We recently shared more information about over 2,000 settlement papers on Essex Archives Online for the parishes of Boreham (D/P 29), Dedham (D/P 26), Coggeshall (D/P 36), and Hatfield Broad Oak (D/P 4). Archive assistant Hannah Crunden-Jones tells us more…
Like all historical research, there is a sense working at ERO that the work is never done. There is always something more to add, or catalogue, or read about, to further enrich the information that we can provide visitors to our Searchroom. The continual work to individually catalogue our settlement papers is one such example, and an ongoing project. In what could be viewed as the third instalment to our settlement series (see the first two, ‘‘The secrets of settlement papers’ and ‘An introduction to settlement papers’ by David Perkins), this post aims to both provide an update as to what has been going on and emphasise the value of this cataloguing and the possibilities it provides.
As a recap, settlement papers were documents relating to one’s right to legal settlement in a certain parish. These are made up of settlement certificates which proved that someone had settlement and so could receive poor relief, removal orders which ordered individuals to be removed from a parish to where they had settlement, and examinations which recorded the lives of those applied for poor relief but did not have legal settlement.
St Mary the Virgin, Hatfield Broad Oak, 1819 (I/Mb 171/1/17)
These documents are hugely valuable in helping us gain at least a partial insight into poor relief from the 17th to the 19th century. However, the volume of these materials is enormous; at the ERO we hold records for hundreds of parishes throughout Essex and subsequently thousands of settlement papers. While the records for some parishes have been catalogued, for others it has been impossible to search specifically for individuals who feature in these documents, with searchers needing to go through multiple documents to find what they are looking for. Now, as part of an ongoing project that aims to improve our pre-existing catalogue, it is becoming increasingly easy to look through our settlement papers and find individuals, who are starting to be catalogued – and named – individually. We have also been working to ensure that wives and children, where possible, are identified and named.
Alongside the papers from Rayleigh and Hadleigh that had previously been added to our catalogue, searchers can now explore those from Boreham (D/P 29), Dedham (D/P 26), Coggeshall (D/P 36), and Hatfield Broad Oak (D/P 4), with more parish settlements due to be added in the coming months. The volume of newly searchable records is great: a total of 2041 settlement papers, making research at the Essex Record Office increasingly streamlined. It also provides further ease for searchers working on family histories to track ancestors over time more precisely rather than looking through a multitude of uncatalogued documents. Used in tandem with our parish registers, it is now possible to uncover a rich history of movements and relationships.
As discussed in previous posts, the settlement papers do not provide historians with a personable or emotional account of one’s life, but they do provide a window into the factual movements and whereabouts of more ordinary folk. This also contributes to a diversification of the archive, and consequently a richer source of information for the past. Already visitors have been utilising our updated catalogue to aid research into family histories and have discovered a great amount of information through the settlement papers, and we are excited to watch this continue.
Exploring these records during the cataloguing process has been an illuminating experience, shedding light on the stories and movements of those living in Essex between the 1600s and 1800s. It is particularly interesting to spot the same names appearing multiple times in removal orders. An example of this can be seen in the removal orders for Hatfield Broad Oak, where Israel Searle, his wife Louisa, and their children had been removed from parishes of Middlesex to Hatfield Broad Oak (D/P 4/13/3B/133, 135, 136).
In both December 1836 and July 1838, the family was removed from Little Stanmore and Staines respectively and returned to Hatfield Broad Oak where Israel was legally settled. As his wife, Louisa obtained settlement status from her husband, and their children inherited their father’s place of settlement from their father, so this example of the whole family moving together is a common one. In 1838, Israel Searle was removed alone from Enfield, where he was residing in the Union Workhouse in Edmonton, back to Hatfield Broad Oak. This individual removal order provides further interesting details, mentioning that eighteen months previously he had been removed from the parish of Edgware. Not only are our settlement papers useful for research into individuals, but also for social or economic research.
Removal order of Israel Searle from Enfield Workhouse to Hatfield Broad Oak (D/P 4/13/3B/135)
One of the largest parishes currently catalogued is Coggeshall, with nearly 1000 settlement documents. Given Coggeshall’s reasonable proximity to the road into London, and its connections to the wool trade, one could suggest that movements in and out of the parish to other areas of London and Kent were more common than that from smaller parishes, and the opportunity to become established and successful elsewhere a more realistic possibility. For instance, in 1825 was the removal of “Caroline wife of Robert Hume… (who has deserted her) with their three children” from Bromley in Middlesex to Coggeshall (D/P 36/13/3/95). Like the situation of Lousia above, Caroline’s settlement status was obtained by her husband, returning her and her children to Essex to receive poor relief despite Robert’s unknown whereabouts. This situation was not uncommon and demonstrates further examples of the benefits of settlement papers in documenting the role and rights of women throughout history.
Removal order of Caroline Hume and children from Bromley, Middlesex to Coggeshall (D/P 36/13/3/95)
New information about settlement papers is being added to Essex Archives Online on a regular basis. Please enquire with staff for updates and further information, or if there is a certain parish you would like us to catalogue next!
A post by David Perkins, who catalogued the settlement papers for Rayleigh and Hadleigh last year as part of an MA Placement, funded by the University of Essex and the Friends of Historic Essex. Read about his experience in his previous blog post.
The Essex Record Office holds a vast collection of settlement papers covering the majority of parishes from across the county. The settlement papers for these parishes contain documents relating to an individual’s or family group’s right to, or place of, legal settlement. Ranging from the late seventeenth century to the early nineteen century, settlement papers offer unique details and a window into the lived reality of the common person who is otherwise lost to history.
A brief history of settlement papers
Prior to the English Reformation, care for those who were unable to support themselves was, in the main, provided for through the Catholic Church. However, with the closing of many religious houses in the sixteenth century, and with them the manpower, facilities, and above all the finances, the care and relief of those in need fell to the residents of the local parish.
From 1536 the Act For Punishment of Sturdy Vagabonds and Beggars (27 Henry VIII c. 25) stated that the churchwardens of each individual parish were required to collect voluntary alms from the parishioners to then be used to relieve the poor of the same parish, with the giving of casual alms then becoming legally banned, save a few exceptions.
The 1552 Act For the Relief of the Poor (5 & 6 Edw. VI c. 2) required that a collector of alms, rather than the churchwardens specifically, was to be chosen from amongst the parish to be responsible for managing the finances of the parish’s poor relief. Also, that a register of the impotent poor – those who were unable to work through injury, illness, or old age – should be recorded and kept.
Although many people in every parish across the country were willing, as part of their Christian duty of charity, to give alms and support to those in need, there were many who were not as willing to actively give donations. The state did not have the funds to take direct control of poor relief, so to ensure that there was money available at the parish level the 1563 Act For the Relief of the Poor (5 Eliz. I c. 3) ensured that those who did not voluntarily contribute financially were to be examined by the Justices of the Peace on their ability to donate, and then forced to do so if they were found to be able.
Since it was the parishioners who were giving their own money to their fellow parishioners, there was a clear delineation by society on who was deserving and who was not. Once a deserving person had been identified there then came the question of whether that deserving person was from the parish. If so, they were then considered eligible as a recipient of relief from the parish.
A means to act as confirmation of which parish an individual belonged to was created following the 1662 Act For the better Relief of the Poor of this Kingdom [Act of Settlement] (13 & 14 Car. II c. 12), whereby an individual was examined by two Justices of the Peace of the parish to assess whether they had legal settlement in that parish. Those found not to have legal settlement could either be removed to their parish of legal settlement, or the hosting parish could collect poor relief from the other parish and distribute it to the guest parishioner.
Legal settlement in a parish could be acquired at birth or gained through actions. Settlement was patriarchal, and so a girl or unmarried woman’s legal settlement would be that of her father, and a married woman’s that of her husband. A child born to a mother away from her home parish, for example, would still have had their place of legal settlement as being where their parents had their place of legal settlement, not the parish being visited. Legal settlement could otherwise be gained by completing an apprenticeship, working in the parish for one continuous year (as is commonly seen in the settlement examination documents as being counted from the hiring at Michaelmas (29 September) through to the Michaelmas following), or by renting a property, or properties, for £10 or more per year.
The settlement papers held at the Essex Record Office are then what remains of each parish’s collection of the legal and official settlement documents created following the aforesaid 1662 Settlement Act.
What types of documents are there?
Settlement certificates were issued to individuals and family groups as proof of that person’s place of legal settlement. That parish was then liable to give that person or group poor relief should they become in need of it. If a holder of a settlement certificate moved to work in another parish, the certificate would give the new parish the legal peace of mind that they would not become liable for that person poor relief. If a person was found seeking poor relief in a parish that was not their place of legal settlement, or if they did not possess a settlement certificate, they could be denied poor relief and returned to their place of legal settlement. Settlement certificates can include: the name(s) of who is being given settlement; their age(s); the place where they are coming from; and in the case of pregnant unmarried woman, a note on the child’s paternity.
Settlement certificate for Martha Dawson and her son, 1730 (D/P 332/13/1A/67)
Settlement examinations were testimonies, sworn on oath, given by an individual to ascertain their place of legal settlement, and therefore which parish was liable for providing them with poor relief. They were conducted by two Justices of the Peace. Settlement examinations can include: the name(s) of who is being examined; their age(s); their place of birth; their parents’ names and place of legal settlement; apprenticeship details (such as how long the apprenticeship was, whether they completed it, if they were indentured, who they were indentured to, and the name and parish of the apprentice master); their employment history (including when, who employed them, their wage, and length of service); the history of any property or land they may have owned, rented, or leased (including when, who from, and the cost); when they were married, where they were married, and who they married (often only the first name of the wife is given in a settlement examination for a man, but the full name of the husband is always given in a settlement examination of a woman); when their spouse died; and the names and ages of any children that would be living with the examined person. The settlement status of any older children that had left home may also be noted.
Settlement examination of William Martin, 1774 (D/P 332/13/4/43)
Removal orders were issued by a parish to remove a person or persons away from the parish to the place of their legal settlement. Removal orders can include: the name(s) of who is being removed; the age(s) of who is being removed (children in particular); and the parish to where they are being removed to. In cases where the person is unable to be removed due to sickness or injury, a removal suspension order can be attached. It is also noted when the person sufficiently recovered, or if the person died during the time of the removal suspension order being in place.
Removal order for Mark Pansey from Beaumont to Rayleigh, 1834 (D/P 332/13/3/90)
What can I use settlement papers for?
Settlement papers are historically important documents that are highly informative and provide windows into the lives of many people. The personal and familial information given in settlement papers is an invaluable source for both historians of family history and genealogists alike. Unlike, say, baptismal or marriage records, settlement papers not only give the empirical information, such as name and date, but provide information about a person’s working life, their wages, their expenditure on rent, or their movements between different parishes – information that is otherwise not recorded anywhere else.
Aside from the information about the people stated in the documents, the documents themselves can also be used by the historian or researcher in a myriad of different ways. As informative as the prima facie information on the documents is, they also reveal information about the mechanism of legal settlement and poor relief. The physical attributes and manufacture of the documents themselves can be of benefit to the historian of material culture, too. The very fabric from which the paper is made, the watermark, who printed and sold the document, or even in some cases clear evidence of the recycling of paper, be that pages cut from a tax ledger or using the reverse side of a lost dog poster, can provide information extrinsic of the document purpose but nevertheless valuable in its own right.
Although the details contained within the settlement papers is information given by the named person, it is important to bear in mind that that information was not written down by the person giving that information, but rather by the parish officials. Settlement papers, although accurate in what they record, do not give a true voice to the person named therein. As they are official, legal documents, they are to some degree formulaic and regular, and seldom allow for a more detailed account of a person’s existential existence. We cannot hear the individual’s voice in settlement papers; we only read the pertinent facts. The only occasion when we can see the physical presence of the named person is with their sign or signature. And although a small detail, the inscribed mark, whether that be an X or a well-formed signature, provides a tangible link to that person in that document at that time.
John Poynter’s signature on his settlement examination, 1806 (D/P 332/13/4/247)
Last summer we were fortunate to have two MA History students from the University of Essex on placement with us, jointly sponsored by the University and the Friends of Historic Essex. In this post, David Perkins tells us about his placement project: cataloguing settlement papers for the parishes of Rayleigh and Hadleigh. Thanks to David, you can now find more information about individual settlement papers on Essex Archives Online. For Rayleigh, search for the reference ‘D/P 332/13′ and for Hadleigh, search ‘D/P 303/13‘.
Removal order of John Smith, labourer, his wife Ann, and Ann’s son George from Chadwell St Mary to Rayleigh in 1739 (D/P 332/13/3/1)
The work I did for my placement forms a small part of a larger project by the Essex Record Office (ERO) to make more information about individual settlement papers available through Essex Archives Online. By making this information digitally available, the ease of accessing and the searching of those documents for details, of say, name, age, location, or date, is then greatly increased.
As a current MA student, the opportunity to not only undertake research for my dissertation in an archive and with the primary sources, but also to be a small part in the process of making those same documents more accessible and available to future researchers has been an absolute pleasure.
As a historian, the physical connection with the material past, both through the handling and reading of the settlement papers, has given me a far better sense of the real lived lives of those people named on the page. And in turn, this has given me a better appreciation for the existential realities of the people noted in those documents.
The settlement papers for Rayleigh and Hadleigh span from the late seventeenth century through to the early nineteenth century, and comprise three main types of documents: settlement certificates, removal orders, and settlement examinations.
Settlement certificates were given by the overseers and churchwardens of a parishto an individual or family as evidence that they had been granted legal settlement in that parish and so were then entitled to poor relief in that parish. Removal orders were issued by the Justices of the Peace against an individual or family, ordering them to be removed to their parish of legal settlement. Settlement examinations recorded an account of the life of an individual or family who had applied for poor relief from that parish but did not have legal settlement there. These three types of documents are individually quite formulaic in how they record the information. The date, name, and location is given in each case. Of the three types of documents, it is the settlement examinations that provide the most detailed information of that individual or family’s history.
The number of settlement papers that the ERO have for the parishes of Rayleigh and Hadleigh are markedly different. For Rayleigh there a total of 824 documents; 147 settlement certificates, 231 removal orders, and 446 settlement examinations. Whereas Hadleigh has a fraction of that, with only 54 documents in total, comprising of 48 settlement certificates, 5 removal orders, and 1 settlement examination. The difference in the volume of the ERO’s holdings for these two parishes is not necessarily a reflection of the contemporaneous quantities of those documents, but rather a reflection of what has survived. The difference between the number of documents that remain from these two parishes is a telling example of the un-uniform survival, even amongst similar items, of materials from the past.
Aside from the most beneficial use that these documents have, in informing genealogists and researchers of family history, by looking at the settlement papers in a different way there also lays a vast wealth of other fascinating information that can be gained.
In the papers we can see a changing world over the course of more than a century. A world that in 1752 changes its observation of the new year from 25 March to 1 January, we can see the transition in the way that the names of settlements are described, from the Norman-French ‘Magna’ and ‘Parva’ (D/P 332/13/1A/70) to the English ‘Great’ and ‘Little’ (D/P 332/13/1A/79). We can even detect glimpses of changes in society’sattitudes and use of language and terminology; in the early documents single pregnant women are noted as ‘with child that is likely to be born a bastard’ (D/P 332/13/1A/96), whereas in the later documents we see the term ‘singlewoman, now pregnant’ (D/P 332/13/2/121). In local administration we can see the regularity of bureaucracy with a move away from handwritten documents (D/P 332/13/3/1) to the increasing use of printed and standardised official forms that are purchased from a state authorised stationer (D/P 332/13/3/4).
John Poynter’s signature on his settlement examination, 1806 (D/P 332/13/4/247). Originally from Asheldham, John had entered into a partnership with William Bellingham of Rochford ‘in the business of malting’ three years earlier, and lived in the house above the maltings in Rayleigh.
It cannot be forgotten that settlement papers are both official and legal documents that represent one part in the machine of poor relief. And although they do contain accurate information, that was sworn on oath, the information that has been written down on the documents, especially in the case of the settlement examinations, is a condensed and edited form of what the examinee said, it is not a verbatim transcription of their voice. The documents only tell us the facts; they do not and cannot convey an accurate account of that person’s emotional and social experience as they were when they came to request poor relief. The only place where we can see the real presence of the person is with their sign or signature. Although ranging from a shaky X (D/P 332/13/4/295) to an experienced hand (D/P 332/13/4/247, see above), the mark made is the only physical act on the document that is attributable to that individual.
Removal order for William Thorrowgood and his wife Mary from Rayleigh to Great Stambridge, 1795 (D/P 332/13/2/17)
Aside from the individual or family, or the churchwarden and the overseers as named on the documents, and indeed the purpose of the document, be that a certificate, removal order, or examination, there is no other indication or comment given on what would happen next, or by whom. Fortunately for us however, there is amongst the documents evidence of how poor relief operated in the real world. On the reverse of William Thorrowgood’s removal order (D/P 332/13/2/17) there is a glimpse into the costs incurred by the parish. The removal of William and his wife Mary from Rayleigh to Great Stambridge, a distance by road of only about seven miles, on or shortly after 12 February 1795 tells us that the total cost of removal was 15s 10d, from which 5s was paid for the horse and cart, and 8d paid for the turnpike. This then gives us evidence of potential local travel costs in late eighteenth century Rayleigh. Further, the cost list on the reverse of the document also notes that 2s 2d, later altered to 2s 8d, was paid to a tailor. From this we can likely conclude that since it was the end of February, therefore late winter, the Thorrowgoods were insufficiently clothed for the journey, and so by reasonable inference had insufficient clothes in general. Although the removing parish were entitled to, and able to, and, in general, did claim the money back from parish that the individual or family was being removed to, the very evidence of the parish of Rayleigh ensuring the well-being of the Thorrowgoods, even on such a short journey, provides evidence of a social contract between the parish and the parishioners that not only works to fulfil a legal obligation, but one that also cares for the individual’s wellbeing.
Since we know that 8d was paid for the turnpike, it is then a confident statement to make that the Thorrowgoods travelled on the horse and cart, in their new warmer clothes, along the turnpike. The turnpike road that they travelled on left Rayleigh and went to Leigh, from where the Thorrowgoods would have travelled north to Great Stambridge. The 1746/47 Act of Parliament (20 Geo. II. c. 7) gave rights to twenty-six miles of turnpike roads around Rayleigh, and as much as the improved roads were to the speed and comfort of travel, there were those who saw the new roads as an opportunity to take poor relief into their own hands. In the November of 1772 the toll gate at Hadleigh, a few miles south of Rayleigh, was robbed of 19s 6d by masked men on horses, who then after rode to the Stroud Green toll gate just east of Rochford, about five miles east of Hadleigh, and repeated their crime (Chelmsford Chronicle, 6 November 1772). Although the story of the Thorrowgoods and the highwaymen are not related – the incidents are after all separated by twenty-three years – the knowledge that highway robbery was a real lived possibility can help with building a better picture of the society and potential concerns that the Thorrowgoods may have had but are not, nor could be, written down on theirs, or anyone else’s settlement papers.
The operation of poor relief relied on more than just the gentlemen overseers, churchwardens, and parish vestry. In the case of the Thorrowgoods, we know not the name of the person who drove the horse and cart, nor the name of the place where the clothes were bought. These additional actors in the mechanism of poor relief are seldom named. However, on the reverse of the removal order of William Maize (D/P 332/13/3/77) we can see a named third party involved in the process.
Removal order of William Maize from Sittingbourne, Kent, to Rayleigh, 1830 (D/P 332/13/3/77)
A note on the reverse of the removal reads that ‘John Pretty is charged to convey William Maize from Sittingbourne to Rayleigh’. This note then raises the question of why the person being removed was to be accompanied. Unfortunately, we do not know the age of William, but it is possible that he was a child, and so was accompanied for his safety. Should William have been an adult, then we can consider, if elderly he may have needed accompaniment, or as in the case of John White and his wife Mary (D/P 332/13/3/81 and D/P 332/13/3/92), that they do not return again after having been removed on two previous occasions.
Since it was the parishioners of the parish who through the levy of the poor rate paid for poor relief in the parish, those same parishioners desired that those administering the system of poor relief were doing so in an economical way.
Reverse of John Rout’s settlement examination, 1826 (D/P 332/13/4/425)
Evidence of this comes first from John Rout’s settlement examination (D/P 332/13/4/425), which is written, although it should be noted as not being signed or dated, on the reverse of two lost dog posters. The posters state that two dogs have strayed from Dunton Hall, about ten miles west of Rayleigh, and a reward of 1 guinea will be given by Mr W. Gale on their return. The poster states that the dogs went missing on 30 July 1826, with the poster being published on the 2 August. This then can help us in giving a date to John Rout’s Examination as no sooner than 2 August 1826.
The frugality of Rayleigh’s administrators is further bolstered by their use of old tax ledgers. Beginning with William Waight (D/P 332/13/4/271) on 21 January 1807 and ending with William Synett (D/P 332/13/4/305) on 2 February 1809, there are in addition five other incidents where the settlement examination has been written on a page cut from what appears to be a ledger for the receipt of tax payments. The rectitude shown in recycling the paper is admirable, and no doubt the contemporary parishioners of the parish would have been pleased to know that the administrators were not needlessly spending their rates. But the length of time over which these ledgers were re-purposed is curious. One or two on the same day, or even concurrent months would show a short-term solution to the lack of other paper. But since this occurred over a period of two full calendar years – and it must be remembered that we only have remaining to us a small fraction of the documents produced – then it has to be concluded that the administrators of Raleigh had a vast excess of unused tax ledgers. Why this was so is of course speculation, but a possible cause is the discontinued use of that form of ledger, so making the pages suitable for another purpose.
In helping to catalogue the settlement papers I have been overwhelmed by the research possibilities that they can offer. Apart from settlement papers being an invaluable source for their names, dates, and places, they do also contain hidden secrets about the lives and world of those past people. I look forward to finding many more.
Edward Harris, Customer Service Team Lead, together with Neil Wiffen, Archive Assistant and “Tintinophile” (though he prefers Asterix) have been exploring the connections between newly listed tombs at St Clements, Leigh on Sea and Hergé’s salty sea-dog Captain Haddock.
Here at the Essex Record Office, we all love the history of our county, and are always on the lookout for further research. We were pleased to hear recently news about the listing by Historic England, of the chest tomb dedicated to Mary Anna Haddock (neé Goodlad, c.1610-1688), mother of Sir Richard Haddock (c.1629-1715), in the churchyard of St Clement, Leigh-on-Sea (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1481879).
Leigh Church (St Clement) – I/Mb 220/1/6
An added attraction was the suggestion of a connection with Hergé’s Captain Haddock, Tintin’s nautical sidekick.
Historic England state that the tomb ‘is relatively unusual as a single memorial to a named women of this date’ and that it is ‘an exceptional early example of a churchyard memorial … for the craftsmanship evident in the carved panels, posts, and tomb slab.’ How interesting and what might the Record Office have on Mary Anna Haddock and her important tomb?
While we do not focus on physical monuments in themselves, we do look after parish registers of baptisms, marriages and burials for the Diocese of Chelmsford (under which St Clement falls) so, ‘do we have Mary Anna’s burial entry’ in the archive? If we do, it’s always nice to then share it with our followers – simple really. Well, no! As is so often the case when undertaking historical research.
Historic England’s listing informs us that Mary Anna died on January 6th 1688, so taking a look at the relevant register (D/P 284/1/1), there is an entry for a burial taking place on January 13, 1688 (which seems right for arrangements to be made for burial from the time of death) for ‘Mrs [mistress – presumably stressing that she was elderly and respectable] Hannah Haddocke’ but not ‘Mary Anna Haddock’. Our interest was piqued!
Hannah Haddock burial 1688 – D/P 284/1/1
A couple of obvious answers, as to why there are differences, might be that the names ‘Hannah’ and ‘Anna’ were interchangeable in the period, or that she was simply known by ‘pet’ or preferred name as opposed to the name given to her at birth. The incumbent could have also made a mistake, especially if he was writing up the ‘official’ burial entry later than when the burial took place. What else can we find out though?
We initially went, as is normal, to the relevant volume of the monumental inscriptions produced by our friends at the Essex Society for Family History. That for St Clement being T/Z 151/89 (which is indexed and contains a great plan of the church yard). Due to weathering of inscriptions, they pointed us towards John Bundock’s 1978 Leigh Parish Church of St. Clement: a historical description:
There are two tombs to members of the Haddock family … [one] a large altar tomb with only the top inscribed. Part of it is not very legible. For this and most of the churchyard monuments described here the author has reproduced the readings of earlier copyists. (p.54)
For an ‘earlier copyist’, when the inscription must have been legible, we consulted Philip Benton:
This tombe was erected by Sir Richard Haddock, Kt, in memory of his Grandfather, Capt Richard Haddock who died 22 May, 1660, aged 79 years. As also his father, Capt William Haddock, who died 22 September, 1667, aged 60 years. And his mother, Anna Haddock, who died 6 January, A.D. 1688, in the 78 year of her age, who all lie underneath in the vault. Also the body of Dame Eliz. Haddock, wife of Sir Richard Haddock, who died 26 Feby, 1709-10 aged 59 years. As also the body of Sir Richard Haddock, Comptroller of his Majesties Navy who died 26 January, 1714-15, aged 85 years. (P. Benton, The History of the Rochford Hundred, 1 (Rochford, 1867), p.352.)
Sir Richard Haddock I/Pb 8/2/2
An early twentieth century publication, when the tomb might still have been legible, describes the tomb thus:
In churchyard – E. end … to Capt. Richard Haddock, (1660?), Capt. William Haddock, 166-, Anna Haddock, 1688, Elizabeth Haddock, 1709, and Sir Richard Haddock, 1714, Controller of the Navy, table-tomb. (Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, Essex, 4 (London, 1923), p.83.)
So, it is clear that the tomb contained several members of both sexes of the Haddock family and that Anna/Hannah was one of them. We have not found a sniff of a ‘Mary Anna Haddock’, the nearest we have got is the burial entry to ‘Mrs Hannah Haddocke’. As the tomb in question, and several others around it, are so weathered now as to be illegible, we must rely on previous authors and, of course, what is written in the burial register. We just hope that we are talking about the same tomb and burial as Historic England. Unfortunately, the Leigh parish register that we have consulted is the earliest still extant. Any earlier registers, dating back to 1538, do not survive so we cannot check baptism or marriage entries for the Haddock family, which might have made clearer some of the family connections.
We did however find an entry in the burial register of St Olave, Hart Street 1684-1805, held by The London Archive saying that ‘Mrs Anna Haddocke wid[ow] was caryed to be buryed at Leigh in the County of Essex.’ So this must have been where the funeral service took place, but still not, Mary Anna Haddock! (P69/OLA1/A/010/MS28870 – The London Archive)
As to the Tintin connection, like physical monuments this is not one of our areas of expertise, but a quick look at the online ‘go to’ place for answers, Wikipedia, states that:
Haddock’s name was suggested by Hergé’s wife, who noted that haddock was a ‘sad English fish’ over a fish dinner. Hergé then utilised the name for the English captain he’d just introduced … Although it has not been suggested that Hergé based Haddock on any historical persons, it transpired that there were several Haddocks who had served in the navy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Haddock)
Tintin.com (a fantastic website for the avid Tintinophile) does add:
As for his family, we know that he is the descendant of the knight François de Hadoque, a navy captain who served under Louis XIV. The king of France entrusted François de Hadoque with the command of the frigate “The Unicorn” which the latter lost under circumstances which were revealed in The Secret of the Unicorn. (https://www.tintin.com/en/characters/captain-haddock#)
The original french language version has the The Unicorn in the background flying a Bourbon Flag, interestingly, the English translation shows it flying a union flag only adopted in 1801, 86 years after the death of Louis XIV. The English translation also has François Hadoque become Francis Haddock who sailed in the English Navy in the reign of Charles II. Coincidentally (as Tintin’s Unicorn is fictional with the art based on a model of the French second rate ship of the line Brilliant) our Captain Richard Haddock commanded the HMS Unicorn from 1648 -1652.
Blistering barnacles, what do you think?
So often with historical research, things are not clear cut and very rarely is there a definitive answer. However, that’s the joy of looking at archives. If you would like to look at the images of parish registers held by the Record Office, further details can be found at: https://www.essexarchivesonline.co.uk/ParishRegisters.aspx
Among a recent deposit of postcards is this one showing a man and woman on a motorcycle with sidecar. But who are they?
A postcard showing a man and woman on a motorcycle with sidecar from the Dowsett Collection (catalogue ref: A15840)
The licence plate is clearly visible which means that we can look it up in our Vehicle Licensing Registers (C/DF 11). An Enfield with the licence HK3016 was registered to Frederick Jay, High Street, Mountnessing on 8 June 1917. Is this an image of Frederick Jay on his new Enfield motorcycle? Or is it another person with aspirations of one day owning such a machine?
Register of motor vehicles ‘M2’: motor cycles showing entry for Frederick Jay (catalogue ref: C/DF 11/17)
The photograph was taken by Geo. Francis Quilter, a photographer in Ingatestone, who’s listed in the Kelly’s Directory for 1917. In the same Directory is Harry Raven, dairyman, whose shop can be seen in the background of the postcard, and Mark Wells, cycle agent, who operated from Ingatestone High Street. At this time motorcycles were often called “cycles”, so it is likely that this cycle agent sold motorcycles, perhaps even the one shown?
Mountnessing is about 2 miles south-east of Ingatestone and was home to two people named Frederick Jay – a father and son. The 1911 Census tells us that the younger Frederick, then aged 21, was a boarder at 3 Redcliffe Road, Moulsham Street, Chelmsford while working as an “Engineer Journeyman [ball bearing works]”. By 1921, he was back at his parents’ house in Mountnessing and working at the Hoffmann Manufacturing Company.
Marriage Register from St Giles Church, Mountnessing showing the marriage of Frederick Jay and Kate Everett on 3 Jun 1922 (catalogue ref: D/P 73/1/10)
On 3 June 1922, Frederick Jay married Kate Everett at St Giles’ Church, Mountnessing. Is the woman in the sidecar Kate or one of Frederick’s sisters? Sadly, we will probably never know for sure, but it’s nice to imagine that this is an image of Frederick Jay, the proud new owner of a motorcycle which he used to commute from his home in Mountnessing to work at the Hoffmann’s premises in Chelmsford.
The ERO’s collection of wills, stretching from 1400 up to 1858, is widely used by family historians, but also by those trying to get closer to our ancestors’ material lives and their mental worlds. In particular, wills can tell us about the language that they used. A query from our friends at the Oxford English Dictionary recently brought this example to our attention.
Will of Thomas Leffyngwell of Pebmarsh (catalogue ref: D/ABW 23/83)
It comes from the will of a man from Pebmarsh called Thomas Leffyngwell, made in January 1553 when he was sick and probably close to death (will reference D/ABW 23/83). Having made over his landed property to his two sons, his main concern was to provide for his wife Isabel. The two were to pay her, in quarterly instalments, a pension of £1 6s.8d. (half each), and to provide her with food, drink, clothing, a room called ‘the nether chamber’ with a bed, and a cow that they were to keep fed, winter and summer. And then, as if thinking that perhaps more detail was needed:
‘… Item I wyll that myne executores shall / delyuer unto Osbell my wyffe wekely one pote wythe ale off too galons & a [word struck through] / Temes loffe wythe a chese as often as nede shall requyre …’
Close-up of the section of the Will of Thomas Leffyngwell concerning “Temes loffe”. Right-click the image and open in a new tab to see an enlarged copy
All perfectly clear, except just possibly that bit about ‘a temes loffe’. ‘Loffe’ is easy enough if you give it a long ‘o’, but ‘temes’ may puzzle you as it certainly did us. It turns out that this is the earliest known reference to a ‘temse loaf’, meaning ‘a loaf made of finely sifted flour’. To temse, you see, was to sift, and a temse was a type of sieve, especially as used for bolting meal. A ‘temse loaf’, therefore, was one of several contemporary expressions for a better sort of bread – a class distinction as well as a culinary one, even in the 1500s.
The word temse itself, of Anglo-Saxon origin, survived into the 20th century, although seemingly restricted latterly to the brewing industry. The burial register from Pebmarsh unfortunately did not, and so we do not know whether Isabel lived to enjoy her ration of bread, cheese and ale. One can only hope that Thomas’s careful instructions were useful to her as well as to the makers of dictionaries.
While the Essex Record Office might be closed to physical researchers it is still open for remote users via our Essex Archives Online (EAO) service that contains over three-quarters of a million digital images of parish registers, wills and some other records. This service has been up and running since 2011 and in that time researchers from across the globe have made use of the service. And it is a dynamic service as new images are added as and when relevant documents have been deposited and digitized.
In this Blog post EAO user Ian Beckwith has kindly shared some of his research that he has undertaken whilst using our parish register digital images. Ian is a seasoned user of the service and has been using it for several years but if you are new to research and are thinking of possibly taking out a subscription then it is worth considering the wonderful breadth of what is available. So, to begin with Archive Assistant Neil Wiffen discusses how to get started.
During
the 20 years that I have worked at ERO I have been advising researchers on how
to start making use of the digital images that are on EAO and here are some of
my tips.
Firstly, I would strongly recommend that before you take out a subscription you familiarize yourself with the EAO catalogue. It is completely free to search the catalogue as much as you wish. There are several ‘User Guides’ which are located at the bottom of the home page (https://www.essexarchivesonline.co.uk/) so scroll down and have a read of these.
The cover of the Gt Burstead Parish Register – D/P 139/1/0
Secondly, have a go at searching the catalogue by trying out a simple search – try typing in the wide white text box (which contains ‘search the archive’) the name of the parish you are interested in and ‘church register’ and click ‘Search’. This will bring up instances of all sorts of registers, not just church, or parish, registers, for a certain place. Some of these won’t have digitized images associated with them so this is why it is essential to check that what you want to look at has digital images before taking out a subscription. It will, however, give you an idea of the range of documents that the ERO looks after. All the Church of England parish registers deposited in the ERO, except for a few of the most recent ones, have been digitized, so you should find that they all have the a picture frame icon at the end of their entry in the search results.
By clicking on the ‘Reference’ or ‘Description’ you will be taken to the full catalogue entry for a document which might well give you further information. You might find that it isn’t really what you’re looking for. But if it is, remember to check for the photo frame icon to find out whether there is a digital image associated with the document .
A quick way to search for parish registers in particular is to look at the ‘Parish Register’ section of EAO (top right-hand corner). Here you will be able to refine your search to the parish you are interested in. If what you are looking for isn’t there (or if it is there but doesn’t have ‘Digital images’ next to it) then don’t take out a subscription. It is worth remembering that not every parish will have records going back to 1538 so do check the catalogue before subscribing to avoid disappointment.
Every
parish has its own unique number assigned to it. Great Burstead, for example,
is D/P 139 and registers of baptisms, marriages and burials come under
D/P 139/1. The first register, which covers 1559 to 1654, is then catalogued as
D/P 139/1/0. Take time to familiarize yourself with the catalogue before taking
out a subscription.
And do bear in mind that even if a parish register survives then early registers have baptisms, marriages and burial scattered throughout them so you will probably need to go hunting through the register for the entry that might be there – or might not . In the Tudor, Stuart and Georgian period it was very much down to the individual incumbent, or his deputy, as to how much effort was put into keeping the registers up to date. Not every vicar, rector or church clerk was as assiduous a record keeper as we might have liked him to have been. Fortunately, if you have a subscription to Ancestry, we have worked together with them to create a name index, which can take a lot of the leg work out your research. You can even buy digital images of what you find directly from Ancestry.
Handwriting
can also be difficult to read, although some incumbents like Rev Thomas Cox in
Broomfield and the famous Essex historian Rev Philip Morant, have beautifully
clear handwriting. Sometimes the writing is faint or illegible and the register
itself might be damaged. Remember these were working documents that have spent
several centuries in damp and cold churches before being deposited at ERO.
One
last thing, if you have identified that there are parish registers that you
want to look though that have digital images associated with them, and you take
out a subscription, then make sure that you take down the reference of what you
have looked at and what you have found as you work your way through them. This
will save time in the long-term and if you share your research with others you
can tell others in what document you found the information.
I
hope I haven’t put you off after all that but I do have one last warning:
historical research can be addictive. You might start out looking for one thing
but get distracted by something else. After 20 years of working at ERO I know
there’s always another new topic of interest just lurking over the page!
Neil Wiffen – Archive Assistant.
If you require any assistance, having taken out a subscription, then you can contact the Duty Archivist at ero.enquiry@essex.gov.uk. While the Record Office is shut, emails are being monitored remotely during the present crisis. Please bear with us though.
Parish Registers – Researching Remotely
I, like many others of my age and with
underlying health conditions, am in self-isolation. But this doesn’t mean that I can’t get on with
research. Thanks to the digital age
there’s so much available on-line for the local historian to work on, e.g.
Essex parish registers, which, thanks to the wonders of the ERO, are at my
finger-tips on my laptop. There’s a subscription
to pay, but once you’re registered., you can log-in, click on ‘Parish
Registers’ in the top bar, scroll down the page until you find ‘Choose a
letter’, then ‘Choose a parish’ and finally ‘Choose a church’. Up will come a table, telling you when your
chosen registers begin, click on ‘View’ in the right hand column, and the
register will appear. You need to know
that in the case of the earliest registers, the baptism, marriage and burial
entries were written up in one book, sometimes in different sections of the
book, sometimes together as they occurred through the year. Later registers record baptisms, marriages
and burials in dedicated volumes. When
the image of your selected register appears, click on the rubric ‘To enhance
this image… ’ and the image will expand to fill the screen. Away you go!
D/P 139/1/0
In September 1538, King Henry VIII’s Vicar General, Thomas Cromwell, issued an injunction to every parish priest in England requiring him to keep a record of all baptisms, marriages, and burials in his parish. In Essex at least seventy-five parishes have registers beginning in about 1538. Most of these survivals are copies made in the reign of Elizabeth I, either by the incumbent or the parish clerk, from the old book, which was then apparently discarded.[i] Many other registers begin in the reign of Elizabeth I. Apart from the marriages, baptisms and burials that are the building blocks of family reconstitution, what else can we learn from scrutinising parish registers?
In rural Essex as elsewhere in the
sixteenth century it was taken as a given that God existed. No one’s head was bothered by whether the
earth was the centre of the universe (it obviously was) or whether God was in his
heaven up above while hell was down below (they undoubtedly were).[ii] The only issue was whether God was Protestant
or Catholic. The wrong choice could cost
you your life in this world and your salvation in the next. When it came to making this choice, parishioners
in England had been on something of a roller-coaster ride since 1538. Four years before Cromwell issued his
injunction introducing parish registers the Pope’s authority over the English
Church had been abolished and the King had made himself Supreme Head of the
Church in England. Between 1536 and 1541
the Dissolution of the Monasteries had seen the closure of over 900 monastic
foundations, the dispersal of the monks and nuns who occupied them, and the
sale of their vast landed estates. Yet
the parish registers that survive from this period show that, while these
upheavals were taking place, baptisms, marriages and burials carried on as
normal. The services of the Church
continued to be said in Latin, in the form in which they had been since time immemorial. It was not until 1549, two years after the
death of Henry VIII, that the mass was first said in English. Four years later the Protestant Edward VI was
succeeded by his half-sister the Catholic Mary Tudor, Henry’s daughter by
Catherine of Aragon, and during the next five years England returned to
obedience to Rome, the services in the parish churches reverted to Latin, the
traditional rites and ceremonies were restored, and images and treasures that
had been hidden were brought out again, only for all this to be reversed in
1558 when Elizabeth I came to the throne: again the Pope’s authority over the
English Church was abolished and the Queen was proclaimed Supreme Governor of
the Church.[iii] On May 8th 1559 the Act of
Uniformity, authorising the use of the new Book of Common Prayer, received the
Royal approval. The new prayer book,
which replaced all other service books, came into use on 24th June
1559.
Occasionally, however, in the midst of
the routine recording of rites of passage, the registers provide glimpses of
the impact of these changes at parish level.
In July 1599 the Great Burstead register recorded that
Elizabeth Wattes Widdow sume tyme the wife of Thomas Wattes the blessed marter of god who for his treuth suffered his merterdom in the fyre at Chelmesford the xxij day of may in A[nn]o D[o]m[ini] 1555 in the Reigne of queen mary was buryed the 10 day 1599 so she liued a widow after his death xlviij yeres & fro[m] the 22 of may to the 10 july & made a good end like a good Christian woman in gods name.[iv]
D/P 139/1/0
Thomas Watts was one of almost eighty Essex men and women who were burned at the stake in the reign of Mary Tudor for refusing to recant their Protestant beliefs.[v] A full account of Thomas Watts’ martyrdom is provided in John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, more correctly titled Acts and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Days, first published in 1563 and greatly expanded in 1570.[vi]Described as a linen draper of Billericay, then part of the parish of Great Burstead, Thomas Watts had, according to Foxe ‘daily expected to be taken by God’s adversaries’. Accordingly he had assigned his property to his wife and children and donated his stock of cloth to the poor. He was arrested on April 26th 1555 and brought before Lord Rich at Chelmsford, accused of not attending church, i.e. hearing mass. Interrogated by Sir Anthony Browne, who, with Rich, had been appointed to purge Essex of heretics, as to why he had embraced his heretical views, Watts replied that
You taught me and no one more than you. For, in King Edward’s days in open sessions you said the mass was abominable trumpery, earnestly exhorting that none should believe therein, but that our belief should be only in Christ.[vii]
It seems that Watts had also spoken
treasonable words against the Queen’s husband, King Philip.[viii] Unable to persuade Thomas Watts to recant, he
was sent to Bishop Bonner, ‘the bloody bishop,
…’.[ix]
Essex was then within the diocese of London and Edmund Bonner was its bishop,
first under Henry VIII and again under Mary.
He remained staunchly Catholic during the reigns of Edward VI and
Elizabeth. Although usually depicted as
sadistic and merciless, it is worth noting that even Foxe acknowledges that
Bonner made several attempts to persuade Watts (and others) to recant, ‘gave
him several hearings, and, as usual, many arguments with much entreaty, … but
his preaching availed not, and he resorted to his last revenge – that of
condemnation’. ‘I am weary to live in
such idolatry as you would have me live in’, Watts is alleged to have said, and
signed the confession of heresy. Faced
by his refusal, Bishop Bonner had little choice but to consign Thomas Watts to
the secular arm, the Church not being allowed to take life, to suffer the
penalty prescribed by the Statute De
Heretico Comburando (Concerning the Burning of Heretics) of 1401,
originally intended to deal with Lollards.[x]
Returned from the Bishop of London’s
prison to Chelmsford, Thomas Watts was lodged at ‘Mr Scott’s, an inn in
Chelmsford where were Mr Haukes and the rest that came down to their burning,
who all prayed together’. Watts then
withdrew to pray by himself, after which he met his wife and children for the
last time, exhorting them to have no regrets but to glory in the sacrifice he
was making for the sake of Jesus. So
powerful were his words that, it is said, two of his children offered to go to
the stake with him. At the stake, after
he had kissed it, he called out to Lord Rich, who was supervising the
execution: “beware, for you do against your own conscience herein, and without
you repent, the Lord will revenge it”. ‘Thus did this good martyr offer his
body to the fire, in defence of the true gospel of the Saviour’.[xi]
It seems unlikely that Rich, a man whose
name is a byword for cruelty, sadism, dishonesty, ruthlessness and treachery,
possessed a conscience. Born about 1496,
Richard Rich was a lawyer who entered the service of Thomas 1st
Baron Audley of Walden,, who assisted Rich to become MP for Colchester.[xii] In 1533 Rich was knighted and became
Solicitor General. In this capacity, he
used selective quotations from a private conversation with Thomas More in the
Tower in evidence at More’s trial. In
1536 he was appointed Chancellor of the Court of Augmentations, charged with
the disposal of former monastic estates, a position that he used to enrich
himself. In 1546 he personally tortured
the Lincolnshire Protestant martyr, Ann Askew, in the Tower. During the reign
of Edward VI, as Lord Chancellor, however, he presented himself as a reformer,
taking part in the trials of Bishops Gardiner and Bonner. Yet in Mary’s reign
he helped restore the old religion, actively persecuting those like Thomas
Watts of Billericay who refused to conform. Under Elizabeth he sat on a
Commission to enquire into grants made during the previous reign and was called
upon to advise on the Queen’s marriage. Richard Rich died on 11th of
June 1558 at Rochford and was buried at Felsted on the 8th of
July. The entry in the Felsted register
gives only the bare facts. For those at Felstead who had dealings with him,
Richard Rich, first baron Rich, must have been terrifying.[xiii]
In Elizabeth’s reign, others submitted to
the Religious Settlement but made their resistance covertly, like the parson of
Great Baddow who recorded the burial of Joan Smythe on May 1st 1572
‘being the purificacion even of o[ur] lady St Mary’ (i.e. the evening preceding
the feastday).
Ian Beckwith
[i] It
is not necessarily clear by whom the registers were kept. Although the entries for the preceding week
were supposed to be read to the congregation at the principal service on
Sunday, there are indications that some were written up at the year’s end (24th
March), possibly from notes on slips of paper.
The penmanship of the entries remains generally of a very high standard
until the last decade of the sixteenth century, when it often becomes slapdash
and much less legible.
[ii] The
realisation that the world was not flat, as the circumnavigation of the globe
by Magellan and Drake demonstrated, did not shake the belief in this
three-decker image of the universe.
[iii] The
change from Supreme Head as Henry VIII was designated, to Supreme Governor, it
has been claimed, reflects the opinion that a woman could not be ‘Head’ of the
Church. However, when Elizabeth was
succeeded by James VI of Scotland, the title ‘Governor’ was retained and
continued to be used by every subsequent monarch, male and female.
[iv] ERO, D/P 139/1/0, Image 49. However, the
length of her widowhood seems to have been miscalculated.
[v] J
E Oxley, The Reformation in Essex to the
Death of Mary, Manchester University Press, 1965, pp.210-237. Coincidentally, my copy was withdrawn from
Billericay Public Library in about 2013.
[vi] I
have drawn upon an edition of 1860, published in Philadelphia. The account of Thomas Watts’ martyrdom is on
p.367. The Book of Martyrs has been
blamed for inciting anti-Catholic sentiment in England.
[x] Several
Essex Lollards were burned at the stake in Henry VIII’s reign. The purpose of burning was to act not just as
a deterrent but also as a purgative, to rid the realm of disease. See David Nicholls, The Theatre of Martyrdom in the French Reformation, Past &
Present, Vol 121, Issue 1, November 1988, pp 49-73.
[xii] Thomas
Audley (1488-1544), formerly MP for Colchester, a member of Cardinal Wolsey’s
household, Speaker of the Commons during the Reformation Parliament and Lord
Chancellor of England from 1533-1544
[xiii] Born
about 1496, Richard Rich was a lawyer who entered the service of Thomas Audley,
who assisted him to become MP for Colchester.
In 1533 Rich was knighted and became Solicitor General. In this capacity, he used selective quotations
from a private conversation with Thomas More in the Tower in evidence at More’s
trial. In 1536 he was appointed
Chancellor of the Court of Augmentations, charged with the disposal of former
monastic estates, a position that he used to enrich himself. In 1546 he personally tortured the
Lincolnshire Protestant martyr, Ann Askew, in the Tower. During the reign of
Edward VI, as Lord Chancellor, however, he appeared as a reformer, taking part
in the trials of Bishops Gardiner and Bonner, yet in Mary’s reign he helped
restore the old religion, actively persecuting those who refused to conform.
Under Elizabeth he sat on a Commission to enquire into grants made during the
previous reign and was called upon to advise on the Queen’s marriage.
I’ve
recently been at the Essex Record Office looking for evidence that will help me
tell the story of the “St Osyth” witches of 1582 in a new book. I say “St
Osyth” in inverted commas because although the witchcraft accusations that
engulfed north-east Essex in 1582 started in St Osyth, in fact there is far
more evidence of their impact on surrounding communities than there is on the
village itself.
In
February 1582, a servant of Lord Darcy at St Osyth Priory complained that her small
son was being attacked by witchcraft. Once she had accused a neighbour, Ursley
Kemp, and Ursley had confessed to witchcraft then more people came forward to
make accusations. More villages in the manors and parishes controlled by the
Darcy family – Little Oakley, Beaumont, Moze, Thorpe and Walton le Soken, Little
Clacton and others – were drawn in. At least two people were executed and four
others died in prison, with multiple other imprisonments too. One woman was
released as late as 1588.
This
story has fascinated me since I read it as a student over 20 years ago. But
there are few surviving records from St Osyth. The Priory was attacked during
the Civil War and its estate and parish records were likely lost then – an epic
frustration for historians. But the records of the other witch-accusing communities
and authorities were more fortunate. Among these is today’s focus: a record of Elizabethan
visitations made by the Colchester ecclesiastical authorities to the parishes
around St Osyth.
St
Osyth itself answered to the Commissary Court of the Bishop of London and, guess
what, the Commissary’s early records are lost (you might almost think St
Osyth’s documents were cursed…!) but the ecclesiastical team from Colchester visited
most of the other witch-rich villages. In each place, they recorded the names
of the minister and Churchwardens. And today I found the names of some of the
accusers of the 1582 witches and learned that they were Churchwardens too.
Here’s
a nice clear link between parish authorities and witch accusations. It’s easy
to suppose that religious-reforming folk went after suspected witches but it’s
important not to stereotype accusers: they can’t be dismissed as just
“fanatical puritans” or “Anglican worthies”. But in this case there’s some documentary
evidence that they were the community’s religious leaders. It’s going to need
more thinking about as I carry on researching the book.
Essex
Record Office is one of the most impressive and friendliest archives in the UK,
and it’s come up with the goods once again. Has your village got a hidden
history of witchcraft? Were your ancestors accused? Or were they accusers? Are
there still stories of witches in your community? So much more to discover.
Julie Miller, a masters student from University of Essex, has taken up a research placement at the Essex Record Office, conducting an exploration into the story of John Farmer and his adventures, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, and has been jointly funded by the Friends of Historic Essex and University of Essex. Julie will be publishing a series of updates from the 12-week project.
In May 1713 John Farmer was in Maryland attending the
Western Shore Yearly Meeting of Friends..
“Afterwards I staid som time in Maryland & wrought with my hands at wool combing… While I was here I received fresh orders from Christ to have meetings amongst Indians in order to their convershon to Christ & to go to Virginia & Pensilvaina & ye west Indies in his service.” [i]
Farmer then set out to meet the local
Native American communities properly and having had a good meeting amongst
friends he commented that he had given testimony amongst “Indians and some Chief
Indians and they were glad of it and marvelled that no such thing had been
before offered to them”[ii]
He went on to say an interpreter spoke
Farmer’s testimony and prayer at a meeting “to
which the Indians several times gave their approbation in their way by giving a
sound” [iii].
We can only wonder what form that sound took.
In August 1713 Farmer was at the Mulberry Grove plantation
in Maryland at an evening meeting at George Truit’s house, where they were
joined by a Native American priest, an interpreter and a number of other Native
Americans. Later in the evening they
were joined by the “Indian King” who “spake very good English” and invited
Farmer to visit their settlement. In
September 1713 he had a memorable visit lodging with the “ShuanaIndians” at
Conestoga on
the Susquehanna River, staying in what he described as an “Indian King’s Palace”, where he slept
on “bare [bear] skins on scaffolds before
a good fire, for it was a cold frosty night”[iv]
Extract of page 8 of Part 2 of the Journal of John Farmer dated December 1714. Essex Record Office Cat D/NF 3 addl. A13685 Box 50
In September 1713 Farmer was at the Philadelphia yearly meeting where
he told the assembled Friends that he wanted to spend more time with the Native
Americans and he received a Certificate of Unity from the Philadelphia Friends
and received help and translators to hold meetings in Pennsylvania and share
his testimony of the story of Jesus.
Farmer spent six months travelling and preaching with the Native
Americans. On 9th October
1713 there was a
“large meeting amongst Indians nere Brandy Wine River in Chester County in Pennsylvania. Where a honest Swede did well Interpret for mee. It was a large & satisfactory meeting to the Indians & to our friends & to mee at the End. Whereof the Indians said that they were pleased with what they heard in the meeting.”[v]
John Farmer was aware that the Native Americans had
a belief in God and the Devil and a concept of heaven and hell:
“The Indians have a beliuef of God. & that hee hath a son. & that hee is Good. & that the good people when they dy goe to him: & bee alwais in pleasure. But after ye bad people dy they are alwaise in affliction. The Indians also say yt there is a Divel who is bad & ye Author of badness & they are afraid of him.” [vi]
Virginia and Maryland Map Augustine & Moll Hermann C1700
But he reported that much trouble was being caused in the Native
American communities by rum. One man
told him about a dream story he had heard:
“The Indian in a trance had one com to him & bid him goe back & live well & then when hee dyed hee should be amongst thouse Indians who were in pleasure. Hee was asked why then did hee live badly by drinking to much Rum. Hee answered that before white people cam amongst them they were good & kind one to another but now they are becom bad & hard to one a nother that they may have wherewithal to buy Rum.”[vii]
At a meeting on 18th October 1713 at Conestoga, Farmer met up with Philadelphia Friends Hugh Lowden and Andrew Job. At a meeting they convinced the Native Americans there to send one of their sons to Philadelphia to be taught to read and write in order that he could translate and ensure that “the love that hath hitherto been between you and us continuew between our Children and your Children after us, which the Indians assented to” [viii].
Farmer was obviously interested in the Native American’s spiritual
understanding of the world around them and he reported the story of one hunter’s
unearthly encounter:
“Ye sd Indian had bad luck in hunting. At wch hee was troubled & then see a man in white Raiment stand before him. Who asked him why hee was troubled & further said dost thou not know yt there is a great God who ruleth althings & giveth good luck to whome hee please? Do thou live well & teach ye Indians to do so too & then hee will give thee good things. The Indian asked him his name where upon hee gave himselfe ye name of a bird (wch the Indians say is so holy yt hee never tocheth ye ground) & then vanished out of the Indian’s sight.” [ix]
Within the journal I have not found references to Native American
communities resisting or objecting to the conversations with John Farmer in
particular and the Quaker’s in general.
He was not the first Quaker visitor, Thomas Chalkley had been at
Conestoga in 1706 and had a good relationship with a female tribal leader who
he called “an old Empress” who had
dreamed that a friend of William Penn’s would be visiting and had advised her
people to allow them to preach. Thus the foundations had already been laid for
Native Americans to be receptive to the Quaker message. At least initially.[x]
By November 1713 John Farmer was back in Philadelphia where he tallied
up the miles he had travelled since arriving in America and found it to be 5607
miles. It was then time to start
planning for the next part of his journey, to the Caribbean Islands.
And so we leave our intrepid Essex Friend in Philadelphia, waiting for
the ship to take him all the way to Barbados.
[i]
John Farmer Journal, Essex Record Office A13685, Box 51, p.50
[ii]
John Farmer Journal, Essex Record Office A13685, Box 51, p.50
[iii]
John Farmer Journal, Essex Record Office A13685, Box 51, p.50
[iv]
John Farmer Journal, Essex Record Office A13685, Box 51, p.50
[v]
John Farmer Journal, Essex Record Office A13685, Box 51, p.55
[vi]
John Farmer Journal, Essex Record Office A13685, Box 51, p.56
[vii]
John Farmer Journal, Essex Record Office A13685, Box 51, p.56
[viii]
John Farmer Journal, Essex Record Office A13685, Box 51, p.55
[ix]
John Farmer Journal, Essex Record Office A13685, Box 51, p.56
[x]
John Farmer Journal, Essex Record Office A13685, Box 51, p.55
Julie Miller, a masters student from University of Essex, has taken up a research placement at the Essex Record Office, conducting an exploration into the story of John Farmer and his adventures, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, and has been jointly funded by the Friends of Historic Essex and University of Essex. Julie will be publishing a series of updates from the 12-week project.
In this installment we will look at some of the encounters John Farmer had in pre-revolutionary America.
Having returned to Essex in England
from his Irish adventures in May 1711, and not being one to stay in a place for
long, by Autumn 1711 John Farmer was off on his travels again. Before travelling John Farmer’s wife Mary,
step daughter Mary Fulbigg and 10-year-old daughter Ann moved from Colchester
where they had settled in 1708, back to Saffron Walden. John explained further
in his journal:
“I staid at home a little with my wife & helped hur to remove to Saffron Walden. For shee thought it best for hur in my absence to bee there amongst hur relations with hur lame daughter whom she hoped there to help in to busness whereby shee might git hur a living: which shee could not doo at Colchester. But Colchester is ye best place of ye 2 for my wifes nursing & my woolcoming. Whereby wee earned good wages there untill my wife was taken from it by hur daughters sickness & I was taken from it by ye Lords sending mee to Ireland as aforesaid”.[i]
John Farmer Journal, Essex Record Office A13685, Box 51, p.46
After putting his affairs in
order John Farmer set off from Gravesend on 1st November 1711 on a
ship called the Thomas of London, captained by Master Benjamin Jerrum. The voyage was uneventful, and John Farmer
was allowed to hold meetings on board and landed in Maryland at the beginning
of March 1711/12 having spent 4 months at sea.
Having been met of the ship by well-known Quaker Richard Johns Senior,
John Farmer stayed with Mr Johns at his house ‘Clifts’, in Calvert County while
he travelled within Maryland, and held several meetings along the Western Shore
before travelling on to Virginia where he held a further eighteen
meetings.
In Virginia Farmer
was troubled by reports that local Quakers had been imprisoned for refusing to
help build garrisons or fortifications. This
reluctance was due to a key principle of the Quaker movement, the Peace
Testimony declared by founder George Fox in 1660, which was a vow of pacifism
that endures to this day.[ii] Quakers refused to have any part in building
fortifications and rejected all weapons of war. Farmer recounted stories of the
harm done by the local Native American people to settlers who had been
persuaded to take up arms, and the Quakers saved by tribespeople when they held
no weapons:
“For I have been cridditably Informed yt som friends hereaway for severall years (in obedience to Christ) have refused to make use of Garrisons & carnall weapons for their defence against Indians: & have Insteed thereof made use of faith in God & prayer to God: & hee hath saved them from beeing destroyed by Indians …who did destroy their neighbours who did use weapons, particularly one man whom his neighbours perswaded to carry a gun, but the Indians seeing him with a gun shot him deadly and they afterwards said that it was his carrying a gun that caused them to kill him which otherwise they would not have done.”
Moving on to North Carolina John Farmer was
troubled to hear of a recent massacre 20 miles away and reported in his journal
that he heard a Quaker had forcibly taken land from the local native Americans,
“whereas hee might have bought his land for
an iron pottage pot.”
Herman Moll: New England, New York, New Jersey and Pensilvania, (sic)1729
Native American communities
had suffered considerably at the hands of the new settlers who raided the
villages and kidnapped the people to be sold into slavery and stole land. The
tribes had also suffered substantial population decline after exposure to the infectious
diseases endemic to Europeans. As a result, under the leadership of
Chief Hancock, the southern Tuscarora allied with the Pamlico, the Cothechney,
Coree, Woccon, Mattamuskeet and other tribes to attack the settlers in a series
of coordinated strikes that took place in Bath County, North Carolina on 22nd
September 1711 and which heralded the start of the Tuscarora War that lasted
until 1715. [iii]
John Farmer described the suffering of that Quaker
family in the Bath County Massacre though it is clear where he felt the fault
lay.
“These Indians haveing been much wronged by English French & pallitins did at last come sudenly upon ym & kiled & took prisoners, as i was told 170 of them & plundered & burnt their houses. Amongst the rest ye said Friend was kiled as he lay sick in his bedd & his wife & 2 young children wer caried away captive & Induered much hardship. But upon a peace made with ye Indians they were delivered & returned to Pensilvania.” [iv]
Travelling back to Virginia and
then Maryland John Farmer attended the 1711 Yearly Meeting at West River on the
Western Shore of Maryland but there he contracted ‘ague & feavor’ which made him too ill to travel for four weeks
and began what he called a “sickly time
for mee and others”. This was almost
certainly Malaria which was endemic at the time. Eventually he recovered, and
travelled on to New York, Rhode Island and Nantucket Island before arriving in
Dover, New England. He was not specific about the date, but it was sometime in
1712. Farmer recorded that he held many
meetings amongst Friends and others “notwithstanding
the danger from the Indian Wars which had long been destructive in this part of
New England.”[v]
In the winter of 1712 Farmer was
in Rhode Island where he nearly died after being injured in a fall from his
horse. But by May 1713 he was recovered
enough to attend meetings at Long Island, East and West Jersey and back to
Maryland where he spent some time working at wool combing again, presumably to
increase his depleted funds.
It was here that “I received fresh orders from Christ to have
meetings amongst Indians in order to their conversation to Christ and to go to
Virginia and Pensilvania and the West Indies in his service”.[vi]And thus the next year’s travel was
planned.
And that is where we can leave
John Farmer, planning his first expedition to take the Quaker message to the Native
American people. And those encounters
will make up the content of the next article.
[i] John Farmer Journal, Essex Record Office A13685, Box 51, p.44
[ii]
To George Fox, this principle served a two-fold purpose, as a protest against
the horrors of the English Civil Wars, and to try to mitigate the opportunity
for violence to be done to Quakers, if they were perceived as peaceful, if
rather disruptive, themselves. For more
information see M Rediker, The Fearless
Benjamin Lay, 2017, Verso, London Ch 1, p.19
[iii]
The Tuscarora War was fought in North Carolina from September 1711 until February 1715 between the British, Dutch, and German settlers and the Tuscarora Native Americans. The Europeans enlisted the Yamasee and Cherokee as
Indian allies against the Tuscarora, who had amassed several allies themselves.
Principal targets were the planters along the Roanoke, Neuse, and Trent
rivers and the city of Bath. They mounted their first attacks on 22nd
September 1711 and killed hundreds of settlers. One witness, a prisoner of the
Tuscarora, recounted stories of women impaled on stakes, more than 80 infants
slaughtered, and more than 130 settlers killed. The militia and approximately
500 Yamasee marched into Tuscarora territory and killed nearly 800, and after a
second assault on the main village, King Hancock, the Tuscarora chief, signed a
treaty. After a treaty violation by the English, war erupted again. The militia and about 1,000 Indian allies
travelled into Tuscarora territory. Approximately 400 Tuscarora were sold into
slavery. The remaining Tuscarora fled
northward and joined the Iroquois League as the Sixth Nation.
