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
Just a quick note to say that the Society has fully reopened - the
Common Room and Lower Library are back in operation after sorting out
the drain problem and cleaning up. Much hard work mainly by the staff
to get things back in use, and all credit to them for their efforts.
I am looking for my great grandmother's family surnamed 'Fulljames'.
I know that Mary Louisa Fulljames was a minor when she married in 1871
at St Mary the Virgin, Lambeth. I know that her father was James
Fulljames. No on-line search has yet found any Fulljames in Lambeth
or wider afield in Surrey, and I have searched the FRC Registers as
well with no success. Has anyone any suggestions for better success?
I have seen reference to a tax on sale by auction in England in the
mid-eighteenth century - but have no details on its operation or longevity.
Hope this helps a little.
Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hector Davie" <hector(a)dplanet.ch>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:58 PM
Subject: [SoG] Auctioneers
> Browsing through the "Armagh Guardian" for 29 June 1846, I found an
> advertisement saying that Mr M R Bell had "taken out a LICENSE as an
> auctioneer". There was an Auction Duty at this time, payable (by
> negotiation) either by the vendor or the purchaser, and presumably, the
> licensing system ensured that the duty got paid. Was this purely an Irish
> tax, or was it throughout the United Kingdom? I've never seen "My Ancestor
> was an Auctioneer" - is there scope for writing such a work? Can anyone
> point me towards any sources for licensed auctioneers in the 19th century?
> Hector Davie
All personal emails sent to me about problems with subscriptions have been
passed on. I did not reply since I had been assured that matters had been
dealt with and therefore you should have had a reply from the Membership
Secretary. I might possibly have missed an odd problem reported to the
list ~ which is NOT the way to report problems. I am sorry that in some
cases you have heard nothing.
A lot of extra effort has been put in to ensure that this years collection
of subscriptions has gone with very few problems. We have given priority
to the routine processing and are now tackling a backlog of problems from
the last two years. Although problems are being reported this year they
relate to errors occuring last year or even the year before.
I have been through the list since the beginning of the year and also those
reported to me directly and drawn up a new list, which I will personally
monitor. If you have heard nothing by say 16th April then please contact
me again. Obviously we don't wish to lose members and if the problems is
of our making then we will not charge a new joining fee (in spite of
suggestions that we will).
I really don't wish to have further general discussion on this topic at the
moment, but the management of the Society are well aware of the problems
that we have had over the last two years and have taken the right steps to
ensure that errors are minimised in future.
Remember, problems should be reported to membership(a)sog.org.uk and then
only escalated to me (as Hon Treasurer) if nothing happens.
Geoffrey T. Stone,
SoG Mailing List Administrator. lists(a)sog.org.uk
I have no special knowledge of this subject, but looked it up in a
miniature tome given to me by my sister's first boyfriend: Everybody's Home
Lawyer (anonymous, Odhams Press Ltd; date unspecified). Under
"Auctioneers", it says:
"Auctioneers are persons who conduct auctions. No special qualifications
"The auctioneer's licence can be obtained by written application at
Somerset House or at the applicant's local Inland Revenue office. £10 duty
is payable. The licence is annual from July 5th and should be renewed at
least ten days before that date each year. With the exception of persons
auctioning fish at its first landing-place, persons auctioning under a
distress warrant for non-payment of rent or tithes under £2 and officers of
the Court, every person who acts as an auctioneer must take out an
auctioneer's licence for himself. For conducting a sale without a licence
the fine is £100. . ."
Whitaker's Almanack for 1900 (my earliest copy) quotes the fee at £10 a
year, as does that for 1943. Those for 1944 to 1950 omit details of stamp
duties, and when the table returned in the edition for 1951 there was no
reference to auctioneers' licences. Incidentally, it seems that the
possessor of such a licence could act as an appraiser and house agent
without paying a further fee.
As it seems to have been in the nature of a stamp duty, I should not be
surprised if no records of individual licences were preserved.
Browsing through the "Armagh Guardian" for 29 June 1846, I found an
advertisement saying that Mr M R Bell had "taken out a LICENSE as an
auctioneer". There was an Auction Duty at this time, payable (by
negotiation) either by the vendor or the purchaser, and presumably, the
licensing system ensured that the duty got paid. Was this purely an Irish
tax, or was it throughout the United Kingdom? I've never seen "My Ancestor
was an Auctioneer" - is there scope for writing such a work? Can anyone
point me towards any sources for licensed auctioneers in the 19th century?
This announcement is on the GRO Certificate site
Please note that the General Register Office will be carrying out a
security upgrade to this site on 29 March 2004.
This is essential maintenance to maintain services.
Unfortunately we will be unable to process any orders during the upgrade so
customers may want to time orders to avoid the planned upgrade. It is
expected to last for up to 2 hours and will go off-line at 18:00 on 29 March.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Well, Geoffrey passed on the message, and I had an email from the Finance
Manager. He/she said:
"In 2003 your membership was lapsed which is why we did not take your
membership this year. I am unable to ascertain why you were lapsed, but I
am willing to unlapse you if you wish to continue being a member. There is
a rejoining fee of £10 plus this year's subs of £30.00"
I have done nothing whatsoever, I did not want to be lapsed, I have always
wanted to be a member, and I cannot understand why I should pay £10 simply
because SOG forgot to take my Direct Debit. Why should I pay for someone's
financial incompetence? I will phone them tomorrow, but if they do not
waive the rejoining fee, they will lose me as a member, to my great regret.
Is anyone else having the same problem?
At 19:26 21/03/04 +0000, you wrote:
>I haven't had this letter, but I daily expect to! Last year I had it, and
>when I rang up to query why they hadn't taken my Direct Debit, they
>couldn't really explain, and so I paid by credit card. The DD has again
>not been taken this year (and I haven't received the last two
>magazines). I have tried to email Geoffrey as he requested earlier in the
>year, but perhaps I got the wrong address as I have had no reply. I would
>like to continue being a member, but they don't seem to want me!
>member no 009193
>At 06:39 22/03/04 +1200, beehiveb wrote:
>> I am just - well I can't think of a word - so I guess I could say I am
>>'wordless' - to recieve a letter dated 16 Feb and posted 8 March, received
>>18 March, to say that I owe £39 and I need to send a cheque to avoid my
>>membership being lapsed.
>>This after all the trama of establising the pay by credit card system in
>>2002!! Subs were charged to my credit card last year on 2 April.
>>When there was discussion here in January about amounts not appearing on
>>credit cards, I sent an email to advise that I have not yet been debited. I
>>have also sent an email last week re this letter, but no reply as yet.
>>But, worst of all, when I tried to send a fax to the number on the letter
>>head I received a message to say this number was no longer in service!! A
>>check on the SOG web site showed that both the phone number and the fax
>>number on the letterhead are out of date!! Could not some stickers be
>>printed so that each letterhead does have the correct numbers? Or, as it is
>>just one number different, the writer could add this each time he/she sends
>>Come on our SOG! Buck up your act!! What is happening? And having out of
>>date phone numbers on the letter head is not a professional image! Has
>>everyone else who has filled in the form to pay by direct debit/credit
>>received this letter? Or has your payment been processed as would be
It sounds like quite a mess and the staff are to be commiserated with.
However, your comments about closure are unclear; are you saying that
the lower library will be unavailable for several weeks ? If so, I will
have to consider changes to my planned 200 mile round trips !
"Frank Hardy" <frank(a)fchardy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote :
> To those of you who tried to use the Library on Tuesday or Wednesday,
> our apologies, but we had a very major drainage problem occur on
> The main outlet pipe from the building to the council sewer became
> blocked, and on Monday afternoon we had to call in a specialist
> contractor to locate and clear the blockage. We had a small overflow
> into the common room, and also a cracked pipe was found elsewhere.
> hoses and cable running through from the street entrance, and heavy
> equipment being moved in and out, it was not realistic to mix library
> users with the drainage men. Due to this, the decision was made to
> close the building until such time as it was usable and
> Talking to June Perrin on Wednesday afternoon, it seems very probable
> that part of the library will reopen on Thursday 25th March, although
> there will be no access to the computer suite, microfiche and film
> readers in the Lower Library, where some of the carpet is still drying
> out and work needing to be completed over the next few weeks. Also,
> Common Room may continue to be unusable for the same reason. The
> closure period will be kept to the minimum consistent with the needs
> Health and Safety especially when there is work going on.
> Please be patient with our Society's staff, who have had to sort out a
> number of problems that are not of their making.
> Frank Hardy
> Vice Chairman
To those of you who tried to use the Library on Tuesday or Wednesday,
our apologies, but we had a very major drainage problem occur on Monday.
The main outlet pipe from the building to the council sewer became
blocked, and on Monday afternoon we had to call in a specialist drainage
contractor to locate and clear the blockage. We had a small overflow
into the common room, and also a cracked pipe was found elsewhere. With
hoses and cable running through from the street entrance, and heavy
equipment being moved in and out, it was not realistic to mix library
users with the drainage men. Due to this, the decision was made to
close the building until such time as it was usable and sweet-smelling!
Talking to June Perrin on Wednesday afternoon, it seems very probable
that part of the library will reopen on Thursday 25th March, although
there will be no access to the computer suite, microfiche and film
readers in the Lower Library, where some of the carpet is still drying
out and work needing to be completed over the next few weeks. Also, the
Common Room may continue to be unusable for the same reason. The
closure period will be kept to the minimum consistent with the needs of
Health and Safety especially when there is work going on.
Please be patient with our Society's staff, who have had to sort out a
number of problems that are not of their making.
Please, please - just be aware that the problem may not be down to the
One day during closed week, I was manning the phone while there was a
staff meeting, and took a call from a member who had made double payment
for three years running. Each year one payment was by Direct Debit and
one by Standing Order. The SoG cannot do anything about cancelling a
standing order; this can only be done by the account holder. But why
had the member not raised it earlier. Nice to be able to afford to let
money go out of one's bank account without checking.
By the way, the staff quickly arranged to refund the excess, and I hope
the member has done what we asked to be done and cancelled their
standing order, so this does not happen again.
Yes, I agree that this should have been picked up by the staff but there
is a vast amount of work to be done involving several people in a short
period each year as the bulk of renewals still fall due on 2 January.
Hopefully in the near future we can make alterations to the society
constitution so that membership can start at any month, but this also
will need an amendment to the membership program which I am told is
unable to cope with differing renewal dates.
> As has been said before this list is not an place for escalating
> issues to do with membership - first email membership(a)sog.org.uk if
> unresolved then accounts(a)sog.org.uk and then director(a)sog.org.uk. If
> all that fails Geoff has volunteered to be the highest level of
> escalation - email lists(a)sog.org.uk
> Chris Broomfield
I agree Chris but when all other avenues are exhausted ......
Why shouldn't members be aware that they are not the only one with the
Geoff volunteered to receive emails on this problem and received one
from me but never answered.
This issue would have been the third in a row for me but I intervened
after no receiving a single GM last year without a reminder because my
subs were 'late' even though I paid promptly with a credit card.
As for the scheme to automatically debit CC - forget it folks - it has
been the root of my problems.
I am just - well I can't think of a word - so I guess I could say I am
'wordless' - to recieve a letter dated 16 Feb and posted 8 March, received
18 March, to say that I owe £39 and I need to send a cheque to avoid my
membership being lapsed.
This after all the trama of establising the pay by credit card system in
2002!! Subs were charged to my credit card last year on 2 April.
When there was discussion here in January about amounts not appearing on
credit cards, I sent an email to advise that I have not yet been debited. I
have also sent an email last week re this letter, but no reply as yet.
But, worst of all, when I tried to send a fax to the number on the letter
head I received a message to say this number was no longer in service!! A
check on the SOG web site showed that both the phone number and the fax
number on the letterhead are out of date!! Could not some stickers be
printed so that each letterhead does have the correct numbers? Or, as it is
just one number different, the writer could add this each time he/she sends
Come on our SOG! Buck up your act!! What is happening? And having out of
date phone numbers on the letter head is not a professional image! Has
everyone else who has filled in the form to pay by direct debit/credit
received this letter? Or has your payment been processed as would be
I was hopeful that the E 179 project described in the latest GM would lead me to some useful 17th century taxation lists.
Has anybody had any success with it. I found the place I'm interested in (Woodkirk in the West Riding) is listed but then the list of possible taxes is so wide that it was difficult to settle on which one to ask for. I tried the Hearth Tax which I know exists but got a nil return.
Is there a way of getting a list of all the tax returns for a particular place?
Some of the crew on the RAPID a vessel owned by the South Australian
Company that arrived with the first settlers have the reference RN 322
after their name on the manifest.
I assume RN = Royal Navy although I am not quite sure why they are on a
civilian vessel but what does 322 represent? Could it be a ship's
The two sailors were: George CHILDS and William WALL.
I received a reminder that I had not paid for my
membership of the SOG for this year which has now been dealt with. When I sent my
cheque I included a query regarding the talk I believe I am to be giving at the
SOG in the not too distant future. Maybe I did not approach the right person
as I have received no reply.
Following the initial contacts about a year ago I have heard nothing so am
wondering if any messages have gone astray. Please would you confirm the date,
the title and the timing of the talk. Paul Millington seems to know more about
what is happening than I do as he assures me that we are to do a sort of
double act on the topic of one-Name studies. I am getting slightly twitchy about
this but have another talk to finish for the Guild Conference in a couple of
weeks time....all good experience.
At 17:38 06/03/04 -0500, Jeanne Bunting wrote:
>Having looked further at your e-mail, what is interesting is that the
>difference between the three entries is the same for each session. 5352
>for the first set and 6139 for the second set.
>I will try this later in the week with a larger family and a household that
>has others in it apart from a family. ( I am away from home using a mobile
>phone for logging on at the moment). I have plenty of original ID numbers
>- 900 for a whole enumeration district we did for Rotherhithe.
It may be anti-social, but it is intriguing
The person IDs have now changed to a long Hex string
If you mouse hover over the web index they appear to be 64bit numbers (16 hex)
If you cut and paste them into Excel most of them are 128bit numbers (32
hex) where the second group of 16 has the same value for any one search.
<www.adshead.com> Gordon Adshead Manchester Design Technology
Beaumont House, 2 Goodrington Road, Handforth, Cheshire, SK9 3AT, England
Tel:Fax:Msg:+44-1625-549770 Mob:+44-777-6145602 <gordon(a)adshead.com>
Colleagues might be interested in volunteeering for this. After all family
historians use these resources more than most.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norgrove, Katie" <katie.norgrove(a)NATIONALARCHIVES.GOV.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:52 PM
Subject: Calling All Users!
> Would you like to make our views known on the future of archives online?
> The National Council on Archives is currently carrying out user research
> develop the online National Archives Network. As part of this work, a
> consultancy firm will be organising discussion groups to test the vision
> concept of Linking Arms - a consortium project led by The National
> which is in development. Linking Arms aims (among other things) to
> a single user-friendly way in to archives websites including A2A, AIM25,
> SCAN, the Archives Hub, and community archives online.
> The discussion groups will be held at different venues round the UK in the
> next few months. If you would like to take part in the groups please
> your contact details including address, telephone number and email to me
> I look forward to hearing from you.
> If you are reading this and have access to a user group or represent a
> of users, I would be very grateful if you could pass this message on.
> With thanks for your help.
> Katie Norgrove
> Policy and Development Officer
> The National Council on Archives
> c/o The National Archives
> Ruskin Avenue
> Kew, Richmond
> Surrey TW9 4DU
> Tel: 020 8392 5376
> Fax: 020 8392 5295
> Mobile: 07760 463052
> This e-mail message (and attachments) may contain information that is
confidential to The National Archives.
> If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy
the message or attachments. In such a case,
> please notify the sender by return e-mail immediately and erase all copies
of the message and attachments.
> Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and
attachments that do not relate to the official business
> of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.