Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
In a message dated 9/20/2000 4:55:55 AM PDT, JChatfield(a)aol.com writes:
<< Hi Chatfields,
I have 19 generations of Chatfield going back to Thomas Chatfield born
1450 in Sussex, England. If you want my updated gedcom file, contact
me at JChatfield(a)aol.com
John Chatfield >>
Kathy
Excellent! Thanks for taking the time to type all that
Gavin C
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Hagon [SMTP:khagon@ozemail.com.au]
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 1:30 AM
To: CHATFIELD-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [CHATFIELD] Nicholas Chatfield of Sevenoaks, UK
Hello, fellow Chatfield researchers,
Browsing around, as one does, in back copies of The Times, London, I came
across this report in the issue of Saturday October 19, 1833, p.3, column D.
(A little background: Nicholas and his wife Susanna Nye were Baptists, but
still obliged to support the Established Church, the Church of England):
Resistance to Church Rates.
Kent Quarter Sessions, Maidstone, Oct. 17.
(Before J.Jacobson, Esq., and other Magistrates.)
Nicholas Chatfield, Zachariah Baker, and James Taylor, not in custody, were
indicted for having riotously and tumultuously obstructed the parish
officers of Seven Oaks in the levying of a distress for church rates.
Mr. SHEE and Mr. HORNE conducted the case for the prosecution, and the
former stated that it was instituted by the parish for the protection of
their parish officers in the execution of their duty in collecting the
church rate. They did so with regret, but it was necessary to put an end to
a general disposition to resist this rate, which was growing in this parish.
The charge was for obstructing the parish officers in the distraint, and
rescuing some pigs that had been seized for church rates. It appeared that
in August last Mr, Morphew, a churchwarden of Seven Oaks, had made several
demands on the defendant Chatfield of 8s. 3d. for church rates, and had
always been refused payment. He then procured a magistrate's warrant, and
went with a constable to Chatfield's residence to distrain. He was refused
admission, and got over a wall into the garden, and seized two pigs, which
were in a sty. Chatfield went to his neighbour, Baker, and borrowed money
enough to cover the share of rate to which the garden was liable, which he
offered, and brought Baker to witness the tender. Morphew refused to take
less than the whole, and was trampling on some turnip-plants in the garden,
when Chatfield told him that if he did not come off from them he would fetch
him off, and assumed a threatening attitude. Morphew went for a cart to
take the pigs away, when Chatfield took down the sty and let the pigs loose.
The constable secured one after a hard struggle with it on all-fours in the
mud, but the other escaped, Baker, according to the constable's evidence,
driving it away, but according to his defence trying to catch it by crying
"Tig, tig." A great crowd had by this time assembled, who hooted and hissed
the church-warden and constable. The latter, however, took his swinish
prisoner over the wall, and they bore it away in triumph, Morphew waving his
hat and huzzaing, and the crowd hooting. Taylor was beating a stew-pan a la
gong. Before they went, however, Baker asked Morphew if he were not
ashamaed to seize upon the pig which a poor man had procured by his labour
for his family; and reproached him with having appropriated 4L. 4s. of the
church rate to a visitation dinner. The prisoners now made a temperate and
manly defence. They said that they looked upon a law which enabled one man
to take another's goods in support of a religion which he could not enjoy,
was as bad as a law would be which authorized one man to rob another on the
high road.
The Jury immediately acquitted all the prisoners.
They were then indicted, together with James Watkin Parish and James
Whitehouse, for riotously obstructing the sale of the pig in Seven Oaks.
The evidence only went to show that a great crowd attended, and that a great
noise was made - that Chatfield put in a written protest against the sale,
which he described to be as bad as a theft - and that the crowd cried out
lustily, "Silence!" and "Who stole the pig?" The pig was knocked down at
27s., and the crowd, with Parish and Baker in the front, pressed forward to
know the name of the purchaser. The constables said that it was to rescue
the pig.
Parish proved, on cross-examination, that, so far from being a riotous
subject, he received 5L. by the vote of a public committee for keeping the
peace of the town in the illumination of 1832. He is the Secretary of the
West Kent Political Union.
The Jury also acquitted them upon this indictment.
The defendants then complained that a demand had been made on them by the
officer of the court - on Parish for 2L. 14s. for court fees and discharging
the recognizances; and on each of the other defendants the sum of 4L. 8s.
They complained warmly of the hardship of being dragged from their homes on
such a trumpery charge, and put to such expense. They refused to pay it,
and were told that their recognizances would be estreated.
Kathy
==== CHATFIELD Mailing List ====
CLUSTER: http://resources.rootsweb.com/~clusters/surnames/c/h/CHATFIELD/
GENFORUM: http://www.genforum.com/chatfield/
GENCONNECT: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~tmetrvlr/chatfieldb.html
MAILING LIST: http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/surname/c/chatfield.html
==============================
Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project:
Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time.
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/
Kathy,
Thanks for sharing the information about Nicholas Chatfield. In the spring
of 1834 he immigrated to US. His wife Susanna and five children arrived in
New York 4 June 1834 aboard the "Bark Gratitude" from London. They settled
in Cornwall-on-Hudson, County, NY. Children Walter, John, (William?),
Nicholas, Thomas, George, Howard, Norman, & Mary.
This family interests me as my Walter Chatfield immigrated in Nov of 1834,
with parents Thomas & Ann Chatfield.
Joy Reeb
Hello, fellow Chatfield researchers,
Browsing around, as one does, in back copies of The Times, London, I came
across this report in the issue of Saturday October 19, 1833, p.3, column D.
(A little background: Nicholas and his wife Susanna Nye were Baptists, but
still obliged to support the Established Church, the Church of England):
Resistance to Church Rates.
Kent Quarter Sessions, Maidstone, Oct. 17.
(Before J.Jacobson, Esq., and other Magistrates.)
Nicholas Chatfield, Zachariah Baker, and James Taylor, not in custody, were
indicted for having riotously and tumultuously obstructed the parish
officers of Seven Oaks in the levying of a distress for church rates.
Mr. SHEE and Mr. HORNE conducted the case for the prosecution, and the
former stated that it was instituted by the parish for the protection of
their parish officers in the execution of their duty in collecting the
church rate. They did so with regret, but it was necessary to put an end to
a general disposition to resist this rate, which was growing in this parish.
The charge was for obstructing the parish officers in the distraint, and
rescuing some pigs that had been seized for church rates. It appeared that
in August last Mr, Morphew, a churchwarden of Seven Oaks, had made several
demands on the defendant Chatfield of 8s. 3d. for church rates, and had
always been refused payment. He then procured a magistrate's warrant, and
went with a constable to Chatfield's residence to distrain. He was refused
admission, and got over a wall into the garden, and seized two pigs, which
were in a sty. Chatfield went to his neighbour, Baker, and borrowed money
enough to cover the share of rate to which the garden was liable, which he
offered, and brought Baker to witness the tender. Morphew refused to take
less than the whole, and was trampling on some turnip-plants in the garden,
when Chatfield told him that if he did not come off from them he would fetch
him off, and assumed a threatening attitude. Morphew went for a cart to
take the pigs away, when Chatfield took down the sty and let the pigs loose.
The constable secured one after a hard struggle with it on all-fours in the
mud, but the other escaped, Baker, according to the constable's evidence,
driving it away, but according to his defence trying to catch it by crying
"Tig, tig." A great crowd had by this time assembled, who hooted and hissed
the church-warden and constable. The latter, however, took his swinish
prisoner over the wall, and they bore it away in triumph, Morphew waving his
hat and huzzaing, and the crowd hooting. Taylor was beating a stew-pan a la
gong. Before they went, however, Baker asked Morphew if he were not
ashamaed to seize upon the pig which a poor man had procured by his labour
for his family; and reproached him with having appropriated 4L. 4s. of the
church rate to a visitation dinner. The prisoners now made a temperate and
manly defence. They said that they looked upon a law which enabled one man
to take another's goods in support of a religion which he could not enjoy,
was as bad as a law would be which authorized one man to rob another on the
high road.
The Jury immediately acquitted all the prisoners.
They were then indicted, together with James Watkin Parish and James
Whitehouse, for riotously obstructing the sale of the pig in Seven Oaks.
The evidence only went to show that a great crowd attended, and that a great
noise was made - that Chatfield put in a written protest against the sale,
which he described to be as bad as a theft - and that the crowd cried out
lustily, "Silence!" and "Who stole the pig?" The pig was knocked down at
27s., and the crowd, with Parish and Baker in the front, pressed forward to
know the name of the purchaser. The constables said that it was to rescue
the pig.
Parish proved, on cross-examination, that, so far from being a riotous
subject, he received 5L. by the vote of a public committee for keeping the
peace of the town in the illumination of 1832. He is the Secretary of the
West Kent Political Union.
The Jury also acquitted them upon this indictment.
The defendants then complained that a demand had been made on them by the
officer of the court - on Parish for 2L. 14s. for court fees and discharging
the recognizances; and on each of the other defendants the sum of 4L. 8s.
They complained warmly of the hardship of being dragged from their homes on
such a trumpery charge, and put to such expense. They refused to pay it,
and were told that their recognizances would be estreated.
Kathy