Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Finding criminals who were transported (And Court Records)

Expand Messages
  • Dave Fisher
    Eleanor, Court records might be interesting, separating knavery from nobility. Here s a little tidbit regarding my Battle of Dunbar ancestor after he had been
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 15, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Eleanor,

      Court records might be interesting, separating knavery from
      nobility. Here's a little tidbit regarding my Battle of Dunbar
      ancestor after he had been in America for a while:

      "Wee present Geo. Gray and Saraih his wife for liveing in fornication
      before they came into the bands of Wedlocke. Jury. The Court fines
      the Delinquents three pounds and oficers fees or to receive 10
      stripes apiece. Att a County Court houlden at Wells (Maine) the
      secund day of July 1672 presentments made and given in to the sayd
      Court by the Grand Inquest."
      Pg 239 [4:2:10] York County Court Book Two.

      BTW, in 1672 Sarah was 14 and G.G. about 50. I guess they got over
      it, as they well populated New England with Grays. Looks like they
      were jumping-the-gun a little.

      Dave

      --- In ScottishWarPrisoners@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Sutherland-Fisher"
      <msf10@...> wrote:
      >
      > Eleanor,
      > I dont know if they are online or not. The Guildhall in London
      houses the
      > court records for the period pre 1775 dealing with the Criminal
      Assizes
      > throughout England, giving details of accused persons, their
      alleged crimes,
      > appointments and reappointments of judges and juries, notes on the
      trials
      > (not transcripts of evidence) and where convicted, sentence and
      then details
      > of transportation including often ship, captain, to whom in america
      they had
      > been sold (i.e. estate owner) and for how much.
      >
      > When I last examined these around 8 years ago, it was the original
      documents
      > and I had to wear gloves to avoid acid from my fingers damaging the
      velum
      > paper on which they were written.
      >
      > I suggest you look at the guildhall website, which you should get
      from
      > Google.
      > Hope this helps
      > Mark
      >
      >
      > >From: Eleanor Hall <eleahall@...>
      > >Reply-To: ScottishWarPrisoners@yahoogroups.com
      > >To: ScottishWarPrisoners@yahoogroups.com
      > >Subject: RE: [ScottishWarPrisoners] Finding criminals who were
      transported
      > >Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:28:16 -0800 (PST)
      > >
      > >Mark,
      > >
      > >Interesting insights. You mention "court papers in
      > >London of their ancestor's far from noble reason for
      > >transportation." Where are these papers? Are any of
      > >them online, and if so, how can they be accessed?
      > >
      > >Eleanor Hall
      > >
      > >--- Mark Sutherland-Fisher <msf10@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > > Dave,
      > > > Your search is effectively before most ordinary
      > > > people were recorded so
      > > > unless you stumble across his baptism in one of the
      > > > few parishes with
      > > > legible records pre 1700 or you find him in some
      > > > military muster roll, it is
      > > > highly unlikely you will find any reference to him
      > > > in Scotland.
      > > >
      > > > Earlier there was an email about a couple who
      > > > emigrated in 1685. It was from
      > > > Brenda and this is the reply I tried to send to the
      > > > list then:
      > > >
      > > > Brenda,
      > > >
      > > > I am sorry to say but I think your family folklore
      > > > has been invented by some
      > > > of your ancestors to make their ancestors sound more
      > > > interesting.
      > > >
      > > > Firstly Oliver Cromwell fought the armies of King
      > > > Charles I 40 years before
      > > > they emigrated so if he had been in Cromwell's army
      > > > he would have been a
      > > > very old man in his 60's at the time of emigration
      > > > to America. Secondly, it
      > > > is unlikely that Protestants would have left England
      > > > and move to Scotland.
      > > > Cromwell's England was staunch Protestant like
      > > > Scotland. Given that Cromwell
      > > > slaughtered a Scottish army under Charles II at
      > > > Worcester on 3rd September
      > > > 1651 and Cromwell was hated in Scotland so I cannot
      > > > see supporters of
      > > > Cromwell fleeing to Scotland. Far more likely your
      > > > ancestors were simple
      > > > economic migrants which would explain why they paid
      > > > for their passage. They
      > > > sound Dutch so they may have come to England or
      > > > Scotland when Charles II
      > > > came back from exile in 1660.
      > > >
      > > > Sorry if it spoils a good story.
      > > >
      > > > I know it is hard for those of you in North America
      > > > to understand but
      > > > generally when someone left Scotland or England to
      > > > emigrate or as either a
      > > > common criminal or "political prisoner" being
      > > > transported, the general
      > > > attitude was good riddance and thank goodness that's
      > > > one or more less mouths
      > > > to feed. Most people were too concerned with the
      > > > problems of just surviving
      > > > from day to day in what was a relatively poor
      > > > country (even most aristocrats
      > > > in Scotland were very poor by comparison with their
      > > > English or French
      > > > counterparts) so people leaving or being transported
      > > > was really only of
      > > > interest to their immeidate families.
      > > >
      > > > However on the other side of the pond it was a
      > > > different matter and most of
      > > > the immigrants wanted to record somewhere who they
      > > > were and where they came
      > > > from. However unless as is the case with your
      > > > ancestor, who was recorded as
      > > > a "political prisoner", a Royalist, being
      > > > transported, in my experience the
      > > > overwhelming majority who claim to have been
      > > > transported or exiled for
      > > > supporting this king or that religion were simply
      > > > making it up and were
      > > > either economic migrants or common criminals given
      > > > the chance to be
      > > > transported rather than hung. As I have said to many
      > > > disappointed American
      > > > descendants when confronting them with the court
      > > > papers in London of their
      > > > ancestor's far from noble reason for transportation,
      > > > if you were transported
      > > > as a common criminal and 30 years later by luck and
      > > > hard toil had risen to
      > > > be someone of importance in colonial society, what
      > > > would you tell yuor
      > > > children and grandchildren, that you were a common
      > > > criminal or a heroic
      > > > warrior punished for your political or religious
      > > > beliefs. I know which I
      > > > would choose and after all the last thing they would
      > > > expect is that 350
      > > > years later their distant descendants could either
      > > > fly to Britain in 5 hours
      > > > or do research without even leaving their own
      > > > homes!!
      > > >
      > > > To anyone researching an ancestor who migrated to
      > > > the North America for any
      > > > reason between 1650 and 1775 (when transportation to
      > > > the American colonies
      > > > stopped) my advice is always to exhaust every
      > > > possible source on your side
      > > > of the pond before trying on this side because 99%
      > > > of times, all the likely
      > > > information is in North America not in the UK. Our
      > > > records from that time
      > > > are almost non-existent and at best very patchy and
      > > > generally relate only to
      > > > the very important or the very wicked.
      > > >
      > > > Mark
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > >From: "Dave Fisher" <fishrdnc@...>
      > > > >Reply-To: ScottishWarPrisoners@yahoogroups.com
      > > > >To: ScottishWarPrisoners@yahoogroups.com
      > > > >Subject: [ScottishWarPrisoners] Looking for the
      > > > Scottish origin of George
      > > > >Gray
      > > > >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:29:52 -0000
      > > > >
      > > > >George Gray was one of 150 Dunbar prisoners
      > > > transported to Boston in
      > > > >1650 in the 'Unity,' and thence transported to the
      > > > lumber plantations
      > > > >around Berwick, ME. His presence there and
      > > > subsequent genealogy is
      > > > >well documented. At one time it was stated on
      > > > Wikipedia that he came
      > > > >from Lanark, but the entry was later removed as
      > > > "Not Notable." I can
      > > > >find no information about him on the
      > > > Lanark/Lanarkshire websites. My
      > > > >guess is that any such information originated in
      > > > American records or
      > > > >writings, probably in the York County, ME area.
      > > > Any info?
      > > > >
      > > > >Dave Fisher
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >_________________________________________________________________
      > > > MSN Hotmail is evolving – check out the new Windows
      > > > Live Mail
      > > > http://ideas.live.com
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ScottishWarPrisoners/join
      > > > (Yahoo! ID required)
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >mailto:ScottishWarPrisoners-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
      > http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?
      kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG
      >
    • Eleanor Hall
      Dave, I heard or read somewhere that sex before marriage was not uncommon in Colonial days. Eleanor Hall ... === message truncated ===
      Message 2 of 12 , Jan 15, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave,

        I heard or read somewhere that sex before marriage was
        not uncommon in Colonial days.

        Eleanor Hall



        --- Dave Fisher <fishrdnc@...> wrote:

        > Eleanor,
        >
        > Court records might be interesting, separating
        > knavery from
        > nobility. Here's a little tidbit regarding my
        > Battle of Dunbar
        > ancestor after he had been in America for a while:
        >
        > "Wee present Geo. Gray and Saraih his wife for
        > liveing in fornication
        > before they came into the bands of Wedlocke. Jury.
        > The Court fines
        > the Delinquents three pounds and oficers fees or to
        > receive 10
        > stripes apiece. Att a County Court houlden at Wells
        > (Maine) the
        > secund day of July 1672 presentments made and given
        > in to the sayd
        > Court by the Grand Inquest."
        > Pg 239 [4:2:10] York County Court Book Two.
        >
        > BTW, in 1672 Sarah was 14 and G.G. about 50. I
        > guess they got over
        > it, as they well populated New England with Grays.
        > Looks like they
        > were jumping-the-gun a little.
        >
        > Dave
        >
        > --- In ScottishWarPrisoners@yahoogroups.com, "Mark
        > Sutherland-Fisher"
        > <msf10@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Eleanor,
        > > I dont know if they are online or not. The
        > Guildhall in London
        > houses the
        > > court records for the period pre 1775 dealing with
        > the Criminal
        > Assizes
        > > throughout England, giving details of accused
        > persons, their
        > alleged crimes,
        > > appointments and reappointments of judges and
        > juries, notes on the
        > trials
        > > (not transcripts of evidence) and where convicted,
        > sentence and
        > then details
        > > of transportation including often ship, captain,
        > to whom in america
        > they had
        > > been sold (i.e. estate owner) and for how much.
        > >
        > > When I last examined these around 8 years ago, it
        > was the original
        > documents
        > > and I had to wear gloves to avoid acid from my
        > fingers damaging the
        > velum
        > > paper on which they were written.
        > >
        > > I suggest you look at the guildhall website, which
        > you should get
        > from
        > > Google.
        > > Hope this helps
        > > Mark
        > >
        > >
        > > >From: Eleanor Hall <eleahall@...>
        > > >Reply-To: ScottishWarPrisoners@yahoogroups.com
        > > >To: ScottishWarPrisoners@yahoogroups.com
        > > >Subject: RE: [ScottishWarPrisoners] Finding
        > criminals who were
        > transported
        > > >Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:28:16 -0800 (PST)
        > > >
        > > >Mark,
        > > >
        > > >Interesting insights. You mention "court papers
        > in
        > > >London of their ancestor's far from noble reason
        > for
        > > >transportation." Where are these papers? Are any
        > of
        > > >them online, and if so, how can they be accessed?
        > > >
        > > >Eleanor Hall
        > > >
        > > >--- Mark Sutherland-Fisher <msf10@...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > Dave,
        > > > > Your search is effectively before most
        > ordinary
        > > > > people were recorded so
        > > > > unless you stumble across his baptism in one
        > of the
        > > > > few parishes with
        > > > > legible records pre 1700 or you find him in
        > some
        > > > > military muster roll, it is
        > > > > highly unlikely you will find any reference to
        > him
        > > > > in Scotland.
        > > > >
        > > > > Earlier there was an email about a couple who
        > > > > emigrated in 1685. It was from
        > > > > Brenda and this is the reply I tried to send
        > to the
        > > > > list then:
        > > > >
        > > > > Brenda,
        > > > >
        > > > > I am sorry to say but I think your family
        > folklore
        > > > > has been invented by some
        > > > > of your ancestors to make their ancestors
        > sound more
        > > > > interesting.
        > > > >
        > > > > Firstly Oliver Cromwell fought the armies of
        > King
        > > > > Charles I 40 years before
        > > > > they emigrated so if he had been in Cromwell's
        > army
        > > > > he would have been a
        > > > > very old man in his 60's at the time of
        > emigration
        > > > > to America. Secondly, it
        > > > > is unlikely that Protestants would have left
        > England
        > > > > and move to Scotland.
        > > > > Cromwell's England was staunch Protestant like
        > > > > Scotland. Given that Cromwell
        > > > > slaughtered a Scottish army under Charles II
        > at
        > > > > Worcester on 3rd September
        > > > > 1651 and Cromwell was hated in Scotland so I
        > cannot
        > > > > see supporters of
        > > > > Cromwell fleeing to Scotland. Far more likely
        > your
        > > > > ancestors were simple
        > > > > economic migrants which would explain why they
        > paid
        > > > > for their passage. They
        > > > > sound Dutch so they may have come to England
        > or
        > > > > Scotland when Charles II
        > > > > came back from exile in 1660.
        > > > >
        > > > > Sorry if it spoils a good story.
        > > > >
        > > > > I know it is hard for those of you in North
        > America
        > > > > to understand but
        > > > > generally when someone left Scotland or
        > England to
        > > > > emigrate or as either a
        > > > > common criminal or "political prisoner" being
        > > > > transported, the general
        > > > > attitude was good riddance and thank goodness
        > that's
        > > > > one or more less mouths
        > > > > to feed. Most people were too concerned with
        > the
        > > > > problems of just surviving
        > > > > from day to day in what was a relatively poor
        > > > > country (even most aristocrats
        > > > > in Scotland were very poor by comparison with
        > their
        > > > > English or French
        > > > > counterparts) so people leaving or being
        > transported
        > > > > was really only of
        > > > > interest to their immeidate families.
        > > > >
        > > > > However on the other side of the pond it was a
        > > > > different matter and most of
        > > > > the immigrants wanted to record somewhere who
        > they
        > > > > were and where they came
        > > > > from. However unless as is the case with your
        > > > > ancestor, who was recorded as
        > > > > a "political prisoner", a Royalist, being
        > > > > transported, in my experience the
        > > > > overwhelming majority who claim to have been
        > > > > transported or exiled for
        > > > > supporting this king or that religion were
        > simply
        > > > > making it up and were
        > > > > either economic migrants or common criminals
        > given
        > > > > the chance to be
        > > > > transported rather than hung. As I have said
        > to many
        > > > > disappointed American
        > > > > descendants when confronting them with the
        > court
        > > > > papers in London of their
        >
        === message truncated ===
      • Rom
        Common or no don t mean tweren t illegal. Or summat. ... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you aren t someone s villain,
        Message 3 of 12 , Jan 15, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Common or no don't mean tweren't illegal. Or summat.


          > I heard or read somewhere that sex before marriage
          > was
          > not uncommon in Colonial days.
          >
          > Eleanor Hall


          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          "If you aren't someone's villain, you aren't defined well enough." - Tom
          "I'm beginning to see why the others fear you." - Carolyn
          "Oh, Bob? Do we have any openings this man might fit?" - Madeline Kahn
          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Never miss an email again!
          Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
          http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
        • Mark Sutherland-Fisher
          Eleanor, Sex before marriage was the norm in Scotland and probably England as well until Queen Victoria and her German morals kicked in! At a time when divorce
          Message 4 of 12 , Jan 16, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Eleanor,
            Sex before marriage was the norm in Scotland and probably England as well
            until Queen Victoria and her German morals kicked in!

            At a time when divorce was only for the rich and powerful, the only reason a
            couple married was to have children and the only way they would know if they
            could ahve children togther was to try. The normal practice in Scotland was
            for a courting couple to have premarital sex and then as soon as the girl
            discovered she was pregnant, they married. If they got the timing wrong,
            they just announced that they had entered into an irregular marriage and if
            they could afford it, paid the fee to the Kirk and then had their irregular
            marriage recognised by the Kirk.

            The majority of people pre Victorian times entered into irregular marriages
            and as both marriages and baptisms had to be paid for to be recorded, the
            great majority of ordinary people didnt register their marriages and
            childrens births, which is why often people cant trace ancestors entries
            inthe OPR in years where there are not gaps in the records.

            Remember entire generations of men were regularly culled on the battlefield
            and disproportionately large numbers of women died either in or as a
            consequence of childbirth. A widower with young children would almost
            immediately remarry, often to his wife's younger sister or cousin to provide
            a new mother for his children and would then probably saddle the poor woman
            with another handful of her own and if she died, he would get another. A man
            was often having children with several wives over a 30 or 40 year period and
            frequently was still fathering children when his older children were
            themselves already having children.

            The converse was also true. Often a widow left with young children perhaps
            in her 20's or even as late as early 40's would acquire a new husband, often
            a man young enough to be her son, who would have his eye on her farm or
            property which would become his on marriage and then proceed to have even 2
            or 3 children by her. I have seen cases of women previously widowed with
            several children in their 40's having more children by their husbands in
            their 20s and unsurprisingly such women rarely lived to be old and a few
            years later the younger husband would be taking another wife after her
            premature death, often as a consequence of a very late pregnancy or
            childbirth. Within my own family I have numerous cases of multiple marriages
            in both sexes where there wasn't a single divorce. that is why it is
            essential you carefully analyse who the witnesses to any child's birth were.
            almost always they were specially chosen by the father/parents.
            Mark

            _________________________________________________________________
            MSN Hotmail is evolving � check out the new Windows Live Mail
            http://ideas.live.com
          • Dave Fisher
            My guess is that the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the York County Court (then part of the MBC) took a dimmer view of what the Scottish ex-prisoners took as a
            Message 5 of 12 , Jan 16, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              My guess is that the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the York County
              Court (then part of the MBC) took a dimmer view of what the Scottish
              ex-prisoners took as a norm. The court proceeding fell about halfway
              between the establishment of the Puritan colony and the later Salem
              witch trials.

              Dave

              --- In ScottishWarPrisoners@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Sutherland-Fisher"
              <msf10@...> wrote:
              >
              > Eleanor,
              > Sex before marriage was the norm in Scotland and probably England
              as well
              > until Queen Victoria and her German morals kicked in!
              >
              > At a time when divorce was only for the rich and powerful, the only
              reason a
              > couple married was to have children and the only way they would
              know if they
              > could ahve children togther was to try. The normal practice in
              Scotland was
              > for a courting couple to have premarital sex and then as soon as
              the girl
              > discovered she was pregnant, they married. If they got the timing
              wrong,
              > they just announced that they had entered into an irregular
              marriage and if
              > they could afford it, paid the fee to the Kirk and then had their
              irregular
              > marriage recognised by the Kirk.
              >
              > The majority of people pre Victorian times entered into irregular
              marriages
              > and as both marriages and baptisms had to be paid for to be
              recorded, the
              > great majority of ordinary people didnt register their marriages
              and
              > childrens births, which is why often people cant trace ancestors
              entries
              > inthe OPR in years where there are not gaps in the records.
              >
              > Remember entire generations of men were regularly culled on the
              battlefield
              > and disproportionately large numbers of women died either in or as
              a
              > consequence of childbirth. A widower with young children would
              almost
              > immediately remarry, often to his wife's younger sister or cousin
              to provide
              > a new mother for his children and would then probably saddle the
              poor woman
              > with another handful of her own and if she died, he would get
              another. A man
              > was often having children with several wives over a 30 or 40 year
              period and
              > frequently was still fathering children when his older children
              were
              > themselves already having children.
              >
              > The converse was also true. Often a widow left with young children
              perhaps
              > in her 20's or even as late as early 40's would acquire a new
              husband, often
              > a man young enough to be her son, who would have his eye on her
              farm or
              > property which would become his on marriage and then proceed to
              have even 2
              > or 3 children by her. I have seen cases of women previously widowed
              with
              > several children in their 40's having more children by their
              husbands in
              > their 20s and unsurprisingly such women rarely lived to be old and
              a few
              > years later the younger husband would be taking another wife after
              her
              > premature death, often as a consequence of a very late pregnancy or
              > childbirth. Within my own family I have numerous cases of multiple
              marriages
              > in both sexes where there wasn't a single divorce. that is why it
              is
              > essential you carefully analyse who the witnesses to any child's
              birth were.
              > almost always they were specially chosen by the father/parents.
              > Mark
              >
              > _________________________________________________________________
              > MSN Hotmail is evolving – check out the new Windows Live Mail
              > http://ideas.live.com
              >
            • bob gillis
              ... I think that the Puritans had a lot to do with it also. bob gillis
              Message 6 of 12 , Jan 16, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark Sutherland-Fisher wrote:

                >Eleanor,
                >Sex before marriage was the norm in Scotland and probably England as well
                >until Queen Victoria and her German morals kicked in!
                >

                I think that the Puritans had a lot to do with it also.

                bob gillis
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.