Tag Archives: parish records

The secrets of settlement papers

Posted on by

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‘.

Photograph of an old document with slanted handwriting and red seal. The bottom line ends 'In the year of our Lord 1739'.
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 parish to 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’s attitudes 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).

Close-up photograph of old document, with signature 'J Poynter'.
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.

Close-up photograph of old document, showing a handwritten list of costs.
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.

Close-up photograph of document, showing rows of slanted handwriting. At the end it is signed with an 'X'.
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.

Two white posters on a green background, advertising a one guinea reward for the return of two 'strayed' dogs, who answer to the name of Don and Bell.
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.

Old document laid on light brown surface. The document has a table printed on it, but is turned 90 degrees clockwise and has handwriting at the top of it.

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.

If you’ve enjoyed this post, you can also read about Aaron Archer’s experience of cataloguing parish Poor Law documents for Colchester for his placement back in 2021. Next week we’ll be publishing David’s guide to settlement papers – watch this space!

Tales from the Parish Chest: bastardy in early modern north-Essex

Posted on by

For the last few months ERO has hosted two student placements jointly funded by the Friends of Historic Essex and University of Essex. They have both written for us about their experiences and what they have discovered here at ERO. In his blog post below Aaron Archer explores the huge wealth of information held within parish Poor Law documents. If you enjoy this article, Aaron has also written a separate article for the Friends of Historic Essex – News – Friends of Historic Essex

During my placement at the Essex Record Office, I have been cataloguing the parish records of north-east Essex. Dating broadly from the late seventeenth century through until the mid-nineteenth century, many of the documents contained within this collection relate to the Poor Law and the daily administration of the various parishes.

The ‘old Poor Law’ which concerns these documents began with the acts of Elizabeth I between 1598 and 1601, and effectively outlined those who were considered ‘the deserving poor’ and those that ‘refused to work’.[1] The responsibility of this poor relief system lay with the parishes, particularly the churchwardens and overseers of the poor, who enacted the day-to-day workings of the system.[2]

Whilst my time has largely involved cataloguing these various documents, such as settlement certificates, apprenticeship indentures and removal orders… I must confess – I have been unable to resist taking some notes on some of the more colourful or exceptional stories uncovered within these records!

Also, I should preface this by stating that all of what I record here has been uncovered with minimal research – and that alone should demonstrate the wealth of information and the variety of stories that one could find if you are actively seeking to research a similar topic (or looking for a research starter!).

Let us begin the examples of William Allen and Deborah Brooks. These names occur more than once each within the bastardy bonds of the parish of St Peter’s in Colchester.

On 10 June 1823, Deborah Brooks underwent a voluntary examination (D/P 178/15/2/4) relating to the illegitimate child she had recently given birth to. Such an examination was necessary to determine whether the child would be chargeable to the parish in which the examination was taking place. During this, Brooks reputed that William Allen, a blacksmith from Brightlingsea, was the father of the child. As such, Allen would be liable to pay a bastardy bond of £2 immediately to the churchwardens of St Peters for any costs incurred by parish, then a further two shillings per week in support of the child, and a further sixpence per week to support Brooks. Clearly, illegitimate births like these were costly. According to the National Archives’ currency converter, £2 was the equivalent of 13 days wages of a skilled worker.

Yet, this is not the last we hear of William Allen. On 2 December 1823, Alice Cook of St Peter’s, Colchester undertook a voluntary examination relating to her illegitimate pregnancy (D/P 178/15/2/5). Once again, the name William Allen was stated when it was questioned who the father may be. This time, William Allen was said to be a drover from Ardleigh. In this instance, Allen was ordered to pay a bastardy bond of £1, 16 shillings to St Peter’s, then a further two shillings and sixpence per week to Alice Cook and the child once it was born.

D/P 178/15/2/5 – Voluntary examination of Alice Cook 2 December 1823

Of course, this very well could have been a separate individual, however it is also a stretch that two women from the same parish became pregnant to two different men sharing the same name, and only six months apart… If these cases do indeed involve the same individual, then William Allen certainly was an unfortunate soul to fall into the same situation twice – and with only 6 months in between cases!

But we must not forget Deborah Brooks either. Her name also appears again on the 10 September 1824. Again, she underwent an examination regarding her illegitimate pregnancy, and on this occasion, Charles Wenlock, a mariner from Brightlingsea, was the reputed father (D/P 178/15/2/8). The parish of St Peter’s wrote up a bastardy bond for £4 and one shilling, plus the further weekly one shilling and sixpence for the child, and sixpence per week for Brooks, however it appears that things were not so simple for Wenlock. An attached note states that Wenlock had changed addresses during this period and thus was unaware of the money he now owed. When he was eventually found on 29 June 1827, he owed a total of 146 weeks of unpaid maintenance amounting to £10 and 19 shillings! For reference, this was about two months wages for a skilled tradesman.

D/P 178/15/2/8 – The bastardy bond of Charles Wenlock for Deborah Brook’s child, and the attached note

These stories present some interesting implications. Firstly, and most apparently, these instances offer an insight into relationships and people’s perceptions towards sex. Clearly people were frequently engaged in physical relationships outside of wedlock despite religious doctrine and expectations still being a considerable part of society. Moreover, these relationships were not just between people from neighbouring parishes, but sometimes parishes miles apart – suggesting how mobile people were on a regular basis.

Secondly, there is the suggestion that bastard births were a broader social problem for early modern parishes, and one that exacerbated an already stretched and flawed relief system. A small note amongst St Peter’s records states that in 1819 a total of £1368, 11 shillings and 4 pence was levied in local rates. Of this, £1247, 7 shillings and 1 pence was expended in poor relief alone, highlighting that there was little flexibility for further strain on the existing system. This made it imperative for parishes to ensure illegitimate births were chargeable to the correct parishes to avoid footing the bill.

Unfortunately, this did lead to more tragic examples, too. For instance, the case of Ann Bugg, whose issues with the poor relief system and an illegitimate birth proved harrowing.

On 20 April 1816, Ann Bugg, a single woman living in St Peters, was removed from the parish with her child George (D/P 178/13/2/21), and was returned to her last legal settlement, St Mary in Whitechapel. This was not unusual, as parishes were likely to remove single men and women, probably to avoid instances of illegitimate births. Yet two months later, on 10 June 1816, the churchwardens of St Mary sent a copy of Ann Bugg’s bastardy examination to St Peter’s. In it, the churchwardens of St Mary suggest that the child was chargeable to St Peter’s rather than them, as the child was born there. The emergent argument here being one of an individual removed to their legal settlement, yet her child being born in another parish, with two overseeing parties unwilling to deal with the situation by placing the responsibility on each other.

St Peter's Colchester
Engraving of St Peter’s Church Colchester

As we have already seen, however, St Peters was particularly stringent in its budgeting and chose to argue the case rather than foot the bill. The situation escalated, and the Justices of the Peace were employed to address the situation. They officially recognised the complaint of St Peters on 8 July 1816 (D/P 178/15/5/1), and two days later issued an official summons (D/P 178/15/5/2) to the churchwardens of St Mary, on the grounds of their refusal to reimburse St Peters for the costs incurred for Ann Bugg’s bastard child. The matter was to be addressed at the next Quarter Sessions.

This was not to be the last of the story, however. In 1820, the issue arose again when the parish of St Mary once again wrote to St Peters (D/P 178/15/5/3), stating they had no knowledge of Ann Bugg’s child and the birth, and therefore refused any steps towards reimbursing St Peters for all the of the costs incurred. Meanwhile, during this four-year quarrel between the two parishes, it is unknown whether Ann Bugg received any support for herself or her child from either parish.

The last mention of this case comes from a small note dated 28 June 1821 (D/P 178/15/5/4). In it, an individual named John Bugg, agreed to reimburse St Peters for the costs incurred during the entire ordeal. This amounted to £4, 14 shillings, though the note states that at this point Ann Bugg’s child had passed away since.

D/P 178/15/2 – Bundle of bastardy papers

Quite clearly, this unfortunate story highlights the problems associated with the patchwork-quilt like system of parishes and poor relief seen during the Poor Law. It both demonstrates the loss of a young life due to the financial worries and bickering of inter-parish relations, along with the neglect of individuals based on the grounds of “not our problem”. Thus, it is no surprise that the system was unsustainable and saw ‘reform’ in the 1830s – though, this had its own whole series of problems!

It should be clear by now that these parish records can contain some fascinating insights into the lives of early modern individuals. As a historian, I previously would not have considered the depth seen these documents, nor the kinds of stories I have uncovered with relatively little research. After all, these stories I have covered here have literally only come together whilst passing through the various stacks of documents that have slid across my desk.

With this piece I hope I have been able to shine a light on the stories that one can find within parish records, such as bastardy bonds and removal orders, and demonstrated the potential that they have. With them family historians can uncover a much deeper understanding of the movements of their ancestors and the struggles they faced. Meanwhile, there is plenty of room for historians to explore microhistories of individual lives of people like Deborah Brooks, William Allen, and Ann Bugg.

These parish records are fascinating, and I would strongly encourage people to expand their scope beyond the singular documents they seek. Rather than focus solely on a specific document, explore other documents within the same box number – you will be surprised at some of the stories you can uncover!

References

[1] Samantha Williams, Poverty, Gender and Life-Cycle Under the English Poor Law 1760-1834, (Croydon: Boydell Pres, 2011), p.2.

[2] W.E. Tate, The Parish Chest: A Study of the Records of Parochial Administration in England, Third Ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 30.

Black History Month: our earliest Black history record

Posted on by

This week on social media we asked you when you thought our earliest record of a Black individual in Essex would date from.

And the answer is… 1580! How close did you get?

The earliest mention we have found of a Black individual in our collections is the burial record of Thomas Parker, ‘a certayne darke mane’ in Rayleigh in 1579/80 (D/P 332/1/3). Thomas was buried on 12 February in the year that we would call 1580; at the time, however, New Year was marked on 25 March rather than 1 January, so contemporaries would have thought of it as still being 1579.

As with so many records this little snippet raises more questions than answers, as we know nothing else of Thomas Parker. Do let us know if you are able to shed any more light on his life.

Thomas Parker burial D-P 332-1-3 editDo you have a story to tell about the past or present of a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic (BAME) community in Essex? If so we want to hear from you.

We are inviting people from BAME communities to tell their stories, either by writing them down or making a sound or video recording, to be kept in the archive for current and future generations to share.

This will be an ongoing project, but in order for potential contributors to see where their stories will be stored, we are holding a launch event with an opportunity to see behind-in-scenes at the archive, and to enjoy food, music, and a display of documents. Come and join in with Essex History Needs You on Saturday 11 October 2014, 11.00am-2.00pm. Free entry, just drop in.