles mentioned as landlord in the 1661 will was doubtless the son of the Colonel William who held Denbigh Castle for King Charles. Charles Salesbury's daughter Jane became the sole heiress who took the Bachymbyd estate (including its land in Clocaenog) into the hands of the Bagot family -- despite her "wicked uncle" Owen Salesbury of Rûg trying to prevent that outcome through a chancery suit (in which attempt he barely escaped criminal prosecution for forging a deed). ...

-- and elsewhere in that post I also referred to work apparently undertaken on the same subject by Berwyn Kerfoot and Lavinia Phillips.

Over in the RootsChat Anne Salesbury Powell thread,  Paul Salisbury mentioned one of the few clues about Hugh's paternity to be found in the 1661 will:

I believe that on Hugh's will it mentions a brother, William ap John.
So it's possibly that John Salesbury was Hugh's father.

Of course,  the risk with references to brothers or sisters in wills of that vintage is that the writer could quite easily have meant brother or sister in law;  so one quite understands Paul's cautious use of the word "possibly".

In the context of this from the end of my above-cited RootsWeb post

Do post the news if you know or discover whether either of the two people mentioned above has pushed further back -- or you crack the problem yourself!

I was interested to see that you began your opening post in this current thread with the words "John Wynne als Salisbury of Meyarth Gwyddelwern was married to Alice vch Hugh ap John Salesbury of Clocaenog."

I would be very interested to know whether -- since that RootsWeb discussion of November 2009 -- you have uncovered any new information on the matter (perhaps thanks to Berwyn K or Lavinia P?) sufficient to make you more confident about Hugh Salesbury's father being a John Salesbury.  Do tell!

It would be a great thing to succeed in tying Hugh Salesbury of Clocaenog into his proper place in the overall clan.


Rol