Barton House, or Barton Farm, near Cirencester, "then [1647]

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Brandon

Barton House, or Barton Farm, near Cirencester, "then [1647]

Legg inn av John Brandon » 23 jan 2008 22:05:05

http://books.google.com/books?id=ScsuAA ... cester&lr=

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=9i ... s=1#search

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22 ... arch+Books

It is interesting to note that it was adjacent to the property of the
Poole family.

Also note Wallington's statement (p. 145), that "the Barton Farm, with
very much buildings in it, and all the corn, hay, and other goods and
cattle of one gentleman, which amounted to three thousand pounds and
upwards, was burnt to the ground."

http://books.google.com/books?id=ScsuAA ... #PPA145,M1

In a pamphlet from 1650, the Preservators of the Forest of Dean
mentioned a L3000 loss which occurred at Cirencester: "That Mr.
Gifford might lose three thousand pounds at Cyrencester would be
controverted, though not denyed, but if he hath gained 6. thousand in
the Forrest, we believe he is not so much to be pittyed as those who
having lost an hundred thousand in those parts, did never receive that
pay which he and his son have [? hath--flaw in microfilm], and yet
their losses are so far from being audited or stated ..."

In his petition in _Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for
Compounding, ...1643-1660_, 3: 2142-43, Capt. John Gifford of Bream
mentioned "being plundered by the Cavaliers of goods value 3,000l.,
for which he was never compensated." I wonder if he was fudging the
details here, as being "burned out" is not quite the same thing as
being plundered, even though one loses one's goods in both instances.
A fire might be considered an act of God and "non-refundable," whereas
by claiming "plunder" he might be in a better position to be
reimbursed.


Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»