The last time I looked into the financial woes of my ancestor George Wreford, I wanted a simple explanation into the change in bankruptcy laws in 1861. I’ve since learned the key to understanding is knowing the difference between bankruptcy and insolvency.

Bankruptcy or Insolvency?

Whether a person was declared bankrupt or insolvent, was dependent on the profession of the debtor.

Only traders could apply for bankruptcy and have access to some kind of relief – an ‘Order of Discharge’ – which would effectively clear the debt, and allow them to rebuild their business or finances. Any money earned after bankruptcy was theirs to keep.

Non-traders were not able to do this, and would be liable for their debts forever. Any future assets or inheritance could be seized by creditors to pay off old debts, and they could be kept in gaol indefinitely.

Why was this case?

It was a long-held belief that financial failure in commerce was a natural risk of business (think: ‘market fluctuations’), whereas failure in private life was a moral or personal failing (think: ‘extravagant lifestyles’). Debtor’s prisons were seen as a punitive measure to discourage living beyond one’s means.

What changed in 1861?

After the new Bankruptcy Act (effective October 1861), non-traders could also apply for bankruptcy – an ‘Order of Discharge’ – so that they, too, could have their debts cleared.

Unfortunately for George, he became insolvent in March 1861 while still under the old laws.

So why would George be considered a non-trader?

The answer seems to lie in the fact that as well as being an innkeeper, butcher, and journeyman butcher, George was also described as a farmer.

Farmers were excluded from bankruptcy because their livelihood depended on the ‘labour of the soil’ and the ‘uncertainty of the seasons’, NOT commercial trade.

So although George was a butcher and innkeeper, his farming defined his primary legal status. This meant the courts viewed his capital as being tied up in land and livestock reared by himself, rather than goods bought and sold. The meat he sold was likely butchered from his own animals rather than animals bought from someone else.

Being a ‘journeyman butcher’ also suggested that he was an employee rather than a business owner, and therefore could not declare bankruptcy.

The Petition

This notice in the London Gazette tells us that George voluntarily declared insolvency. He would have recognised he was in serious financial trouble and filed his own petition, giving over all his assets to the court to pay off his debts. Had he not done this, a creditor could have had George sent to prison and controlled whether he was released.

The ‘Benefit of the Act’

The post Bankrupt or Insolvent? appeared first on Geneageek.

Samuel Perkins and Elizabeth Collins were both born in Market Harborough and married there in 1846. By 1851, the couple had taken up residence in Sun Yard.

The yards of Market Harborough ran off the High Street and adjoining roads, behind the more substantial shops, inns and houses. The residential yards were similar to court housing – low quality, high density property where poor people were housed, often in less than desirable conditions. Sun Yard, now demolished, was situated behind the church in which they married – roughly where Roman Way now leads off from Church Square and Adam and Eve Street.

Samuel and Elizabeth, who did not have any children, continued to live in Sun Yard until a tragic event occurred in early 1892.

On the night of Saturday 2 January, about quarter past 9, Samuel decided to go to bed, and left his wife Elizabeth sitting by a small fire – she said she would go to bed herself in a few minutes.

After about 20 minutes, Samuel heard Elizabeth shouting, “Fire!” and rushed downstairs to find his wife in flames. She was standing in a corner near the door which led into the yard, with her clothing in flames from her knees up over her head. He threw some water over her that he kept in the room in case of fire, and went out to fetch more water.

While he was gone, their neighbour, Catherine Holmes, who had been coming down the passage at the end of the Perkins’ house, saw Elizabeth rush out in flames shouting, “Oh, dear, is there anyone to save my life?”

Mrs. Holmes took a bag (or sack) that was hanging nearby and put it around her shoulders to extinguish the flames. With assistance, Elizabeth was carried into Mrs. Holmes’ house. She went to get another neighbour, Mrs. Bale, and when she came back Elizabeth’s clothes had been taken off, and she was wrapped in a blanket.

When Samuel returned to his house, he found the lamp-glass lying on the table, and the light from it blazing nearly up to the ceiling. Elizabeth was carried back home, and Mrs Holmes’ then sent one of her young sons to fetch a doctor.

The next day, Samuel asked Elizabeth how the accident happened. She said she was trying to put the glass over the lamp with her apron, when the apron caught fire.

Despite continuing medical treatment from doctors, Elizabeth died about 8 o’clock Monday evening.

An inquest was held at the police station on Tuesday 12 January.

Mr. William Frederick Bruce, the surgeon who attended her, stated that he found Elizabeth suffering from extensive burns on the body, especially on the right side, the throat, and mouth. He dressed the wounds and attended her until her death which he thought was caused by shock to the system.

Samuel said he had not been in the habit of going to bed and leaving his wife downstairs, and that when he had gone upstairs the glass was on the lamp.

The jury returned a verdict that Elizabeth was accidentally burnt to death by the upsetting of a paraffin lamp. Touchingly, the jury, in an act of sympathy and/or charity, gave their fees to Samuel.

Poor Elizabeth was just one of many deaths attributed to the use of paraffin lamps in the home. Although there are no specific numbers and statistics, a look through the newspapers shows just how prevalent paraffin lamp accidents were in Victorian times. In an age where gas and electricity were not yet widely available (gas lighting was only introduced to Leicestershire in 1879, and electricity in 1899), these lamps offered more affordable, brighter and longer-lasting light than candles.

Elizabeth was my husband’s 3rd great-grandaunt.

She was the sister of Sarah Collins who was the wife of Thomas Ebben. Thomas died in Market Harborough in 1878, and it seems quite likely that he also died in Sun Yard, maybe even in the home of Elizabeth and Samuel.

Newspaper Sources:

• Shocking Case of Burning: Market Harborough Advertiser, 12 Jan 1892, p4, c1
• Shocking Paraffin Lamp Accident; Leicester Chronicle, 16 Jan 1892, p7, c8
• Fatal Case of Burning: Market Harborough Advertiser, 19 Jan 1892, p5, c1

The post “Is There Anyone to Save My Life?” appeared first on Geneageek.

It is unclear when the property entered Wreford hands but the estate was mentioned in the Domesday Book as ‘Schipebroc’ (Sheepbrook), and apparently even earlier in a charter of 930 AD.

The estate passed from Matthew Wreford (1712-1752) to his eldest son Matthew (1741-1821) and (it seems) subsequently to his son John (1765-1845).

Matthew (junior) had to wait until he turned 24 before inheriting – he was only 11 when his father died. (Matthew senior died at the age 40, and eleven years before his own father Matthew Wreford ‘of Middlecott’ (1682-1763).

In 1822, Lower Shobrooke was put up for auction “to be SOLD for the Life of the Owner, Mr. JOHN WREFORD, now aged about 56 years…”

However, it is unclear whether the property sold as his wife, Betty (nee Hosegood), was described as ‘of Lower Shobrooke’ when she was buried in 1829.

In the 1841 census, three families were living at ‘Shobrook’, including the family of John Wreford (1817-1892). (He was the great grandson of Matthew Sr’s brother William Wreford (1717-1763). This John Wreford was recorded at ‘Higher Shobrooke’ in the 1851 census.

In the 1851 census, two families were recorded at ‘Lower Shobrooke’, named Mann and Warren. The heads were recorded as agricultural labourers so would not have owned the property.

My ancestry

Matthew Wreford (1712-1752) was my 7th great-grandfather.

Links related to Lower Shobrooke:

Location on modern map

Location on c1904 map

Location on c1886 map

Location on c1809 map

Shobrooke Farmstead on Heritage Gateway (Devon & Dartmoore HER)

Real estate catalogue

Lower Shobrooke, Wreford Name Study wikitree category – lists profiles of Wrefords connected with the property

The post Lower Shobrooke appeared first on Geneageek.

I had wondered what effect two less ancestors would have on the ancestor count in my family tree. It turned out, two less ancestors meant that in 17 generations I had 254 less ancestors.

I’ve now discovered another cousin marriage in my tree.

My 4th great-grandparents, Arthur Buchan and Agnes Buchan, married at Rathen, Aberdeenshire in 1828. Their fathers were brothers (as shown in the diagram below).

My pedigree is now only typical until the 8th generation, where I lose two 5x great grandparents, which leads to the loss of another 2046 ancestors by the 17th generation.

My ancestor count now looks like this:

If I find any more, I will make sure to update.

(If you believe that I have actually calculated incorrectly, please let me know!)

The post Further Pedigree Collapse appeared first on Geneageek.

On 26 October 1859, cousins Andrew Buchan (23) and Robert Buchan (17), drowned when their boat was overturned by a strong wind in deep water (Robert was incorrectly named Arthur in the article). The cause of death given on their death records was, “Drowning Near the Boat Shore”. John Buchan, Andrew’s brother, certified that both were buried at St Combs Churchyard.

Their fathers, Andrew Buchan and Arthur Buchan, were brothers. Arthur Buchan, father of 23-year-old Andrew, was my 4th great grandfather; and brother of my 3rd great-grandmother, Helen Buchan. Helen was 19 when her older brother, and younger cousin, drowned (she would marry James Findlay two years later). I can only imagine the devastating effect this tragedy had on the family.

Andrew was the one who “left a widow to lament his fate”. He was described as ‘married’ on his death record, but infuriatingly did not give his wife’s name. There was a likely 1857 marriage record to an Isabella Buchan in Rathen, but it was difficult to establish which of the many Isabella Buchans this could have been.

I had to cough up the credits and order the marriage record to make sure it was the right one. Sure enough, Andrew’s parents were recorded, confirming it was the correct people. Isabella’s parents were also recorded but leads to another issue… which of the many ‘William Buchan and Elizabeth Duthie’ couples are they?

The post Drowned Near the Boat Shore appeared first on Geneageek.

In part 4 of ‘The Hannah Chronicles’, Hannah was involved an incident with a man named Samuel Steele. One of the newspapers reporting the incident, mentioned that William Lamb was a cousin of Steele’s wife.

I have since found out that there is another family connection.

Three years after William Lamb’s grandfather Daniel Toon died, his grandmother Mary Kennah, married a man named Robert Fellows. (Note: Since Daniel died before William was born, he may have even looked upon Robert as his grandfather.)

When expanding William Hirst’s tree, I found that his mother’s maiden name was also ‘Fellows’. Coincidences like this need to be explored, and in this case, it turned out that William Hirst’s mother, Ann Fellows, was the sister of Robert Fellows.

William Hirst’s parents even appear to be witnesses at Mary’s marriage to Robert.

When Mary Kennah married Robert Fellows in 1849, her eldest daughter Sarah Toon was about 15 years old. Seven years later, in 1856, Sarah married William Hirst, the son of Robert’s sister.

So, Sarah Toon’s husband was her stepfather’s nephew.

This also means that when Hannah Bates was fighting with ‘William’s cousin’s husband’, she was also fighting with his step-grandfather’s nephew!

The post Fine Fellows appeared first on Geneageek.

William and Ann had a daughter named Elizabeth Ann Wreford born in Tiverton, Devon. While ’rounding out’ her story, I found her in the 1851 census in London. Elizabeth was in the home of ‘Aeneas B. Reid’ and his wife ‘Anne Maunder Reid’, recorded as a sister-in-law. Obviously the name Maunder jumped out at me. Mrs Reid’s age also tied in with the details for Ann and George Maunder’s daughter Ann (her baptism record can be seen in the earlier post).

Luckily, I could access the image of the marriage Ann Maunder (jr) to Aeneas Barkley Reid a couple years earlier in 1849. It confirmed her father’s name was George Maunder and also held the signatures of two witnesses: William Wreford and Mary Wreford.

(I believe these witnesses are likely to be Ann’s step sibling (son of William Wreford to his first wife) and his wife, who also lived in London at the time.)

After this discovery, everything has started tumbling into place. Another half sibling, Mary Anna, who I was previously unable to pin down, shows up in the census record with the Reids in 1861.

She also appears to have been buried in the family plot of Elizabeth Ann, who had married Alexander Small in 1853.

Mary Anna and Aeneas Barkley Reid also show up as witnesses to that marriage,

and the Small’s son is recorded with Elizabeth Ann’s brother Willliam in the 1861 census.

What tops it off for me, is seeing that my direct ancestor William Wreford was also buried in the Small family plot (4029).

All of this ‘coming together’ is very satisfying, and gives me an insight into how much the siblings lives were entwined with each other.

And of course, I’m now pretty confident William Wreford’s wife Ann Maunder was born Ann Anstey.

The post Maunder Thursday appeared first on Geneageek.

Part of the episode focused on Ed Balls’ agricultural labourer ancestor, Christopher Green, who was also involved in the riots and charged with arson alongside William Ebbon in 1832. (It can be viewed on the BBC iPlayer – Green’s story begins at 29:45.)

William Ebbon was baptised at St Leonard’s, Horningsheath (later known as Horringer) in Suffolk, on the 4th of August 1799. He was the son of William Ebbon and Temperance Elliss.

By 1821, the family had settled in nearby Winfarthing, Norfolk. In the 1821 census, William was recorded with his parents at the Winfarthing Workhouse. However, they were not inmates, his father was noted as the governor, whereas 22-year-old William was recorded as a labourer.

The show discusses Christopher Green’s arrest for destroying a threshing machine at Winfarthing on 19 September 1822. William wasn’t named as one of the men involved that night, but he was arrested for the same offence 10 days later. He and Ed Balls’ ancestor were both part of the growing movement of disgruntled agricultural labourers who felt forced to act against their livelihoods being taken away from them. One of the main issues was the introduction of new machinery that took even more work away from the already struggling labourers. (For more information see my post about the Agrarian Riots.)

On 29 September 1822, William was involved in the breaking of a threshing machine at Winfarthing during a riot of agricultural labourers. He and a man named Robert Large, pleaded guilty and the court decided that as their conduct was “not having been of an aggravated description”, both were sentenced to be bound in their own recognizance of £20. They were able to do so and were discharged.

Ten years later, William was again involved in destruction of property. In 1832, he, along with Christopher Green and Robert Hubbard, was charged with “having set fire to the premises of the Manor-house called Winfarthing Lodge, the property of the Earl of Albemarle, and in the occupation of Mr. Daniel Doggett, an opulent farmer…”.  The men were committed to Norwich Castle (the county gaol). Hubbard ‘turned approver’ and gave evidence implicating William, Christopher Green and two others, Robert Dixon and Francis Mullett, in the crime of sheep stealing. [Stamford Mercury, 25 May 1832, p4, c6]

Ultimately, the grand jury of the Norfolk and Norwich Assizes held 30 August 1832, ignored the bills of arson against them, and acquitted them of having stolen a ewe sheep, the property of Mr. Edmund Bale, of Tibbenham on 21 December 1831. [Norwich Mercury, 04 August 1832, p3 c1]

The Norwich Mercury reported: “This case rested almost entirely on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, who had never mentioned the matter till he was apprehended on suspicion of setting fire to some premises at Winfarthing.” [Norwich Mercury, 04 August 1832, p3 c1]

William Ebbon and his family stayed in Winfarthing for a few years after this, but sometime after 1836, the family emigrated to the United States.

In 1840, William was recorded at Sackets Harbor, Hounsfield, Jefferson, New York and again at Hounsfield in 1855 before the trail goes quiet.

All William Ebbons‘ other ‘accomplices’ remained in Winfarthing. Robert Hubbard, the ‘turncoat’, died there only a few years later in 1835. Christopher Green died in 1860 at the Kenninghall Union Workhouse. Robert Dixon died at Winfarthing in 1865, and Francis Mollett died in the Kenninghall Union Workhouse in 1873.

Has anyone you were researching ever been mentioned on television?

The post Rage Against the Thrashing Machine appeared first on Geneageek.

Before Enclosure

Before enclosure, villages used an open field system of farming. Large open fields were divided into strips that would be farmed by its owners. They were often scattered, and there were no fences or hedges to divide them.

There was also an area of common land used for grazing. This was not open to the general public but was land (controlled by the lord of the manor) that people from that village had rights to use. The land would be used to pasture cattle or keep livestock such as geese, and collect turf, firewood, fruit or berries. There would be a communal consensus for when and how the land would be farmed.

After Enclosure

After enclosure, the separate strips were consolidated so that owners had unified pieces of land. These were marked out through fences or hedges with absolute property rights. No communal consensus was needed – owners could do with their land as they wished.

Enclosure of land was not new, but in the late 18th century it was now being formalised with parliamentary acts. A landowner wanting to enclose land in their parish would obtain a private Act of Parliament. Commissioners would then visit the parish to survey the area and hear claims of other land holders or those with rights to the common. The commissioners would then enclose the open fields, allocating a plot of land that was equal in size to the total strips of land a landowner previously held. The common would also be divided and given to landowners depending on their total landholdings in the parish and access they had to the common.

People who previously had common rights lost the ability to use that land to make ends meet and those who still had some rights, such as tenant farmers, were increasingly asked for rent in cash rather than stock or produce.

How were agricultural labourers affected?

Consolidating the land meant that less workers were needed. It became more common for labourers to be paid by the day or week, or employed for short periods such as harvesting, hedging, ditching and threshing. Farmhands became casual labourers with no guarantee of work, and rates of pay dropped because there were so many available workers. The problem grew worse in 1815 when the Napoleonic Wars ended, and many thousands of soldiers returned to the rural labour market.

The introduction of threshing machines aggravated the situation. Farm labourers who had previously been employed to manually thresh grain over the winter months, were replaced by cheaper and more efficient horse-powered machines. Groups of agricultural labourers began to rise up, setting fire to farms and destroying machinery.

If captured, the rioters faced imprisonment, transportation, and even execution, so it was not an act to be taken lightly.

If you have ancestors who were agricultural labourers in the 1820s and 1830s, they may well have been involved in the protests.

Sources:

Norfolk County Council: Enclosure

In Our Time: The Enclosures of the 18th Century

Wheatley Village Archive: Agricultural riots of 1820s and 1830s

The post Agrarian Riots appeared first on Geneageek.

The grave stone is so worn, only the name ‘Alfred Wreford’ can be made out.

Fortunately, there was a list of burials inside the church which quickly gave me Alfred’s death date and the fact he was only 8 years old when he died.

Of course, I wanted to know more. I was unable to find any mention of Alfred’s death in the newspaper, which indicates he was likely to have died from some kind of illness rather than a tragic accident. To know for sure, I’d have to order his death certificate. But if I ordered every certificate that took my fancy, I wouldn’t have enough money to eat, so that will have to remain a mystery for now.

But I’ve still been able to find some details about Alfred’s life.

Alfred was baptised at Morchard Bishop on 25 May 1863, the son of agricultural labourer Matthew Wreford and his wife, Mary Drew.  This was the second marriage for both his parents, and although Alfred would be the only child his parents would have together, he had 7 older half-siblings combined. At the time of his baptism, the family were residing on The Street in Morchard Bishop. 

In the 1871 census, Alfred can be found with his parents and 14-year-old half sister, living at ‘Sidbury’ (or Sidborough) which is part of the village of Oldborough (just south of Morchard Bishop).

I was able to find photographs of the house but it looks a lot grander today than it would have done in the 1870s. (Historic England states it was formerly a small farmhouse and adjoining cottage.)

Alfred would die only a few months after the census was taken, and be buried next to the church building, where I would discover him 153 years later.

But since I have a theory that I am related to every Wreford buried in Morchard Bishop, I wanted to find out how this boy was related to me.

Turns out, Alfred was my fourth cousin, once removed, and two sets of his 3rd great grandparents were also my 7th great grandparents:

Set one – William Wreford (1717-1763) and Thomasin Manley (1719 – 1794)
Set two – Matthew Wreford (1712-1752) and Sarah James (1717 – 1763)

William and Matthew were brothers – the children of Matthew Wreford (1682 – 1763) and Elizabeth Manley (1684 – 1757) – and two of Matthew’s children grew up to marry two of William’s children.

Nice to have ‘met’ you, cousin Alfred.

The post Alfred Wreford appeared first on Geneageek.