Hodge

HodgePodge · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 85 Location: Liverpool

I lied about William having no sons after the drownings, he did of course. When his 3 eldest sonds drowned in 1799, and Henry Blundell redrew the lease for him, the lives on the lease were children Peter, Nanny and Betty. A son, Robert was born between Peter and Nanny, so I have always assumed that he died, else why place younger daughters on the lease instead of him.

The St Cuthberts registers list William and Betty having children starting with Henry in 1778 followed by William, John, Peter, Robert, Nanny, Betty & Betty... all born South Haws except William born in Little London and the last Betty, born Birkdale in 1795.

This led me to believe that the family moved to Birkdale before the fishing stall lease was taken out.

In 1796 a William Hodges married Betty Andow, and there are a few births after this date to William and Elizabeth/Betty, all in Little London. The firstborn of each sex were named Richard and Jenny, which fits with the parents of an appropriate match for William. Therefore myself and other researchers have always assumed that these births are to a different couple of the same name, and that the earlier William and Betty had stopped breeding by 1796. The last Little London birth to William & Elizabeth is 1807. If they are 2 different couples, 11 years seems early to stop breeding, but then if they were all to the earlier couple, 29 years is a long time!!

The William and Betty/Elizabeth to marry in 1796 have always been credited as being grandparents to Charles Hodge, the coxwain of the Eliza Fernley, through their son, Richard.

I went to view the lease at Liverpool Record Office last week, and made some interesting discoveries.

The lease was for tenament number 7, made out to William Hodges and his sons, Peter 25, Robert 18 and Richard 8. On the front of the lease, in faint red pencil was "Haws Houses ????? (unreadable) out of lease after death of Richard Hodge Nov 12/60"... or at least that's what I thought it said.

When I searched the BMD index, there was no Richard Hodge's death in 1860, but there was one in the Dec quarter of 1869, which would fit if the bottom of the 9 was missing from the note on the lease, and what I'd read as a 0 was atually a 9.

Peter and Robert match closely in age to the sons I know William had (though I've found lease ages often differ a little from baptisms). This establishes that the lease did belong to William from my branch (he's the only known William Hodges with land in Birkdale at the time anyway). But what it also establishes is that William had another son, Richard, of whom I knew nothing.

Is this Richard the one baptised in 1797 to William and Elizabeth, born in Little London? or did our William and Betty have one or more children not baptised at St Cuthberts?

When searching the census, there is only one Richard Hodge who fits in age, this being the father of Coxwain Charles.

From censuses, we know that Charles' father died between 1861 & 1871.

While at the Record Office I also leafed through some of the probate books, primarily checking to see if Thomas had left a will 1870-71, but also noting any other Lancs Hodges that I came across. When I got home and rechecked these notes, I found one of them was for Richard Hodge, husband of Margaret of Pink Cottage, Upper King St, and father of James, fisherman living in Liverpool at the time. The death date was 12th Nov 1869.

This proves that Richard Hodge, father of Charles, was son of William and Betty, grandson of Henry Hodges (baptised William) and Anne Blundell.

We know that Richard, son of William, was listed on the lease of 1807. We know that this Richard had 2 brothers who were born before the marriage of William Hodges and Betty Andow. We know that this Richard died 12th Nov 1860, which matches the death date of Charles' father who lived in Upper King St.

One interesting factor is that Richard's age in census returns usually matches closer to the age of the 8 year old in the lease than the Richard born 1797 in Little London, which may indicate 2 Richards. Though I have no record of a death for one of them.

Also, Richard, father of Charles, described himself as born Southport, not Birkdale, which leads me to think that the family did not permanantly move to Birkdale from 1795 as first assumed.

There are a few possible theories here:

1. There is only one couple named William and Betty, who are the parents of all the children in the baptism records, but didn't marry until 1796. However, this would mean Betty was bearing children for 29 years until she was 51.

2. William Hodges and Betty Rymer are a different couple who had no children baptised in North Meols though, again, this means all the children are from the first couple of these names, which looks unlikely.

3. The Little London births were to the 2nd couple of this name, and my William and Betty had a son, Richard who, was not baptised at St Cuthberts.

4. 2 couples of the same names lived in Little London at the same time, and the Little London births are a mixture of both sets of couples, Richard being from my line. However, this then removes a Richard from the other couple's family, which would then not tie in with who seem to be the paternal grandparents.

I think at the moment I'm inclined towards theory 3, and that my Richard wasn't baptised at St Cuthberts, as he is born towards the end of Betty's childbearing age. Perhaps he was born in Birkdale, but the family returned there when he was young and he always regarded himself as a sandgrounder. I think it's possible that William didn't actually farm the land himself, that it was done by sons and/or Tom while William lived off the profits.

Another thing that's come to light from the lease and subsequent research is that my GGG grandfather, Tom, seems to have run the farm for his cousins after his uncle's death. In 1841, Tom and family are living at the Birkdale farm and peter, the eldest of the 3 cousins named on the lease, is listed as Independent (the other 2 are fishermen). 10 years later, Peter is a fisherman. I believe Peter was living off the income from the farm, which Tom was running (throughout this period Tom is described as labourer or husbandman, never farmer).

In the tithe map of 1845, the farm tenancy is listed in the apportionment book as William Hodge (Thomas Hodge) on all but the house and garden (which were in William's name alone). I always assumed that this meant Tom was working the land for, and living with, his uncle.... but of course William was dead by then. What I now believe it means is that Tom was resident on the farm, and that the lease was in the name of William Hodge. Tom was named because he was the sole farmer there at the time.

By 1851, Tom had left the Birkdale farm, as had his neighbours, the Aindows (who ran a lodging house on Lord St). Though we know from the lease that the Hodges still technically held the land until November 1869, I wonder if the Blundells offered some sort of deal to get them to vacate their land before the leases expired in order to release the land for the building of Birkdale Park estate. Perhaps they recieved rents as long as the leases were valid. We do know that the Blundells were eager to redevelop the land, and the take-up of building plots rapidly increased once the new Birkdale station was built in 1851.

Bez · Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject:

Regarding what you said about Tom Hodge never being described as a farmer. The term "husbandman" indicates that he leased land.

Typically you should have seen the words "to farm" on the lease itself. This term means that the document is a lease, rather than a bargain and sale, although both would use the phrase "to have and to hold". The sale of a freehold would include the phrase "for ever", but in a lease it is "to farm" which is the important point if you are at all unsure.

_________________
Middle-aged and seeking the middle-ages!

HodgePodge · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 85 Location: Liverpool

He was sometimes described as Husbandman, sometimes as Labourer, until he leased his own farm in Heathy lane, when of course he said he was a farmer.

I know the 1807 document was a lease, not belonging to Tom himself, but to his uncle William with his 3 sons named as the lives. The cost was a 400 guinea "consideration" and 8 Guineas per year.

I think Tom used the term husbandman sometimes because he was, in effect, farmer of the land on behalf of the leaseholders, who only seem to have worked as Fishermen, though when Peter was the eldest name on the lease, he was listed as independent, so I believe was living off the profits of the farm Tom was managing for him.

At marriage in 1816 and at the birth of his first child in 1817 he was husbandman, then he was listed as labourer until the census of 1851, when he had his own farm on Heathy Lane. I have no reason to think that at any point around 1816/17 he had his own lease, but he may have been running the farm for his uncle from this date or earlier.

Another fact to note is that Tom was orphaned at 8, when his mother died in 1803 (his father had been drowned within weeks of Tom's birth). Tom had only one brother, who apparently went to fight in the Napoleonic wars, according to family legend. Was he pressganged? or did their mother's death prompt the family to disperse wherever money could be found? I believe Tom may have gone to live with William at this stage, being perhaps a little young to find employment independently, but old enough to be useful within his uncle's family (especially as 3 of William's sons had died just 4 years earlier).

Tom was apparently pressganged whilst at market in Liverpool, but escaped after a night in custody... which is what makes me wonder if his brother, William, also met the same fate, but not fortunate enough to escape service.

HodgePodge · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 85 Location: Liverpool

Oh, another titbit on the Hodge family. William & Betty's sons, who died in the fishing tragedy, were with their cousin, Peter Barlow. He was son of Anne Hodge, William's sister. Peter Barlow had married a couple of years earlier to Alice Meadow, and left her widowed at 22 with 2 young children. In 1803, Alice had an illegitimate child and married its father, William Bradshaw, a month later. They had a further 8 children. This Bradshaw couple lived in the Union Cottages (housing for the poor, still standing on Sandon Rd). They were next door to Alice's sister, Jennet Meadow, who had married William Roughley, also in the Union Cottages (their sister, Mary Meadow, married Miles Pye and their son was the first elected Guardian of the Poor in 1834).

Bez · Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:21 pm Post subject:

At the times when Tom managed the farm for his uncle who held the lease - then that is what he was, a farm manager or even an "ag lab". He was, in effect, working for his uncle who would have been a husbandman because that is what the term implied; just as a yeoman could only call himself that if he actually owned some land. Most yeomen would lease the majority of their property and then sub let it, but the term means that they did hold some freehold property.

Just because the uncle chose to describe himself as a fisherman (presumably his main occupation) doesn't mean that he wasn't also a husbandman, albeit one who had a farm manager.

Strictly speaking, at the times when Tom called himself a husbandman he should have held the lease to at least one field in his own name.

_________________
Middle-aged and seeking the middle-ages!

Jane · Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject:

Hodgepodge the information about Peter Barlow & Alice Meadow is interesting. They belong to my husband's line!

_________________
Mad on Genealogy or just plain mad? :)

Dotty · Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:32 pm Post subject: Me, me , me...

Not wanting to be left out I mentioned several posts ago that I once had a milkman called Hodge. Well I can now relate that one of my great-aunt's (Ellen RIGBY m John [Jack] HOWARD) witnesses at her marriage was a Job Roughley. Does this make me a sad person or am I classed as family?

I do hate to be left out...

Dotty Rolling Eyes

_________________
Family History is moo-sic to my ears!

HodgePodge · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 85 Location: Liverpool

I don't know whether William described himself as Fisherman, as at the time of his children's births occupations weren't listed in the records, and he died just before the first census.

What I mean is that Tom is not known to have held any land himself until the Heathy lane farm he leased after 1841, so he asn't technically a husbandman at marriage, though he described himself as such. I'm just guessing at why he felt able to misrepresent himself in this way for a year or so, and I figure it's because he was running the farm single-handedly and saw himself as more than just a labourer (though he reverts to labourer after 1817).

Though we're not blood related to the Bradshaws, I find it very interesting that we are connected by marriage, as there is quite a bit written about the occupants of the Union Cottages (and nice to feel we have a connection to them, as they are one of the few very old properties still standing in Birkdale).... the connection also opens up a link to various other Birkdale folk.

Dotty, us old Southport names are all family, usually many times over. The Roughleys are relatively new arrivals in the district and seem to descend from William Ruffley & Ellen Aughton (whose son, William b 1781 married Jennet Meadow).

I have Rigbys in the tree somewhere, and I have recent Howards in my direct line (my GG grandmother), Ellen Howard 1830-1912, daughter of James Howard and Hannah Ball. Ellen married John Hulm of Bootle, who had moved to Southport with his brother, Moses, seeking bricklaying work (Ellen's sister, Mary Howard married Moses). They lived in Cemetery Rd for most of their lives, and we have the family bible of John & Ellen, which lists family history down to my grandmother's generation.

John Hulm & Ellen Howard's grand daughter, Betty Bury Hulm (my grandmother) married Edward Hodge, great grandson of Tom.

BrianG · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 265 Location: Cambridge UK

HodgePodge · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 85 Location: Liverpool

William (d1639) had just one son who had children (Thomas)... well, except for the adulter Roger who had one illegitimate daughter... so all of us Hodges are descended through Thomas. We're descended through Thomas' son, William (1640-1671), then Thomas (1668-1721), William (1698-1756), Henry (baptised as William, known as Henry 1720-1797)... this is the father of William who held the lease being Henry's son, as well as John (Tom's father), who was drowned when Tom was a baby.

BrianG · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 265 Location: Cambridge UK

Bez · Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:32 pm Post subject: Re: Me, me , me...

HodgePodge · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 85 Location: Liverpool

I haven't really explored Ellen Aughton at the moment, as it's pretty distant and I've only just made the Roughley connection to the family.

Illegitimacy in the family can be a gift, as the maintenance and filiation orders can provide information which wouldn't be available otherwise.

The only illegitimacy I know of as yet in my direct line is John Hulm (grandfather of John & Moses who moved to Southport) born 1766 to Thomas Arnold of Formby and Mary Hulme of Altcar...with the maintenance order, along with the catholic census of 1767, we have a lot of info on a guy who could easily have lived his childhood without being recorded anywhere.

Bez · Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject:

I didn't mean that I would have been shocked to find an instance of illegitimacy, but I was trying to determine if a child was the son of John Hooton and Ellen Aughton but who isn't actually in the Parish Register - well he is, but seems to have been recorded incorrectly. Another child listed for them seems to have also been entered incorrectly in the burial register - no baptism record, but one for a child with the same forename was registered to another couple. I wrote out a detailed argument for the person I was assisting and sent a copy Joyce Otterstrom as I had quoted her regarding her Park database. Joyce asked permission to publish this and the full explanation I have given regarding this Hooton line can be found on Rootsweb for the children of John Hooton and Ellen Aughton.

_________________
Middle-aged and seeking the middle-ages!

HodgePodge · Joined: 19 Nov 2006 Posts: 85 Location: Liverpool

I've been looking at Joyce Otterstram's info a bit today, and found she has Ellen Marshall (Tom Hodge's wife) as formerly married to Hugh Sawyer.... I have no reason to believe that this is the case. Firstly, Ellen married as Marshall, not Sawyer (though I have found occasinal widows who married under their maiden name, it's very rare). Also, Hugh Sawyer and Ellen Marshall married with parental consent, which neither would've needed based on Joyce's baptism records for them (both baptised 1791 and married 1814).

I still can't be 100% sure that my Ellen Marshall IS the one baptised in 1791, though this is the closest match to her.... but most census returns and her grave age suggest she was born c1795 (this, of course, would make her underage in 1814, so then could be a candidate as Hugh Sawyer's wife).

Hugh and Ellen Sawyer only have one child baptised in 1814, so this could indicate a short marriage.

I'll have to dig some more on this one... but I still suspect that Ellen Marshall may not have been baptised at St Cuthberts.... perhaps in Halsall, given her Birkdale birth.

	nmfhssouthport.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> E to H	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 2 of 7