How do I find out if an ancestor was exiled to Canada because of debt?

[lululisa]

I am trying to verify, or rather discredit, a theory about why my ancestors came to Canada. I had always heard that my great-great grandparents came to Canada because the mill they owned burned down. My gr-gr-grandfather came with his brother -in-law in the 1880s. His wife and their children followed I 1888. Just recently I connected with another descendant of theirs who thinks they were exiled to Canada because they were in debt and did not want to go to debtors prison. I am pasting a copy of the email I received that supposedly explains the story.
 
 "...our mom Dorothy talking about is that her mother Sarah's dad died it was not legal in England for women to inheirit SO the estate went to the oldest son. I'm not sure what age he was at the time but because of England being an island country every male had to do their time in the Navy. During this time the estate went into what they called Chancery which took money out to pay the government fees while they were holding it. The oldest son was lost at sea so they had to wait 7 years to delcare him legally dead. Same thing with the second eldest son. By the time the family got the estate back they owed the government money. At that time they had what the called Debtors Prison. England was trying at durning this time to populate Canada. So instead of putting them into Debtors Prison they were all banished to Canada. Our Grandma Sarah remembered the trip."

Here's my problem with this scenario: Sarah's dad was the one who immigrated to Canada, and died here in 1912. SO right there the story is wrong. Also, the sons came to Canada with him and married here and died here also...they were not in the Royal Navy. I cannot figure out any way that this story jives. Are there any records I can check to find out if my gr-gr-grandfather owed the gov. money? They lived in Carlisle just before they moved here. ANy help would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks

[halhawk]

Hi

It's an interesting story, but I can see a lot of things wrong with it apart from the factual ones you have mentioned about the people who went to Canada.

There is an archive site of transcriptions of some Carlisle and local newspapers  - you could search to see if the family is mentioned in those which have been transcribed.

The site is www.cultrans.com

Best wishes
halhawk

[RJ_Paton]

Like all good stories there are some facts and near truths thrown into the mix to provide a good tale .....

The system of inheritance certainly was that land and houses went to the eldest son whether he was the eldest child or not , daughters received a dowry and smaller amounts were left to younger sons. (it was once alleged that in landed families the order went - 1st son got the land, 2nd son went into the military and 3rd son the clergy)

The Chancery Court or Chancery Division as it later became, certainly could administer estates and their fees were notoriously high before the court was initially reformed (1820's - 1830's) and then it became a part of the High Court System later in the Victorian period (possibly 1880's)

There was never compulsory naval service in the manner you describe even some tales of the way press gangs worked and allegedly  "recruited" are now being largely discounted by historians.

P.S.  England has never been an Island Country - it shares  land borders with Wales to the west and Scotland to the North   

[lululisa]

Thanks for the help.

Tried the newspaper transcriptions, but no luck as of yet.

I had to laugh about the comment that England is not an island country. That definition didn't come from me though! haha
My gr-gr-grandfather was a miller and lived at Dalemain mill in 1881. Sometime after that they moved to Currock House in Carlisle. His name was John Atkinson and he was married to Elizabeth Sander. John was the first son in his family and he never joined the navy. His father was also a miller (milled at Dalemain at one point), so I canot imagine he would have had much of an inheritance. Elizabeth Sander's father, Robert, was a yeoman with 225 acres. Perhaps it was Robert the story is about. Even so, I cannot see how that would affect John and Elizabeth's "income". It wasn't as though they were  living off the promise of an inheritance.
I just cannot bring myself to believe this story...it just does not make sense in any way!
I still want to try to discredit it with proof though. So please keep suggestions coming.

Thanks!

[Maryam]

Hi

Imprisonment for debt was mainly abolished under the Debtor's Act of 1869 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors%27_prison

Have you tried the London Gazette?  http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/search

KR
Maryam

[RJ_Paton]

Given the mix of facts and stories you have it is relatively easy to disprove the story as it stands but I would not discount it entirely as these stories often have a grain of truth at their heart.

It is possible that you may have to go back in time to establish the facts and work from there sometimes thinking "outside the box" if you wish to prove or disprove the story completely. Sometimes families accept something which has a lesser degree of public censure in order to conceal something they never want to surface.

In my own family we had a story of a disinhertance because of a marriage not approved by the family - recently I uncovered newspaper reports that confirmed that such a dispute had taken place but it was a generation further back and referred to a sister of my great great grandmother and not her.

On checking the old newspapers it is unfortunate that the name "John Atkinson" crops up in a number of completely different areas and several of these were bankrupts (none of them millowners or millwrights). The closest mention to the areas you have (approx 70 miles south of Carlisle) is that in 1808 a John Atkinson was acquitted of a manslaughter charge at Lancaster Crown Assizes although sadly the newspaper did not go into details about the charge or the man.

[lululisa]

Falkyrn,

You are right....I think there could be a grain of truth to the story, but just not convinced that the people in question are my gr-gr-grandparents. They immigrated with some relatives, so perhaps it was them the story is about. They were Thomas Dawson Taylor and Sarah Emma Sander. I am a member of ancestry.ca so I have researched most of these families and cannot find any evidence that this could be true. As I mentioned, it could refer to Elizabeth's and Sarah Emma's father Robert Sander. He died in 1863 at the age of 44. Elizabeth was the eldest child, so any inheritance would have gone to the eldest son, right?
Still, I don't see how that would have affected John Atkinson, after all, he must have known his wife had little chance of inheriting.
I am the kind of person who won't rest until I have figured it out!

Thanks

[halhawk]

Hi again

Does ancestry.ca give you access to the England and Wales National Probate Calender?  Robert Sander apparently had no will; Letters of Administration were granted to his widow Sarah in 1864 - his effects were valued at under £600.  Sarah did leave a will when she died in 1874, and probate was granted to John Liddell Sander of Manchester her son and John Atkinson of Stainton Miller (presumably your John) as Executors - her effects were valued at under £100.  While you probably would not get any more information from Robert's administration, Sarah's will might (or might not) tell you something new about the family.

I would think that if there is an element of truth to the debtor part of the story it could be an earlier generation of the family.

As regards women inheriting, it was possible, although in well off families the business or land would normally go to the eldest son.  The difficulty was with marriage - before the Married Women's Property Acts in the 1880's, everything became the property of the husband on marriage.  However this could be avoided by proper wording in a will - I have a will in my family (not terribly well off) where the majority of the property is left to a niece for her lifetime, and it details what should happen if she dies with or without children, thus keeping a husband out of it entirely.

[GR2]

It is quite common for people to have a 'romantic' story about their ancestors being driven out of parts of Britain by wicked landlords, persecution etc. There were some people like that, but not so many. From the Scottish viewpoint, however, Canada was an up and coming place with good opportunities. People went out, did well, and then attracted relatives to emigrate and share in the success.

Graham.