All posts by Alan G Lindfield

Out For The Count

In order to arrive at a reasonably definitive figure for the population of a country, county or state, it has been the practice for governments to conduct a census at regular intervals, typically every 10 years. When and if the detailed records are eventually made available to the public, these provide an unrivalled method of gathering information on individual ancestors and also for examining the total numbers and geographical distribution of people sharing the same surname. This article considers what the census can tell us about this geographical distribution. Continue reading

Linfield and Lindfield Wills and Administrations (1858-1943) – Part 2: 1877-1903

Continued from the previous issue: Part 1


Extracts from the Index

Walter Francis LINFIELD, #4597, administration 27 November 1877
Administration of effects of Walter Francis LINFIELD late of 138 Drummond Road, Bermondsey, Surrey, licensed victualler, died I November 1877 at 138 Drummond Road granted at Principal Registry to Mary Ann LINFIELD of 138 Drummond Road, widow, relict., less than £450. Continue reading

How Rare is our Surname?

The first question that people ask when told that someone is studying the family history is almost invariably ‘how far back have you gone?’. The second question, when one has explained what a one-name study actually involves, is usually along the lines of ‘how many people do you have in the database?’, closely followed by ‘how many people of your name are alive in the world today?’

The last of these is a question that also exercises those of us who are engaged in the organisation of one-name societies, not least because it helps to define the number of potential members. It also helps us to determine when all the various branches have been identified. This article examines some of the statistics for the Linfield and similar names and shows several methods by which the present, and past, population may be estimated.

Ideally, from a family historian’s point of view at least, one would simply consult the latest census results in order to determine the number of Lin(d)fields in the country today. One would repeat that process for each country to arrive at the total number in the world and to show the distribution between countries. In the real world, however, considerations of privacy and human rights dictate that census information is not released into the public domain until after an agreed interval. In most cases this is defined in such a way as to ensure that all of the data subjects have died. In the United Kingdom, for example, the time is set at 100 years from the end of the census year, so that the 1901 census became available for public inspection on 2nd January 2002. Some countries set a shorter time, typically 70 or 75 years, while some have agreed that the data will be destroyed and never released to the public.

In the absence of a definitive survey such as the census, there are several less accurate methods that may be used to estimate the current population of a given surname:

  • Birth and death registrations
  • Birth rate calculations
  • Death rate calculation
  • Census data projections
  • Electoral rolls and phone books

This article will explore how each of these techniques works and will indicate the numbers for the Linfield name variants that may be estimated in each case.

Birth and death registrations

The requirement to register a birth, marriage or death came into effect on 1 July 1837 in England and Wales and on 1 January 1855 in Scotland. The indexes of registrations are standard sources of information for family historians, and as such are often the first to be transcribed by groups researching a particular surname. In the case of the Linfield variants, we have collected all of the birth, marriage and death registrations from 1837 up to 1994, and these are available for members and others who need the details for their research or in order to purchase a certificate.

During the early years of civil registration many births were not registered, the extent of under-registration having been estimated to be at least 10%. This was particularly true for illegitimate children. From 1875, there was a penalty for failing to register the birth of a child within 42 days. This often led to parents giving a later date than was actually the case in order to avoid having to pay the fine. A birth could not be registered at all after 6 months had elapsed.

On the face of it, we could arrive at a figure for the present Lin(d)field population simply by listing all of the births in the last 120 years, and then deleting all those from that list whose deaths had also been registered. The remaining number should be those people born with the name who are still alive today. As with all the best simple plans, there are however some flaws in this scheme.

The first difficulty is one of definition. In the census, voters lists and phone books, the number obviously includes women who have taken the name on marriage. Indeed, among these sources, only the census records actually show the marital status, and this is the one source that is denied to us in respect of the current or very recent data. It is impossible therefore, to distinguish unmarried from married females in the electoral roll; a male and a female at the same address are probably man and wife, but could be mother and son or father and daughter, or even daughter-in-law. Three females of the same name with a male shown at the same address could be a wife and two daughters, but could also be 3 unmarried daughters.

It is convenient, therefore, to adopt the convention that we count all those currently bearing the name, regardless of whether they were born with that name. Given the present situation where the average number of children is about 2, it may be argued that since males and females are born in almost equal numbers, the number of wives who have taken the name on marriage will be balanced out by the number of daughters who relinquish the name on marriage. This balance is skewed slightly in one direction by the modern trend for women to retain their maiden surname, and in the other by women who revert to their former names or gain another new name on divorce and remarriage. More seriously, the balance is skewed by daughters who do not marry and retain the name for life.

Further errors arise due to migration, adoption, and changes of name for other reasons. It is estimated that between 1815 and 1931, more than 20 million people emigrated from Britain to countries outside Europe. Even allowing for a substantial proportion of Scots and Irish in that number, this probably represents an annual rate of at least 1 in every 400 of the population of England and Wales. If the Lin(d)field families were typical of the general population, this would suggest that as many as 100 members of the Lin(d)field families might have been expected to have emigrated during the 100 year period.

These difficulties having been recognised, the calculation is still valid as a crude estimating technique, provided that we accept that the margin of error may be as high as, say, plus or minus 20%.

The total number of births registered in the years 1895-1994 inclusive is 1884. If we then subtract the numbers of deaths recorded in the same period, for those entries where the age indicates a birth after 1894, a total of 655, this leaves 1229 people who would still have been alive at the end of 1994. This assumes, as noted above, that for each death of a Linfield widow there is a death of a Linfield daughter under her married name.

Birth Rate

The number of births registered in each decade gives an indication of the trend in birth rates, particularly if the figures are expressed in proportion to the total population at the time. I have written previously about the trend observed during the first 100 years of registration, using the population figures for the census years, and the number of Lin(d)field births for each decade.1

We can also use the national birth rate as a crude estimate of the Lin(d)field population, provided that we recognise the possible errors. For example, if the numbers of Lin(d)field births are expressed as a fraction of the total population, the rate can be seen to be fairly consistent during the period up to the turn of the century. Birth rates generally declined from about 1900 and this trend is also evident in the Lin(d)field figures.

For much of the nineteenth century the annual birth rate was about 35 per thousand of the population. The Lin(d)field figure in that period works out to about 9 per decade, or an annual rate of 0.9, per million of total population. From this, it may be estimated that the Lin(d)field population increased from about 400 to 700 during the 19th century.

The birth rate declined during the 20th century from 28.2 per thousand in 1900 to 13.2 in 1980 with peaks following each of the two world wars. It then rose again slightly and in 1990, the latest year for which we have a reasonable sample of birth registration data, the rate was 13.9 per thousand. The annual rate of Lin(d)field births in the 1980’s and early 90’s was 16.4, and on this basis we can estimate the Lin(d)field population as about 1180. However, given that the national rates were lower in 1980 and 1997 (13.2 and 12.3 respectively) it is possible that using the 1990 figure understates the result by between 5 and 12%.

This estimate obviously assumes that the birth rate among the Lin(d)field families were similar to those in the population at large and that family sizes and mortality rates were also typical of the general population. In the early years of registration, there is no obvious reason why the Linfield birth rate should have differed significantly from the national figure. However, as populations become more diverse in terms of ethnicity and culture, there is a greater possibility of error. We find though, that in 1991, only 2.91 million, or 5.05% of the population described themselves as being in one of the non-white categories listed. This was the first census in which respondents were asked to categorise themselves in terms of colour; previous census returns asked for the place of birth of the head of household, but this data was not very informative since so many non-white people in Britain were second- or third-generation. Such a small proportion is unlikely to affect the overall national rates very significantly and any errors are likely to be masked by differences that occur between the Lin(d)field population and the white population as a whole.

Census data

The first available "census", and perhaps the most famous, is of course the Domesday Book of 1089. However, similar surveys were carried out on a more limited basis such as the Leicestershire Survey (about 1124-1129) and the Lindsey Survey (1124-1128). Various ecclesiastical census surveys have also been taken over the 900 years since Domesday.

UK pop (millions) Year Number Total
11.94 1801 0 306
13.36 1811 0 343
15.47 1821 0 397
17.83 1831 0 458
20.18 1841 43 518
22.26 1851 156 571
24.52 1861 53 629
27.43 1871 39 704
31.01 1881 796 796
34.26 1891 35 879
38.24 1901 0 982
42.08 1911 0 1080
44.02 1921 0 1130
46.03 1931 0 1182
50.22 1951 0 1289
52.7 1961 0 1353
53.79 1966 0 1381
55.5 1971 0 1425
56.3 1981 0 1445
57.99 1991 0 1489

The modern census series started in 1801. (An earlier attempt in 1753 failed in its goal of measuring population growth using a questionnaire to parish clergy.) Since 1801 there has been a census every 10 years except for 1941, which was omitted on account of the war. Unfortunately, this gap in the records was compounded when the 1931 returns were destroyed by fire during WW2. Two additional censuses owed their existence to war, however. These were the 1915 (Aliens Act) census and 1938/9 census (1939 Sept. 29th National Registration), prompted by the need to determine where and how many aliens lived in the UK.

As noted already, full access is available to all census data from the 1801 to the 1901. However, prior to 1841 the census contained little useful data for most family historians and not many of the earlier returns survive in any case.

Access to processed data
rom the more recent census surveys is also available but this simply takes the form of statistical material such as the numbers of males in a district, social trends, and so on. It does however give us figures for the total population and these can be used to estimate the numbers of Linfield variants if we are prepared to make certain assumptions.

One of the difficulties until recently, was that there was no complete record available of any of the census years, in a form which could easily be searched for a particular surname. Whilst some indexes had been produced, such as the excellent series published by June Barnes for parts of Sussex, the only way of finding the total numbers of any surname was to check every volume of the census. This task would probably take someone several months of full-time working in record offices, and was clearly beyond the resources of a group such as ours.

How then can we work out how many people of our surnames were alive in a particular year? The answer came with the publication by the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) of an index to the 1881 census. This became available on microfiche a few years ago, and is now available on CD-ROM which allows searches to be made quickly by computer. This includes an alphabetical index by surname, which allowed us, for the first time, to search quickly for all Linfield surname variants and to establish the total numbers enumerated in that year. The total number of Linfield, Lindfield, Linville, Linkfield and Lingfield entries in England and Wales in 1881 is 787. (There were a further 9 in Scotland, but these were fairly recent migrants from Sussex. For the purposes of the estimation that follows, these may be ignored).

In order to estimate the numbers in any other year, we can use the total numbers of population for the whole of England, Wales and Scotland. A reasonable estimate can then be obtained by assuming that our names represent a constant fraction of that total.

The table above sets out the figures. The first column shows the total population (in millions) of England, Wales and Scotland for each of the census years starting with the first census in 1801.

The fourth column shows the numbers of Lin(d)fields, estimated in proportion to those totals from the figure for 1881. It will be seen that for 1991, the last year for which census population is available, this process gives an estimated 1489 individuals using the Linfield variant surnames. The population of the UK has been relatively static over the last 10 years, with a significant part of any increase due to immigration from countries where the surname is not found. The figure for 2001 is likely therefore to be substantially unchanged.

The third column shows the number of entries currently entered into the spreadsheet. Thus it may be seen that for 1851, we have entered 156 of the estimated 571 Lin(d)fields in that census.

Prior to 1841, census enumerators were not required to list names of individuals in each household, although many did actually do so. We cannot therefore expect to confirm the estimated totals from the records, however much time we spend searching. It is interesting though, to apply the same process of estimation to work backwards from 1801, using such estimates as are available for the total population.

England & Wales
millions
UK pop
millions
Year Linfield
Est E&W
Linfield
Est UK
2 1100 51
4.16 4.47 1570 107 115
4.81 5.17 1600 123 133
5.6 6.02 1630 144 155
5.77 6.2 1670 148 159
6.04 6.5 1700 155 167
6.51 7.00 1750 167 180
Figures in italics are calculated from 1700 ratio UK/E&W

Death Rate

A similar technique may be applied to death rates. Between 1984 and 1994, the average annual death rate for the Linfield variant names was 14.9. The national average in 1990 was 11.1 per thousand, suggesting a Lin(d)field population of around 1343. Again, this assumes that our surname population was statistically representative of the whole.

Electoral roll and phone books

The history of democracy in the United Kingdom has resulted in an electoral system that many regarded as outdated and in need of radical reform. On the credit side, however, the evolution of our voting system has led to the list of voters being something that we expect to be available for public scrutiny. The practice of vote-rigging in the early 18th century, of which the attorney John Linfield was famously found guilty, might perhaps have played a part in shaping our traditional insistence on such openness in the conduct of elections. It would be nice to think that a Linfield had done his bit for genealogy, albeit unwittingly and for all the wrong reasons!

Residents of other countries are not so fortunate. Canada, for example, has very strong privacy laws, both at the provincial and federal levels. Canadians do not therefore enjoy the same unfettered access to voting registers. The same culture of privacy applies to births, marriages and deaths, so that the techniques I have discussed for using the birth and death registrations are also impossible in Canada. These registrations are a provincial responsibility and there is no one central register for the whole of Canada. Each province has its own electoral register for elections to the provincial legislatures, and a national register is maintained by Elections Canada for elections at the federal level. British Columbia has a permanent electoral register, whereas some provincial administrations still do an enumeration before each election.

Whatever the reasons and history, it is a great convenience to family historians that the Register of Electors may be found in every public library and we should consider ourselves fortunate that it is so accessible. It has been possible for several years to obtain the data on CD-ROM, together with software allowing it to be searched very easily. The product that I used is marketed as UK InfoDisk, and is available in several versions, with a range of search and data handling facilities. The data also includes phone book entries.

The latest disc owned by the Group is UK Info Disk 2000, which contains the 1999 Register of Electors. This has a total of 881 individuals with one of the Linfield variant names, in 535 households. Since only those aged 18 or over are included, we must then add the births registered after 1981 to arrive at the year 2000 estimate. (A quick check of the birth registrations for 1981/2 confirms that the 1981 children are listed on the 1999 roll while those born in 1982 are not.)

Starting at the beginning of 1982, there are 115 birth registrations up to the end of 1994, or 8.8 per year. This figure excludes any births in Scotland, but these are so few as to be negligible. Adding a further 44 to allow for the 5 years up to the start of 2000 for which we have not yet collected the birth registrations, brings the figure to 159 children below voting age. Our records show that 2 of these died before 2000, giving us a final estimate of 994.

Summary

If we summarise the various estimates, and postulate the error margins for each method, the results are as follows:

Method Error margin Weight Estimated population in year 2000
Birth and death registrations +20% – 20% 3 1229 (984 – 1474)
Birth rate calculation -5% +12% 4 1180 (1121-1321) (on 1990 data)
Death rate calculation -5% +10% 4 1343 (1275 – 1477)
Census extrapolation +20% -40% 2 1489 (893 – 1786)
Electoral roll and phone books -5% +5% 10 994 (944 – 1043)
Weighted average estimate 1160

The estimates of error rate are my own, and I would not claim that they are arrived at very scientifically. I have attempted to suggest a figure that includes both systematic errors in the estimating method, and also those errors in the base data on which each calculation is made. The weightings are based on the confidence that might be expected of the figure actually being in the middle of the error range, and here again, the estimates are entirely my own. (As a matter of interest, a simple averaging of the 5 estimates produces a figure of 1247, so it can be seen that the relative weightings do not make a major difference.)

However inaccurate the various methods may be, it is clear that the true figure is around 1000. It is highly unlikely that it exceeds 2000 and fairly unlikely to be greater than 1500.

As regards the original question of just how rare the surname is, several ideas have been suggested for classifying names according to their rarity. One such method which has gained considerable acceptance is to use the 1881 population. This was suggested by Geoff Riggs in 1997 and the classifications that he suggested were as follows:2

High frequency 0.1% or greater (30,001+ people)
Medium frequency 0.01 to 0.099% (3,000 to 30,000)
Low frequency 0.001 to 0.0099% (300 to 3000)
Rare 0.0001 to 0.0009% (1 to 300)

On this basis, the Linfield variants, with an 1881 total of 796, or 0.00257% of the population, would be classed as a low frequency surname.

Trevor Ogden wrote an interesting article about this in the Guild Journal a couple of years ago.3 More recently, he has commented that there are a lot of very uncommon surnames. Quoting the data from the UK Info disc, (which was also the source of the Electoral Roll data quoted above), he notes that about 42% of names occur once, 16% of names occur twice, 7% occur three times, and so on with ever decreasing numbers. Phonebooks are not such a good sample of the population, but they show a similar pattern.

Trevor goes on to point out that if just one male holds a name, probability theory and computer modelling shows that there is about an 89% chance that the name will become extinct, although this depends on the assumptions about the number of sons people are like to have (ie, a probability of 0.89). If there are n men with a name, the chance of its becoming extinct is 0.89 raised to the power n. For example, if there were five holders of a name, the chances of none of them eventually having any male descendants is 0.89 raised to the power of 5, which equals about 0.56, so in this case there is still a better than even chance that the name will become extinct. However, if there are 50 holders of a name in the first generation, the probability that the name will become extinct is only 0.3% – a 99.7% chance that the name will survive.

Readers with access to the Internet might want to look at the press release ‘How common is your name?’ at http://www.ons.gov.uk/regist_f.htm It has been compiled by the Office of National Statistics and is based on registrations with GPs since 1991. The commonest male name in England and Wales is not John Smith, as one might think, but David Jones, with 15763 occurrences. John Smith is actually third with 12793. However, Smith is slightly more common than Jones as a surname. Robert Davies is 100th with 3366. The most common female name is Margaret Smith with 7640 and the 100th is Elizabeth Evans with 1974. Also given are the 100 most popular surnames and the 50 most popular male and 50 most popular female forenames. The figures quoted are for for England and Wales only.

Of one thing we may be certain – genealogy would be much more difficult if we were all called Smith!

1 Lindfield and Linfield Births Registered in England and Wales 1837-1937; edited by A Lindfield; 1993 Lin(d)field One Name Group ISBN 0 9522738 0 2

2 The 1881 Project – British Surname Distribution; Geoff Riggs, Journal of One-Name Studies, vol 6 no 3, July 1997.

3 How rare are surnames?; Trevor Ogden, Journal of One-name Studies, April 1998,.

Linfield and Lindfield Wills and Administrations (1858-1943) – Part 1: 1858-1876

Introduction

Of all the various records available to the family historian, wills and probate records are among the richest sources of information. Not only do they contain such details as the addresses and occupations of the deceased, but also the names and relationships of children, spouses and other relatives. They may be the only records that confirm these relationships in a single document.

Wills and administrations in England and Wales from 1858 are at the Principal Probate Registry, Somerset House in the Strand, London, where the Indexes may be consulted free of charge. They are also now available in many of the local record offices. There is one set of volumes for each year. Copies of wills and administrations may be obtained at a very modest cost, and some such copies are held by the Lin(d)field One name Group. Information from the Indexes and from the documents themselves has been used in compiling the database, and in most cases the database number is shown following the name on each entry listed below.

Prior to the Married Women’s Property Act of 1882, all the possessions of a married woman were legally the property of her husband and hence wills for married women are rarely found in that period. Widows and spinsters, on the other hand, may have left wills.


Extracts from the Index

Elizabeth LINDFIELD #5443, proved 2 June 1865.
Will of Elizabeth LINDFIELD (wife of Henry) late of 8 Sussex St, Brighton, died 10 October 1864 at 8 Sussex St, proved by oath of said Henry LINDFIELD of 8 Sussex St, bricklayer, sole executor, effects less than £200.
Henry LINDFIELD, #75, proved 15 June 1865
Will of Henry LINDFIELD, late of Horsham, farmer, died 21 December 1864 at Horsham, proved at Chichester by oath of Alfred Aldridge of Horsham, solicitor’s clerk, one of executors, effects less than £2000.
Thomas LINDFIELD #4632, proved 22 Dee 1865
Thomas LINDFIELD late of Hove, licensed victualler, deceased, died 7 Nov 1865 Hove, proved Lewes on oath of Edward LINDFIELD of Hove, licensed victualler, one of executors, effects less than £1500.
Rebecca LINFEILD (sic), #14861, proved 12 Jan 1866
Will of Rebecca LINFEILD late of Hampton Wick, Co. of Middlesex, spinster died 24 Dee 1864 Hampton Wick, proved at Principal Registry by oaths of Robert LINFEILD of Hampton Wick, gent., the brother and Jane LINFEILD, spinster the sister, the executors, effects less than £3000.
John LINDFIELD, #4097, proved 29 November 1866
Will of John LINDFIELD, formerly of Duchess of Kent public house, Liverpool Rd, Islington, county of Middlesex, but late of the Black Prince public house, Walworth Rd, Walworth, Surrey, licensed victualler, deceased, who died 5 November 1866 at the Black Prince, proved by oath of Ruth Robinson of Black Prince, spinster, one of executors, effects less than £1000.
Ralph LINFIELD, #1568, proved 28 March 1866
Will of Ralph LINFIELD late of Wakefield, county of York, ironmonger, deceased, who died at Wakefield 25 February 1866 at Wakefield, proved on oath of Sarah LINFIELD of Wakefield, widow and relict., sole executor, effects less than £2000.
Thomas LINDFIELD, #964, proved 22 July 1867
Will of Thomas LINDFIELD, late of 19 Stanhope St in parish of St Pancras, county of Middlesex, deceased, who died 27 May 1867 at 51 Hampstead Rd, in the county of Middlesex, proved by oath of Elizabeth LINDFIELD of 19 Stanhope St., widow, relict and sole executor, effects less than £450.
Henry LINFIELD, #14877, proved 4 Sept 1867
Will of Henry LINFIELD, formerly of 2 Mathon Place, Richmond Rd, Islington, in the county of Middlesex, railway clerk but late of 14 Bromley Terrace, Poplar, county aforesaid, oilman, who died 8 May 1867 at 14 Bromley Terrace, proved at Principal Registry by oath of Eliza LINFIELD of 14 Bromley Terrace aforesaid, widow, relict, and Robert Hassell Walker of 5 York Terrace, Tunbridge Wells in Kent, lodging house keeper, the executors, effects less than £200.
John LINFIELD, proved 16 Jan 1869
John LINFIELD, late of 27 Botolph Lane in City of London, died 16 December 1868 in the River Thames opposite the Customs House, proved at Principal Registry by oath of Sarah LINFIELD of 27 Botolph Lane, widow the relict, and sole executor, effects less than £200.
Henry LINDFIELD, #4765, proved 28 July 1870
Will of Henry LINDFIELD, late of St John’s Common, Keymer, butcher, who died 23 Mar 1870 at St John’s Common, Keymer, proved at Lewes by oath of Aaron Moon of Rotherfield in county aforesaid, builder, William Moon of Hastings, in county aforesaid, carpenter and Alfred Scrase of Keymer, butcher the executors, effects less than £100.
Mary LINDFIELD, #14914, proved 25 April 1870
Letters of Administration (with will annexed) of the personal estate and effects of Mary LINDFIELD late of 53 Harmood St, Kentish Town in the county of Middlesex, widow, deceased, died 19 March 1870 at 53 Harmood St, granted Principal Registry to Elizabeth LINDFIELD of 151 Stanhope St, St Pancras, widow, the guardian of Frederick LINDFIELD and Louisa Lavell LINDFIELD, minors, the universal legatees on attaining the age of 21 years named in said will she the said Elizabeth having been first sworn, effects less than £600.
George LINFIELD, #38, proved 23 November 1872
Will and codicil of George LINFIELD, late of Horsham, county Sussex, yeoman, died 23 August 1872 at Towerhill, Horsham, proved at Chichester by Jane LINFIELD of Horsham, widow, relict, one of the executors, effects less than £2000.
Mary LINFIELD, #16102, proved 12 May 1873
Mary LINFIELD late of 5 Euston St, Euston Square, Co. Middlesex, spinster, died 21 April 1873 at 5 Euston St, proved Principal Registry by James LINFIELD of 43 Marlborough Rd, Old Kent Rd in Co. of Surrey, gent, the brother and sole executor, effects less than £1500.
William LINDFIELD, proved 13 March 1873.
Administration of effects of William LINDFIELD late of Southwick, Co. Sussex, labourer, widower, died 25 December 1872 at Southwick granted at Chichester to Eliza Brazier wife of Thomas Brazier of 7 Rock Rd, Southwick, daughter and one of the next of kin, effects less than £100.
Peter Stanford LINFIELD, #1413, proved 7 September 1874
Will of Peter Stanford LINFIELD late of 10 Canonbury Terrace, Islington Co Middlesex, gent who died 11 August 1874 at 10 Canonbury Terrace, proved Principal Registry by Elizabeth LINFIELD of 10 Canonbury Terrace, widow, relict and sole executor, less than £12000.
John LINDFIELD, #4758, 4 September 1875
Will of John LINDFIELD late of Olive Branch Inn, Silwood Street, Brighton in Co. Sussex, licensed victualler died 2 August 1875 at the Olive Branch Inn, proved Lewes by Lucy LINDFIELD of the Olive Branch Inn, widow, relict and one of the executors, less than £450.
Eliza LINDFIELD, 24 February 1876
Will of Eliza LINDFIELD formerly of St John’s Common but late of Chailey, widow who died 30 October 1875 at Chailey. Proved Lewes by Charles Tulley of St John’s Common, farmer, one of the executors, less than £100.
Elizabeth LINDFIELD, #3100, proved 2 March 1876
Will of Elizabeth LINDFIELD late of 151 Stanhope Street, Hampstead Road, Co Middlesex, widow, died 28 January 1876 at 151 Stanhope Street, proved at Principal Registry by James Vaughan of I Southampton Street, Fitzroy Square, gent, sole executor. Less than £600.

Continued in the next issue: Part 2

A Matter of Convenience?

From Eastry Union Workhouse, guardians minutes: At a meeting on 17.5.1853: "It was decided that one sheet of paper per week be supplied to each inmate to stop the use of rag etc. in the water closets.”

and later:

"The Clerk said as it had been decided that waste paper should be provided for the use of the workhouse inmates in the water closets, he had procured half a ream from Mr BAYLEY of Eastry at 4 shillings.

The Clerk suggested that the Goods Tickets issued by the Relieving Officers, of which there is a great quantity in his possession, may be used for the purpose required, first removing the pins, which he considers could be done by the girls, this would effect not only the saving in the purchase of paper but of pins also, which could be made use of again. This suggestion was adopted."

Dated 24.5.1853.

Public Meeting and Reunion to Celebrate 10 years of the Group

Next year sees the 10th anniversary of the foundation of the Group, and to celebrate this fact we are arranging a public meeting to coincide with the Annual General Meeting. The meeting will serve several purposes:

  • It will be an opportunity for some press coverage which might bring new members
  • It will be a social occasion for existing and new members to meet
  • It will include the AGM
  • It will attract potential members
  • It will attract those who could contribute data about branches of the families, even if their connections were remote and did not lead them to join the Group immediately
  • It will be an opportunity to send a mailshot to all the Lin(d)fields listed in the electoral rolls and phone books, which will bring some new members from people who were too distant to travel to the meeting.

The meeting will be held on 1st June 2002 at the Old School at Storrington, which we have used for the two last AGMs. The building has two main rooms, one of which will be used by the caterers to set up for lunch, whilst the larger room will contain the displays and meeting areas for the various family branches. The Storrington and District Museum is also located in the same building and is intending to set up an exhibition about prominent local families of which the Linfields are one.

A buffet lunch will be available. This will be optional, and visitors will be welcome to drop by for an hour or less without taking lunch. We will however need to know the numbers in advance for catering purposes. There will be a reply form in the mailshot, with a request for payment in advance for those wanting lunch. Tea, coffee and cold drinks will be available throughout the day. Lunch will cost £6.50 per head, and every visitor will be offered a free glass of wine or soft drink on arrival, whether or not they are having lunch.

The displays will be organised on the basis of the various branches. Each display area will need a host or hostess, preferably from the branch concerned, who will welcome visitors, introduce them to their distant cousins and answer their questions. We hope that members of the Group will volunteer to help in this way for all or part of the day.

We have been planning for some time to send a further mailshot to attract new members, and we will combine this with an invitation to the meeting. This will include a letter introducing the Group and inviting the recipient and family to attend, a membership form for those who cannot attend but might want to join, and a data request form on which the recipient can fill in known details of his/her own Lin(d)field connections, either to bring to the meeting or to send in to us.

At the entrance, we will need one or possibly two people to welcome visitors, give them their drink and take down details of their interest in the families or the Group. The process of collecting data from them will start here, with the initial checking of the data request from the mailshot, if they have one, or the noting of their Lin(d)field connection. We will probably issue colour coded badges for the various branches so that the hosts on the displays, and other visitors, can spot their cousins.

In order to maintain a single definitive version of the database, we will only have one person entering data at one time, with the data being copied to the other machines at intervals during the day. We expect to have at least 4 computers linked together on a network.

Having captured any additional information from a visitor, we will then want to be able to produce printed copies of their family information for them to take away. This will include ancestor listings, Register format descendant listings, or drop line charts. We will have facilities for binding any printed material that we produce. The printouts will be placed in envelopes which the visitor will fill in at the time of ordering, and these will be left in a rack for collection. Those remaining uncollected at the end of the day will then simply be posted. We will also have back issues of Longshot and other publications for sale. Finally, we will have a desk at which members could renew, and new members be persuaded to join.

We hope also to have the facility available to copy any original documents that visitors may bring. If anyone has a suitable desktop photocopier they could bring, please let me know. We will also have cameras and a scanner to photograph documents, people and the event generally.

We need people to commit to carrying out the various tasks in the coming 15 months and on the day. Please let me know if you would be willing to help. We might be able to offer transport to members who will otherwise have trouble reaching the venue, and would also like to hear from members who can help in this way.

Longshot Vol 8, No. 1

The Storrington Linfields, by Richard Beaton
Lin(d)field Businesses & Occupations – a brief survey, by Malcolm Linfield
Thoughts from a Not-so-Distant Land, by Nick Linfield
An Up-date on my Family History Researches, by Eric Linfield
Storrington and District Museum, by Malcolm Linfield
It’s all in the Genes! by Malcolm Linfield
Some Early Memories, by Mary Offer
Some Lin(d)field Miscellanies: 2, by Malcolm Linfield

Front Cover: Israel Charles John Avery of the Royal Fusiliers – with his favourite pony Greybird, he takes his father with him to say goodbye to his
friends before embarkation to France, 1916. (See article by Mary Offer on p. 35).