The Lawsuite of Chapel Salary

 

As I've blogged recently about Mathew Baines and the Christopher Wood Panel in a church, I'd like to share a very informative court case that pitted James Baines, a Quaker landowner against the local Church of England minister. Both appeared to be stubborn men who would not give up their belief about their rights. Here is a summary of the extended court case:

The following account was taken from the Reverend Canon Ware, M.A. who addressed the Society at Seascale on 25 September 1884 regarding a lawsuit over the curate’s salary in Killington, Kikrby Lonsdale, in the 1600s.[1] Rev. Ware had received a collection of old papers from the Rev. R. Fisher. Rev. Ware had first learned of the papers from Rev. Fisher’s predecessor, Rev. H. V. Thompson.

The lawsuit was brought by the curate[2] of the Chapel, William Sclater [Slayter/Slater], who claimed he was due 5 shillings and 10 pence annually from Joseph Baynes Sr and 2 shillings and 8 pence annually from James Baynes, both of Stangerthwaite, Lancashire for messuages and tenements or land.[3] Others named in the suit were Thomas Alexander, Thomas Story, and Samuel Parrett. All were Quakers.

The case was first heard at Moot Hall, Kendal on 11 January 1696.[4] Lawyers for the defendants were Allan Chambre, William Corke, and Robert Kilner, along with gentlemen Anthony and Charles Saule.[5] The gentlemen were included based on a Commission under the Great Seal of England executed under Statute 43 Elizabeth (1601) entitled “An Act to Redress the Misemployment of Lands, Goods, and Stocks of Money Heretofore Given to Charitable Uses.”[6]

Fourteen men were summoned to serve as jurors. They were sworn in concerning the statute and commission. All agreed that “An Ancient Chappell” (sic) in good repair in Hamlett Township aka Chappellry of Killington in the parish of Kirkby Lonsdale had and was being used for divine service and sermons by the curate who brought the suit. All jurors also agreed that from their earliest memories, an annual sum of money or rent was customarily paid by landowners or tenants to whoever held the curate position. Commonly the sum was divided equally in half with the first payment due at Lamas (sic) and the second payment on the feast of the purification of the blessed Virgin Mary.[7] The curate received the funds as part of his salary the Sunday following both holidays.

It was agreed that Thomas Story had not made his payments for the 12 years that he owned or occupied his land at Bendrigg, Killington.[8] There is no explanation as to why curate Sclater waited 12 years to take the man to court so he might obtain his salary.

Witnesses were called and seem to be the oldest inhabitants of the area. Thomas Hebblethwaite of Killington, age about 56, after being sworn in, recalled that the Chapel had been in existence for at least 50 years as he attended school and divine services there, but he did not know when the chapel had been built. Hebblethwaite noted that several men over 80 years of age believed it became a parochial location “very near” 120 years earlier.[9]

Hebblethwaite had heard from several older men, including his father Robert who had died 9 years earlier (1687) and had been over 82 years old at the time of his death (birth about 1605) that a salary, called a stipend, for the preacher was paid annually by the owners or occupiers within the township. This included demesne [10] of Manor Houses.  An exception was the manor known as Killington Hall who was thought had been the original family that had given the land for the chapel to be built with space provided for their family’s burial. Since the family had likely donated the land, they were exempted from paying the annual salary to the curate.

This custom was honored until the Quakers were established in Killington about 1663. Landowners not of the Quaker faith continued to pay the curate but Quakers did not. Also noted was mortgaged land beginning in 1607 included terms mentioning the annual salary.[11]

Hebblethwaite also recalled in 1666, carpenter James Taylor, a moderate Quaker purchased land from Richard Hilton in Killington near the Chapel. Hilton showed Taylor his deed from 1625 which stated the tithe was not of corn but of a half peck of meal on silver.[12] Taylor decided to sell the land in 1687 to Quaker John Holme, inserting the tithe clause in the newly written deed. Holme refused to agree to the clause, and it was stricken. Holme later sold the land to Quaker John Bradley; that deed did not include the clause. Bradley returned to Holme after purchasing the land when Bradley learned about the tithe. Holme told Bradley all Killington inhabitants should withhold paying the tithe and it was alleged that Quakers James Baines and John Windson destroyed the original deed noting the required tithe.

The court’s decision was held on 14 June 1697 with the questioning noted for Jos. Baynes, James Baynes, Alexander and Storey. The defendants were ordered to pay the annual sums in arrears and court costs. The curate was permitted to enter and distrain, meaning he could physically go to the property and seize belongings to obtain his due payment. Not surprisingly, the defendants appealed the verdict.

Slayter vs. Jacobum (Jacob) Baynes, Exceptions to the Decree of the Commissioners of Pious Uses, James Baynes noted the following reasons for the appeal:

1. The controversy began with the Bishop of Chester which is out of the current jurisdiction.
2. The jury in the first trial had insufficient evidence, notably that the chapel was “ancient,” never consecrated, and curates salary was never due.
3. Information was not found as to how the yearly rent amounts were established, and they may have been intended to be a (one time) gift for charitable use.
4. William Baynes, father of James Baynes, purchased the property 46 years earlier (1651) from William’s father, James Baynes. Grandson James Baynes purchased land from John Robinson of Kirkby Kendall about 1677 and from Robert Hebblethwaite (deceased) about 1662. In May 1685, James Baynes purchased the land his father William had bought from his father, James, in 1651. The current owner, James Baynes, stated his father never paid the tithe nor told his son about it.
5. There is no proof that the tithe was anything more than a custom or a free voluntary contribution of benevolence.
6. James did not believe the Commissioners had the authority to execute a verdict for noncompliance since it couldn’t be proven that a permanent, inheritable tithe was legitimate and therefore, the curate could not be allowed to seize property for nonpayment.
7. James also claimed that the curate did not incur expenses that would be passed on to him.
8. There was a question of procedural validity of the court filing by the commissioners.
9. The decree was deemed too vague as it did not specify what portion of the property was liable for the yearly payments. Without clear land identification, the decree was flawed and should have been nullified, the heirs released from obligation, and they should be compensated for the court’s errors.

The Rev. Ware found a rough draft of the Answers to Defendants Exception, which was the curate’s counter argument.[13] He claimed the defendants were properly notified but failed to comply and were objecting to stall the case. He requested that the court enforce the decree and further penalize the defendants for their noncompliance. The curate maintained that in the previous trial the defendant’s attorneys contested the evidence regarding the chapel’s consecration and antiquity, the historical obligation to pay the tithe, and the noncompliance by Quakers who claimed they were conscientious objectors. He alleged that James Baynes was one of the prominent Quaker leaders who was behind the idea to resist payment.

The curate provided old rent rolls as further evidence that the ancient, voluntary agreement was valid and applicable to continue. He acknowledged he could not precisely identify the defendant’s lands or boundaries.

It was pointed out that James Baynes was aware of the salary obligation when he purchased land from John Robinson, as Robinson had testified that he had complied with the obligations when he owned the property.

The curate requested that the court required James Baynes to produce his deeds as it was likely that the deeds did contain reference to the salary obligation. The curate claimed James had fraudulently exchanged land with his brother to obscure ownership:

“he (Joseph) has beene sometimes exchanging pticular Lands or Closes with one James Baynes his Brother who had several grounds which lye contiguous thereto, so yt the Lands and Tenemts of the sd Exceptant and the sd James Baynes may be promiscuously till’d and enjoy’d together in Hotch pott nor can be discover’d but by the st Exceptant and his sd Bror or one of them.”[14] This is an interesting statement as it implies that James and Joseph’s father, William, had died intestate and that they were dividing up his land equally which had been given the property to one during his lifetime.

Finally, the curate maintained that James was dragging the case as he had knowledge that the curate had limited financial resources to endure a long legal battle.

On 24 October 1699 Joseph Baynes Sr. petitioned Sr. John Trevor, Master of the Rolls, alleging bias in favor of the curate.[15] A certified copy of Bishop Chadderton’s Grant was given as evidence about the rights and obligations to Killington Chapel. A translation follows:[16]

“To all Christ's faithful to whom these present letters shall come or whom the matters written below concern or may concern in any way in the future, William, by divine mercy Bishop of Chester, sends greetings in the Author of salvation.

A grave complaint and humble petition has been presented to us by the inhabitants and residents of Killington and Furthbank, in the parish of Kirkby Lonsdale, in our Diocese of Chester. They have demonstrated that, because they are situated and distant from the said parish church by ten, nine, eight, seven, or at least six thousand paces, they are unable to carry the bodies of their dead to the said parish church for burial or to bring their children there for baptism without great danger to both soul and body. Nor can they attend divine services or receive the sacraments and sacramentals there, as Christians are expected and obliged to do by law, due to the distance, the frequent flooding of waters, and the storms that rage in the winter season in those parts, except with great expense, labor, trouble, and inconvenience.

For these reasons, they have humbly petitioned us to grant a license and faculty so that in the chapel situated within the territory or manor of Killington and Furthbank, commonly called Killington Chapel, divine services may be celebrated, sacraments administered, and everything pertaining to divine worship conducted there by a suitable curate or chaplain hired at their own expense and salary. These services should be provided in the same ample manner and form as in the parish church of Kirkby Lonsdale.

Therefore, we, William, by divine mercy Bishop of Chester, being the ordinary of the said parish church of Kirkby Lonsdale as well as of the chapel of Killington, favor the petition of the said inhabitants of Killington and Furthbank, especially as we understand it to tend toward the honor and increase of divine worship. Accordingly, we grant and impart our license and faculty so that in the said chapel called Killington Chapel, situated within the bounds and limits of the manor of Killington and Furthbank, divine services may be celebrated, sacraments and sacramentals administered, marriages solemnized, and the bodies of the dead buried in the same chapel or its cemetery. And the inhabitants of the said hamlet or manor may freely and lawfully hear and partake in these services and activities as freely and amply as they now or recently have done in the parish church of Kirkby Lonsdale.

We grant this license and faculty by the tenor of these presents, to the extent that it is within our authority and lawful power, both for ourselves and our successors. Provided that...

This is a true copy of the license or faculty, at least of what remains of the license or faculty, granted to the inhabitants of Killington and Furthbank, as written in the public register of the Lord Bishop of Chester and recorded therein. A faithful collation with the same copy and faculty written in the said register was made on October 26, Anno Domini 1699.

By me, Henry Prescott, Notary Public, Deputy Registrar.”

The case continued on 23 November 1699 both sides had agreed to examine witnesses, however, one of the curate’s commissioners, Mr. Husband, missed the court date due to a wedding. Although the curate and his witnesses attended, objections by Baynes prevented the commission from going forward.

The next agreed upon court date was 7 December 1699. The curate’s counsel, Josias Lambert, presented the court with costs incurred. The next court date for the witness’s testimony was scheduled for January 1669.

On 18 January 1699, the curate William Sclater was arrested by Charles Saule in Kendal over a debt of 150 pounds. The curate had been attending a commission of ongoing common law cases there.[17] The curate believed this was an attempt to disrupt the Commission’s proceedings, so he instructed his lawyers to have Saule and Nicholas Atkinson, court bailiff, arrested for their actions. The Master of Rolls agreed on 2 March 1699. But Saule had fled and could not be found. Questions then arose regarding his disappearance. Had he been collaborating with the Quakers? Was he overzealous in regard to the case? Or, was their some financial interests involved? 

On 11 February 1700 the next hearing occurred. The curate argued that he had the right to arrears and payments but feared stating exactly what his court cost reimbursement request was believing that James Baynes would continue to exploit the system by requesting further hearings. The curate asked that the court minutes record that he can recover costs and that no further delays will occur.

The Lord Keeper agreed to the curate’s request on 20 March 1700.[18]

On 21 March 1701, the Lord Keeper ruled in favor of the curate and offered James Baynes to cover his legal expenses unless he could present a compelling reason to not do so by the next term.

Thus ended the drawn-out legal battle regarding the curate’s salary. Sclater received partial payment for arrears and released Bayne and others from further costs and obligations. Interestingly, William Sclater became the Clarke Preacher of Killington in 1677 and retained the position until his burial on 15 February 1724. He was succeeded by his son, William, who continued until his death on 20 December 1778.

For the descendants of James Baines, the case provided a wonderful genealogy of his sibling, father, and grandfather.

---

[1] Ware, Rev. Canon, Art. CI. - Killington, Kirkby Lonsdale, its Chapel Salary No. 1. Vol. 8, 1886. Pp. 93-108, digital image; archaeologydataservice.ac.uk:  accessed 26 December 2024.

[2] Curate - a minister with pastoral responsibility.

[3] Messuage -  dwelling house with outbuildings and land assigned to its use.

Tenement - a piece of land held by an owner.

[4] During this time, the year began on March 25^th and not January 1^st.

[5] Gentlemen – men of noble birth

[6] A commission under the Great Seal of England refers to an official document that is authorized by the British monarchy and stamped with the Great Seal, signifying the highest level of royal approval and authenticity for important state matters.

[7] Lammas, or Loaf Mass Day, is a Roman Catholic feast day on August 1. The loaf refers to the Eucharist. In the British Isles there were four quarter days with Lammas as the first, followed by All Saints (Nov. 1), Candlemas (Feb. 2) and May Day (May 1). Candlemas was the feast of purification of the blessed Virgin Mary.

[8] Since 1684.

[9] Parochial – relating to a church parish. Likely built about 1576.

[10] Demesne – land attached to the manor that the owners retain for their personal u

[11] 5^th Year of the reign of King James I was 1607.

[12] Reign of Charles I began 1625.

A peck is an imperial unit of dry volume equivalent to 2 dry gallons.

Meal – ground up grain as opposed to an ear of corn.

[13] Foul draught – rough draft

[14] Hotch Pott – the bringing together of shares or properties in order to divide them equally, esp. when they are to be divided among the children of a parent dying intestate. The collecting of property so that it may be redistributed in equal shares, esp on the intestacy of a parent who has given property to a child in his or her lifetime.

[15] Master of the Rolls is a high-ranking judge or British official.

[16] Translation from Latin to English by Chatgpt, 28 December 2024.

[17] Petty Bag – an archaic law term meaning records for common lawsuits kept in a bag.

[18] Lord Keeper is an officer of the English Crown was responsible for the physical custody of the Great Seal of England.

Microsoft Word Copilot Work Around

 

Are you sick of trying to type on Microsoft Word and you get the above?

My husband found a quick way to get rid of it.

1. Bring up a Word doc
2. Go to File on the Ribbon and click
3. Go all the way to the last option at the bottom of the left hand side - "Options" and click
4. On the left side of the popup, click "Copilot"
5. On the next popup, click the box that has the white check in the blue box in front of Enable Copilot (You want to UNCheck it)
6. Click "OK" at the bottom
7. The document will be clear of the verbage and will not allow you to use Copilot AI.

If you ever need to use Copilot, simply go back by following steps 1-4 and click the box to enable.

Easy Peasy!

Just wish that Microsoft let people know ahead of time of these rollouts.

The Christopher Wood Panel

 

AI Image

As I blogged about two weeks ago, I have been intensely researching my Baines Family lines. I came across some interesting info that I'd like to share, even if this surname isn't in your family tree.

Did you know that back in the day you could "buy" a porch to a church and when you didn't want it any longer you could "sell" it? I had no idea. This is a summary of an article by the Reverend R. Percival Brown who explored an inscribed tablet preserved at Kirkby Lonsdale Church in what was then Westmorland (now Cumbria), U.K.

The tablet recorded ownership and repair to the church’s south porch which implied that the porch was of private ownership of a portion of the church, a practice not typically thought of during that period in Great Britain. Brown reminded readers that churches have sold burial plots on church property and that the selling of a porch is not very different, especially since the porch was originally built to cover the burial sites of the family members who were interred there.

The sign, painted with black letters on a whiteboard, had been restored by various owners over the years, and from several sources who had recorded it, the wording was somewhat altered.[1] By 1925, Brown believed that the original wording was thus:

 This porch by ye banes first builded was,

of heigholme hall they weare ;

and after sould to Christopher wood

by willyam Baines therof last heyre;

and is repayred as you see

and sett in order good

by the true owner nowe thereof

the foresaide Christopher wood.[2]

Brown noted that the above was metrically and verbally accurate and fits with an existing armorial shield.[3] I'd like to point out the spelling - remember there were no spelling rules back in the day!

Building, maintaining, and therefore, owning a porch affixed to a church may appear a strange practice in modern times. When one considers that the porch covered the Baines family burial plots the motivation for the original builder makes sense. The church likely needed a second exit, one close to the burial grounds, and the addition of a porch accessible to all would serve that purpose.

Further supporting that narrative was that the burial location for the family was adjacent to the south wall which, in those times, was regarded as a location of importance.[4] It is not surprising that an influential family maintained their status through a donation such as this to their local church while also benefitting through the preservation of their ancestor’s burial sites.

Luckily for descendants of the porch owners over the years, Brown researched the Baines, Wood, and Wilson families. Although the provenance of the porch is not firmly established, it was likely made by one of the earliest Baines family members to the area. What is known was that Adam Baines of Hegholme acquired land in Whinfell in 1428.[5] The estate became known as Hegholme Hall through the 18^th century.[6] Adam’s son, William, was known to be living there in 1497.[7]

William likely had a son, Adam, who inherited Hegholme as a portion of the land, known as Gilfoot, was sold before Easter 1546 to John Rigmaden and Anthony Rosse and the remainder was sold off at Michaelmas 1547 to the Bainbrig family.[8]

That Adam’s son was probably John, whose son Thomas Baynes of Hegholme was baptized on 14 December 1544.[9] John was buried on 4 April 1547.[10]

Although no baptism record survives, it was likely that Adam had a second son, Adam [Jr.] who appeared in the church record with baptisms for his children Mable, Thomas, and James.[11] Adam Sr. was buried on 18 May 1564.[12]

Brown places one more child in Adam’s family – William, who was the original builder of the porch.[13] William would have been an heir of Hegholme and therefore, be a part of this lineage. Further support was given through William, who had a known brother named Thomas.

William was first noted in records as being the father of a bastard, who was baptized on 18 January 1593-4.[14] A legitimate child of William’s, Adam, was baptized on 2 February 1599-1600 in the local parish chapel at Killington which became licensed to celebrate the sacraments in 1585.[15] William was buried on 23 August 1603 and at the time of Brown, William’s will existed.[16] William was noted to be “of Hegholm” and the will was witnessed by George Bainbrig.[17] William had named his underage heir, son Adam, leaving him land in Hegholme and Killington.[18] His goods, valued at 12 pounds after removing debts of 20 pounds, to his wife, Jane [Wright], and daughter Isabel who was also underage.[19] It is not known if Isabel was the bastard born in 1593-4 or a legitimate child whose baptism record was not found. Thomas was named as a brother of William, along with a brother-in-law, Oliver Wright.[20] Thomas and Oliver were appointed as supervisors for the children in the event that their mother Jane married second before the children came of age.[21]

Jane did marry second on 19 October 1608 to Richard Walker.[22] Son Adam married on 23 January 1625-6 at Killington to Elinor Bainbrig, the granddaughter of George who witnessed William’s will.[23] The uniting of families by marriage to retain status and land was not unusual for the time. I guess it's not so unusual in modern times, either.

About 1593, lawyer Christopher Wood sought to purchase property in the area as his brother was already farming within the region.[24] Brown suggested that Wood purchased from William Baines Hegholme Hall as his residence but not the land surrounding the building.[25] This would support the will stating William was of Hegholme and not necessarily of Hegholme Hall.

The genealogy of Christopher Woods family who likely owned the Hall through 1617 was reported; from 1626-1659 records show a Walker family were owners.[26] Church benefactor Henry Wilson of Underley who died in 1639 may also have contributed to financing the maintenance of the porch.[27]

When ownership of the porch transferred was important as the church sign may have had the date modified over the years during restoration which reflected inaccuracy. Brown’s analysis of the work of Machel and close inspection of the stylistic nature of the writing leads one to conclude that the date should have reflected the ownership of Christopher Wood who was also likely the individual who composed the poem and had the sign installed on the church wall.[28] Brown makes a case that the date should have been recorded as either 1596 or 1606.[29]

The porch was removed in 1866 during a church restoration project.[30] It was noted at that time the porch was repaired by Christopher Wood in 1625.[31] If true, the maintenance was short-lived as the following year the Walker family was the new owners.[32]

The intricate history of the Baines family, Hegholme Hall, and the south porch of Kirkby Lonsdale Church serves as a fascinating glimpse into the intersection of family legacy, ecclesiastical tradition, and local history. Through Rev. R. Percival Brown's meticulous research, we gain a deeper understanding of how land ownership, social status, and familial ties were enmeshed with church patronage during the period. The inscription, though altered over time, remains a testament to the intertwined narratives of the Baines and Wood families, as well as their enduring contributions to Kirkby Lonsdale's heritage. Though the porch itself is long gone, the stories it sheltered live on through the records, offering a tangible link to the past for historians and descendants alike. Most importantly, the pedigree of former owners of the porch remains for descendants as a valuable record of their ancestral ties, social significance, and historical legacy within the Kirkby Lonsdale community.

---

[1] Wares cited: Ware, Notes on the Parish Church of Kirkby Lonsdale.

` A descriptive guide to the English lakes ' (8th ed. 1849)

History of Westmorland (1847) i. 364. He notes it as in `an ancient chapel.'

Machell MSS. vol. v, p. ais. (I am indebted to the Rev. Christopher Gathorne M.A. for the transcript.) Y

[2] Brown, Rev. R. Percival, The Christopher Wood's Inscription in Kirkby Lonsdale Church, 1925, p. 321.

[3] ibid, p. 322.

[4] ibid, p. 323.

[5] ibid, p. 324 citing Records of Kendale, vol. i, p. 225.

[6] ibid, p. 324.

[7] ibid, p. 324.

[8] ibid, p. 325. George Baynebrig had acquired part of the land as his descendants were found there several generations later. Baynebrig paid a Fine on Easter 1546 for 40 acres of land, 10 acres of meadow, 60 acres of pasture, and 60 acres of juniper and scrub.

   Adam Baynes sold to Miles Bainbrig in late September 1547 four closes in Hegholm. Closes are enclosed field or parcels of land.

[9] ibid, p. 324 citing 4 Dec. 1544. Bapt. Thomas Baynes sone of Jo: Banes of hegholme.

[10] ibid, p. 325. Brown provided no source, likely parish records. His wife may have been Elizabeth Mansergh, daughter of Edward. Elizabeth’s brother, George left a widow Margaret who married John Wood, later owner of Hegholme Hall.

[11] ibid, p. 325. Mabel January 1550-1, Thomas February 1553-4, Thomas December 1560.

[12] ibid, p. 325.

[13] ibid, p. 325.

[14] ibid, p. 325.

[15] ibid, p. 325.

See Samuelson, Lori. The Lawsuite of Chapel Salary, to be published soon, for further information about the Baines family’s interaction with the chapel.

[16] ibid, p. 326.

[17] ibid, p. 326. Bainbrig was likely a descendant of the George Bainbrig who originally purchased land from Adam Baynes before Easter 1546.

[18] ibid, p. 326.

[19] ibid, p. 326.

[20] ibid, p. 326.

[21] ibid, p. 326.

[22] ibid, p. 326.

[23] ibid, p. 326.

[24] ibid, p. 326 citing Christopher Woods in parish records as 16 Jan. 1594- 5 Bapt. Margretae woodd filiæ Xpoferi. 8 Feb. 1611-2 Sepult. Xpo: wood gent. z8 Feb. 1611-2 Sepult. vx: Xpo Wood vidu. He married widow  Margaret Mansergh. For the Mansergh line Brown cited Edw. Mansergh esq. of 1539 (Records of Kendale i, p. 84). His will dated in April 1543 shows that he left three sons Christopher, George and Alexander, and two daughters Alice and Elizabeth, the latter married to John Baynes (probably of Hegholme). Christopher who died seised of Nether Hall etc., in 1568 had a son Edward (b. 1542) who died in infancy: and at his inquisition of 1591 his heir was found to be Jane (b. 1544). Alexander was buried two months after his father. After 1568 therefore only George was left. In 1571 a daughter (name not registered) of George Mansergh was baptized, and in 1573 a son, registered as Richard: George Mansergh was buried 28 March 1575. On these facts it seems practically certain that Richard is a mistake for Edward and that Margaret Mansergh whom John Wood married in Nov. 1575 was the widow of George Mansergh.

[25] ibid, p. 326 citing Records of Kendale i. Zoo, and ibid. ii, p. 393 for the transition of the property and Chancery Series ii, vol. 675: one of the same year is quoted in the Court of Wards in Records of Kendale i. 293, and a number of others appear in the 2nd vol. including (p. 424) that on William Baynes

[26] ibid, p. 327 citing nq. p.m. of 15 March 15 James I. Chan. Ser. ii, vol. 675, no. 227.

[27] ibid, p. 329.

[28] During that time, lawyers often wrote in poetry.

[29] ibid, p. 327.

[30] ibid, p. 328.

[31] ibid, p. 328.

[32] See footnote 27.

New Year, Old Habits: 5 Genealogical Myths to Leave Behind

 

What a way to start the New Year!

Perhaps it's just me but I'm having some issues with several situations that have arisen this month that makes me feel the need to share with all of you genealogy enthusiasts.

The weather has been cold, though the snow minimal (not complaining!). Since I've been house bound a good deal of the time (I don't do cold!) I've been spending my days researching, writing, consulting, and watching online presentations.

Here is some nonsense that I've heard in just the past two weeks:

1. Regarding an indexed set of school enumeration records, the presenter emphasized there was no need to see the original because the presenter was certain the person who had indexed didn't make mistake.

No - just NO! Everyone makes mistakes, whether intentional or not. We need to see the original. Indexing is nice and can be a short cut but it's not the end all be all. Thorough research requires that we search for originals that exist.

2. I suggested to a presenter via the chat box that the organization might want to try to obtain club and society records to add to their list to digitize. The answer took my breath away - the response was, "We don't THINK those records exist."

Whoa - you don't THINK?! I don't want a THINK I want to KNOW. Do you KNOW if those records exist? If so, how do you KNOW? Who did you ask? Where did you look? When did you look?

Friends, this really hit a nerve with me as I've blogged before about trying to find school records for my husband's grandmother only to be sent from Hobart Township to the city of Gary to the city of Crown Point to the city of Merrillville to Indiana University and then back to Hobart Township. Each person I spoke with in those locations suggested I contact somebody else. Turned out, the records I needed were at IU but in the Calumet Township archive. Why? I have no idea why someone would have filed Hobart Township in Calumet Township but they were there. So, if you are in need of records do not accept I THINK they are blah-blah-blah. Look there but keep looking and one day you will be successful. If you accept that the records don't exist with no reason given for why they were destroyed you aren't done looking.

3. I received a pedigree chart from someone that was beautifully done but when I inquired as to SOURCES, and questioned an odd name change, received the response, "I've been researching for 40 years and know it to be correct."

Really? I've been researching for years, too, but that doesn't provide me with some sort of privilege to say that my work is flawless and I should not be questioned. Readers - keep me on my toes, please. If you see something I write you disagree with let me know. We never stop learning and should be able to handle a difference in opinion and to explain our findings.

4. In discussion with a colleague, I mentioned I thought the relationship of a son to his father wasn't sound. The colleague had asked me to review the information and that was my conclusion. I listed the reasons why I believed more research was needed. The response I got was, "You just don't want to believe it."

Umm, no I don't because of the reasons I gave. If you want to believe it then why did you ask in the first place?

5. If you post on Facebook seeking help and you get a response, thank the person and not kill the messenger. Really, it's not hard.

A distant family member posted about their frustration with a cell phone and how they got no help at the phone store. I suggested seeking out a tech savy kid as it worked for me. Here was the response - edited to not identify the person (because I'm writing from the heart and they don't): "My kid is a tech genius... I was not looking for advice (as I have stated previously in this thread)."

Honey, please re-read your initial post because YOU DID NOT state you weren't looking for advice. Two other posters gave you sound advice as well but you didn't respond as you did to me.

Reminder to all - treat your family with respect like hopefully, you would your friends and associates.

Let's hope February improves!

 

AI Image

Do you have Hoosiers in your history? If so, you might want to participate in Indiana State Library's passport program to commemorate its 200th anniversary. Click here to join. Yep, the system is 200 years young! I'm going to copy the info I received via email exactly so that you, too, can win prizes being offered and have quick and easy access to 170 main libraries and their branches throughout the state from a click on your cell phone:

"As the Indiana State Library prepares to celebrate its 200th anniversary this year, the Indiana Library Passport is offering new prizes and activities. A brand new limited-edition bicentennial celebration mug and a special year-end prize drawing are included in the offerings.

The Indiana Library Passport, a creative digital experience that encourages everyone to visit libraries across the Hoosier state, is open to Indiana residents and outside visitors alike and showcases nearly 170 main libraries and branches.

After users provide their name, email address and mobile phone number, a link will be sent to their mobile phone, which will add a button icon to their home screen. From there, users are free to begin visiting Hoosier libraries. Users access the passport to check in to a participating library using their phone’s location services. When a user checks in to a library, they earn points, which can be redeemed to claim prizes directly through the passport.

In addition to allowing users to earn redeemable points, the passport automatically enters each user into a quarterly prize drawing every time they check in to a library. Passport users are permitted to check in to each library or branch once per week.

In 2025, in addition to the regular quarterly prize drawings, a special year-end prize drawing will take place. Everyone who physically checks into the Indiana State Library - located at 315 W. Ohio St. in downtown Indianapolis - between Jan. 1, 2025 and Dec. 31, 2025, will be entered to win a copy of “Laying the Foundation,” a brand new book featuring collection highlights from the Indiana State Library. The book features 100 items from the library’s collection. Items in the book represent only a small fraction of the historic and culturally significant materials held by the Indiana State library. The book is also available for purchase for $20 in the Nook Gift Shop on the first floor of the State Library.

Those who cannot check into the Indiana State Library can still participate. Beginning in January, a special limited-edition bicentennial celebration mug will be available to claim with points earned by checking into libraries all across the state. Each check-in earns a user 100 points. The special mug can be claimed for 1,000 points, but supplies are very limited. Users may also still claim the standard Indiana Library Passport mug, at a different point value.

In 2025, a new batch of prizes will be available for passport users to win via quarterly drawing in addition to favorites, like tickets to tour various historical locations across the state, courtesy of  Indiana Landmarks, and annual Indiana state park passes, courtesy of the   Indiana DNR; and admission passes to the  Indiana State Museum.

The Indiana Library Passport is also offering a new referral program. When a user refers a new user via the passport, they will earn 50 points which can be put toward earning one of the two mug prizes.

Click here to learn more about the Indiana Library Passport. Click  here  to see a list of past and present prize donors.

Libraries interested in joining the Indiana Library Passport - free of cost - should contact John Wekluk, communications director at the Indiana State Library."

Mathew Baines Who Died At Sea

 

AI Image

A cup of tea on a Sunday morn,

Hopes for the week newly born.

With laughter and cheer,

To start the New Year,

A tradition that's now well-worn.

Grab your favorite hot beverage and get comfy because I will share what I've been working on for the past two weeks.

Last July, a distant cousin requested I look into the Baines family. She had heard that the British group originated in Scotland and were descendants of Donald III, who went to Ireland after his father was killed by Macbeth, of Shakespeare fame. He returned to Scotland, took the throne for a time but fled to Yorkshire, England where some of his children remained. The family spread to Westmorland and Lancashire (now Cumbria) over the following centuries.

I was about to travel to Great Britain and told her I'd do my best. My best was to find a Bains candy store next to my Edinburgh, Scotland hotel. I blogged earlier about meeting the owner but he had no idea of his genealogy other than his family had been in Scotland forever.

My cousin called me in October and and with voice rising exclaimed, "They all have it wrong! All of them!" She meant online family trees. I had too many other committments and promised I'd look into it. It wasn't until December 23 that I had the time to do so.

Yes, cuz was correct - there were over 13,000 online trees with the wrong info! How could that many people get it wrong? How did I know they had made a mistake?

Burke, Ashworth P. Burke's Family Records. Baltimore: Clearfield, 1994, p 58, digital image; Ancestry.com: accessed 23 Dec 2024, image 42 of 117.

Almost everyone cited a Burke's Family Record found on Ancestry.com that William Baynes was the son of Adam Baynes. EVERYONE missed the ending "d. an infant." d. stands for died. Adam had no second son named William. William Baynes could not have been the son of the cited Adam Baynes. Undeterred, one copying the other, a pedigree for William was recorded that never happened. Sigh.

Looking into the family opened a can of worms. This was just the beginning of one misunderstanding after another. I'm still not done but what follows is to correct information regarding William's purported grandchildren. To be honest, I'm not comfortable that the Williams I have in my tree is the right William so while I continue researching, I've disconnected that line. What I do know is that corrections need to be put forth regarding someone named William Baynes's son, Mathew.

No baptism record for Mathew Baynes was found. He was noted in The History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania published in 1905, nearly 250 years after his death, to be of Wyersdale, Lancastershire, England. Notice it did not say he was born in Wyersdale; it said he was "of" Wyersdale. Personally, people could say I was "of Florida" since I lived the majority of my life there but I wasn't born there and I don't reside there now. I think the search for Mathew's birth needs to be broadened to find the birth record.

The book and a non-conformist record was found for Mathew's marriage to Margaret, daughter of Captain William Hatton of Bradley, Lancastershire. The distance from Bradley, a burb of Nelson to Wyresdale is 28 miles. Mathew was likely baptized into either Catholicism or the Church of England but as he grew, his parents, William and Deborah last name unknown, became associated with George Fox and followed Quakerism.

Only one document places Mathew with William and Deborah, whose nickname was Dorothy. In 1660 in Lancaster, the men were arrested and jailed for attending a Quaker meeting. The women's names were also recorded.

Two years later, Mathew married in the Quaker faith at the Bradley Meeting.

The History of Bucks County and several works (Colonial Families of Philadelphia, 1911, & Duer Family of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 1954) seem to have copied Mathew's story from Ellwood Roberts Biographical Annal of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (Vol. II, 1904, pp. 534, digital image; usgwarchives.net: accessed 23 December 2024). Over time, the story changed somewhat and the interpretation with it, therefore, misinformation became part of the narrative.

Roberts' simply wrote, "William Baines, son of Matthew Maines [sic], of Lancashire, England, sailed for Pennsylvania in 1686, but he died at sea. His two children, William and Elinor, landed at Chester, and were taken charge of by Friends." Short and sweet.

This led to "In 1686 Mathew Baines, with children, Elinor and William, left England for Pennsylvania, the father dying at sea. When the children landed, they were taken charge of by Friends of Chester montly meeting. The father's dying request, as shown by a letter of Phineas Pemberton to John Walker, 1688, was that his children should be placed in care of James Harrison, but Harrison, having died bedore their arrival, his son-in-law, Pemberton, went to Chester to look after them, and finding them in good hands they were allowed to remain. As the record of the times put it: 'The boy was put with Joseph Stidman and the girl with one John Simcock, and hath 40 or 50s wates per annum, the boy to be with said Stidman, who is said to be a very honest man, until he comes to ye age of 20 years, which is ye customary way of putting forth orphans in these parts." (History of Bucks County, PA)

The next work reported "In the autumn of 1686 William and Margaret Baines, and at least two of their children, Eleanor, born October 22, 1677, and William, born July 14, 1681, embarked for America, but both parents died on the voyage, and the children on their arrival at Chester were taken in charge by Friends, of Chester County." The text goes on to include a transcription of Phineas Pemberton's letter to John Walker in England dated 1688. (Colonial Families)

The difference arising is that now Eleanor and Williams' mother also sailed for America but she, too, died at sea. The second difference is that in the letter transcription, the children were the ones who requested to remain in the colony. In other words, it was their idea not to return to England.

The last text does not mention the mother; "In 1686 Mathew Baines, with children Elinor and William, left England for Pennsyvania, the father dying at sea." (Duer Family of Bucks County).

Although only one work stated with no evidence that Margaret came on board almost every tree had that she died at sea. But there's more...

Unfortunately, the History of Bucks County recorded Mathew and Margaret's children as follows:

Thomas, born 11 mo., 11, 1675, married 4 mo., 21, 1718 Elizabeth Ellison;

Elinor, born 8 mo., 22, 1677, married (at Falls) 7 mo. 2 1694, Thomas Duer;

Timothy, born 1 mo. 1678, married 1710 Hannah Low;

William, born 5. 14, 1681, married 1707 Elizabeth ___;

Deborah, born 1, 1, 1683, married 1708 (at Falls), Thomas Ashton.

WHOA! Where were Thomas, Timothy, and Deborah after their parents died? How did they get to Bucks County since no account said they traveled on the ship with their parents? Why were they not deemed orphans as Elinor and William were if they were somehow left behind in England?

There is one more work - A Genealogical and Personal History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Vol II, published in 1975 which was a modified reprint of The History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Clearly, the new editors realized there was a problem with the original work, likely asking the same questions I raised. How they "fixed" the situation was to add "In the year 1687, Mathew Baines sailed for America with his family, but he and his wife and possibly two of their children died at sea." Notice that the year of emigration is now different from any of the other works!

Which two of the three children died at sea? Why was one child left behind? Who was the child left behind in England? How did that child emigrate alone later and marry?

There are no ships registries for William Penn's ships so this can't be solved quickly with a look up. Too many generations back for autosomal assistance. The only way is to research the three children, wife Margaret, and grandfather William who remained in England.

William may have been the William Baines who was buried in Lancashire in September 1687. If so, he would not have been taking care of the remaining children for long. William supposedly had three other sons, the oldest, James, who had bought William's estate, Joseph, and John. No records show the children with any of their uncles

No record of Margaret is found after the arrest in 1660. She likely died in England before Mathew sailed which would account for the surviving children being named orphans.

Timothy Baines was born in March 1678 in Lancaster to father Mathew.

There was a marriage of a Timothy to Hannah Low, daughter of Hugh Low, on 4 Apr 1710 in Haigh, Lancashire, England.

The couple had the following children:

Mary Bains born 25 Feb 1712 in Harshaw, Lancashire, England.

James, born in 1719 in Haigh, Hartshaw, England.

Then twins were born on 16 Aug 1720 in Haigh, Hartshaw, England. One was Hugh Bains, likely after Hannah’s father and the other was John Bains.

Hannah likely died 18 Aug 1775 in Mellin, Lancashire.

No death record was found for Timothy. He may have been one of the four Timothy Bains/Baynes that died inLancashire between 1726-1772.[1][2][3][4]

The Timothy that married Hannah is not likely to be the son of Mathew and Margaret Hatton Baines for several reasons. He was not named as emigrating with his father and two of his siblings in 1686. If he had somehow stayed behind in England he would have been considered an orphan as siblings Elinor and William were deemed by the Pennsylvania court. There is no record found that he became a ward in England. It is very unlikely that young Timothy would have been writing letters to his siblings in Pennsylvania notifying them of his marriage in Lancashire in 1710, given that the family had been separated as children for at least 24 years. There is no record that the Timothy who married Hannah ever emigrated to Bucks County, Pennsylvania which is implied by his inclusion in History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Interestingly, the text does not list any of his children, likely because they weren’t known to whoever submitted the information. If the family had been close his descendants would have known about his children. Most likely, someone found a marriage of Timothy Baines and decided it was the son of Mathew Baines that had died at sea. Clearly, it wasn't.

Mathew's son Thomas Baines was born on 11 January 1675 in Gousner, Lancashire.

A Thomas Baines was noted to have married an Eliz Ellison on either the 1^st or 21^st  June 1718 in Bicursteth, Lancashire, England. No record for the couple’s parents was recorded.

No children for the couple was found. An Elizabeth Bains, wife of Thomas Bains died 14 August 1723 in Lancashire; she was a Non-Conformist. Another Non-Conformist Elizabeth Bain, wife of Thomas Bains died on 14 June 1723 in Lancashire. It is not known if either or another Elizabeth was the wife of interest who had died.

There were 26 Thomas Baines/Bains who had died in Lancastershire between 1718-1795, none providing a father’s name of Mathew.

It is more likely that Thomas Baines, son of Mathew and Margaret Hatton Baines was not the Thomas who had married Elizabeth Ellison in Lancashire in 1718.

Like sibling Timothy, if the Thomas of interest had stayed behind in England when his father emigrated with two of his younger siblings, Thomas would have been named an orphan after his father’s death but there are not records that he became a ward of England. It is also unlikely that after being separated from his emigrating siblings Elinor and William that he would have begun correspondence with them after 32 years to notify them of his marriage. There is no record that Thomas emigrated to Bucks County, Pennsylvania. He likely died in England, probably before 1686/7 when his father Mathew sailed for America.

Lucky for me, I did not have to research the last missing child, Deborah, as a wonderful blog article had already done so. The Deborah of Bucks County, Pennsylvania was not in the family group of Mathew and Margaret Hatton Baines of Lancaster.

What also does not make sense is why Mathew would have only selected two of his five children to emigrate with. I could understand that perhaps Margaret would remain home with the oldest, Thomas, to help her in Mathew's absence, and maybe the two youngest, William and Deborah but William, at age 5 was sent. If William was considered old enough to embark why didn't Mathew also take Timothy, the middle child, who was age 8 or 9? Or take William instead of Mathew? Likely because Timothy was already dead.

Although evidence is lacking, the only logical conclusion was that Mathew left England for a new beginning with his two remaining children, Ellin and William. Unfortunately, he did not survive and from the letter he wrote, his wife had pre-deceased him. We know this because Margaret, alive, would not cause the children to be named orphans. How soon she had died before Mathew wrote the letter on the boat in perhaps, autumn of 1686 we don't know but she was dead before he requested wards for his unnamed remaining children. Records of orphan court do tell us those children were Ellin and William who went on to grow up and thrive in their new location. Why did the children want to remain in the colony? They had nothing to return to in England. If their mother and siblings were alive they would have wanted to return to them.

And one more problem with the trees who have William of Stangerwaith as Mathew of Wyersdale's father - Mathew would have been the oldest son. Why did he not buy out the land from his father that had been in the family for hundreds of years? Many trees show that William had married twice and that Mathew was from the first marriage. The 1660 arrest showed that the first wife was still alive so William could not have married a second wife, Sarah, and gone on to have three children with her. Two men named William, both non-conformists, in a close geographic area are being confused.

Although online family trees can be helpful we do need caution in blindly accepting what has been placed there. Furthermore, we also need to use care when consulting published works. Just because information is written in a book does not make it correct. Thoroughly exhaustive research and careful analysis is important in establishing identity and relationship. 

Genealogy At Heart Top 5 of 2024

AI Image

Happy New Year. Let's welcome 2025 by reviewing the top 5 Genealogy At Heart posts for 2024. They were:

5. Genealogy Research Tips and Tricks Part 1 (97)

4. RootsMagic Frustration (107)

3. AI and Translations (108)

2. Creepy Genealogy AI - An Update (114)

1. Printing Your Family Tree From a Genealogy Subscription Site (136)