John Clish

[Rol]

Given the relative rareness of the surname,  the IGI marriage plus the baptism and the census entries set out in Reply 11 do look like pretty safe candidates.

You had perhaps already spotted this,  Gnu,  but it appears probable that the son called Thomas who shows up in the IGI ensured that John Clish (JC) left quite a progeny of grandchildren to represent him back in the UK.  Censuses:

1851
HO107/2394 fo.578r p.6
Kibblesworth

Thomas Clish / Head / Mar / 46 / Coal Miner /  [Northumb'd] Callerton
Mary --do-- / Wife / Mar / 43 /  --  / Durham  Ponto Pike *
Frances --do-- / Daur / U / 22 /  --  / --do--  Wreckenton
Matthew --do-- / Son / U / 12 /  --  / --do--  Kelloe
Mary Ann --do-- / Daur / U / 9 / Scholar / --do--  Kibblesworth
Eliza --do-- / --do-- / U / 6 / --do-- / --do--  --do--
Hannah --do-- / --do-- / U / 3 /  --  / --do--  --do--

* [Presumably Pontop Pike,  a little NE of Consett? (Here on Streetmap.)]

The ten year gap between the births of the first child and the others hints that Mary could have been a second wife -- though I have yet to spot any suitable marriages.

The household was still at Kibblesworth in 1861 and 1871.  In 1861 Mary A and Hannah were the only children remaining -- and the enumerator seems to have decided to make his life easier by recording that everybody was born at Lamesley Co. Durham (RG9/3764 fo.11r p.15).  By 1871 Thomas and Mary Clish were alone,  with Thomas's birthplace switched back to Callerton,  and Mary's listed rather opaquely as Durham Colliery Dy[..?..]:  a challenge for someone with better knowledge of local place names than mine (RG10/4995 fo.112v p.26).

When 1881 came,  Thomas Clish was dead and Mary was living with Mary Ann and her husband Thomas Rowell -- a collier,  like so many others in that coal-rich area.  Her place of birth had undergone another metamorphosis and become "Lanchester" (i.e. more SE of Consett than NE).


Rol

[Rol]

Back to JC the Convict,  and specifically to the evidence from WO97 that he served in the RHA.

The master index of miners that the Durham Mining Museum made (mainly) from the 1881 census includes entries for Clishes called George (3),  Jeremiah,  Joseph, Matthew (2),  Robert,  Richard (2),  Thomas,  William (3) -- and five Johns.  One of the Johns catches the eye,  because he was born Woolwich ca.1806.  That PoB,  given the presence there of the famous artillery arsenal,  when combined with the fact that he had come north to work in the Durham mines and was enumerated at Heworth in '81,  looks like strong circumstantial evidence that he was a son of the WO97 John Clish -- who,  it seems,  later and coincidently became [re-?]acquainted with Woolwich via the occasional glimpse from the decks of a prison-hulk.  The census ref. given is RG11/5029 fo.116 p.2.

(One might pause to note in passing that the 1881 John looks like one more of the tough and courageous old men who struggled on with hard manual labour rather than lapse onto parish indoor/outdoor relief,  pre the start of L-G's state contributory pension scheme.)

So,  off to quiz the IGI.  Nothing at Woolwich.  However . . . there was a John Clish (only candidate ± 2 years),  son of John,  who was bapt. Ringmer,  Sussex,  15 Sept. 1805.  And a little Googling reveals that the RHA maintained a barracks at Ringmer.  Exploring the IGI batch (J148331) further discloses two more children,  William Clish bapt. 9 Sept. 1804 and Richard Clish bapt. 10 May 1807.

The mother's name rather thickens the plot:  in each case it is Elizabeth,  not Frances.  But the Newburn marriage of 11 June 1804 is the only one on the IGI for a John Clish in the relevant period.  Which leaves two obvious scenarios:  either,  against the apparent odds,  there were two separate John Clishes;  or there was only one,  and he kept the army equivalent of an RN man's "girl in every port".  For the latter theory,  the dates are certainly rather uncomfortable:  they require him to have come north on leave to marry at the very time when a Sussex woman was already six months pregnant with his son-to-be William.  We know that he had few claims to sainthood -- but even the practicalities seem rather challenging!

If anyone were prepared to pull out a little plastic card,  the search engine has also served up a possible evidential "decider".  By great good fortune a poor law settlement examination has survived in Ringmer parish chest for:

John Clish, private in the artillery drivers at Ringmer

Settlement examination  4 Oct 1811

PAR461/32/4/8

-- East Sussex [Lewes] Record Office,  via A2A

The fact that John Clish,  the 75 year old miner at Heworth in 1881,  gave his place of birth as Woolwich is at the very least a major co-incidence,  and if anything it does rather strengthen the case that JC the Convict was indeed the same man as JC the Ringmer RHA man.  But the puzzle is far from unravelled.


Rol



Postscript: I see that other RootsChat users have already ploughed furrows in the RHA-Ringmer field -- per this thread,  dating from 2007-08.

[Gadget]

Hi Rol

Yes, I had picked up  Thomas Clish just before I left my Scottish home and returned to the North East so what I found is on my computer up there!

I note that you found the theft of a bol of meal in 1834. This would tie in with my reading of 'meat' in the transcript - obviously it was meal!

Re our original John Clish - your find of the Woolwich one made me wonder if there were indeed more than one John Clish bc 1770s/1780s .

I'd been working on the ages given in his conviction - 1834  aged 51  so born circa 1783. The Royal Artillery John was 'about 30' when he was discharged in 1814 and 19 when he was recruited in 1803 so, again, born circa 1783-4.

I  found three John Clish but only  one that came close to that  approx. birth date:

21 April 1771 All Saints, Newcastle (to John Clesh)
1 Oct 1775 Newburn (to Andrew Clish and Ann)
23 June 1782 Newburn (to Thomas Clish and Sarah Goodall)

The records for the RA John do state that he was of All Saints parish but no baptism record there for him circa 1780s so the Newburn one looks the most likely, particularly with the marriage to Frances and a son, Thomas. Also, the parish at attestation would not necessarily be the birth parish. (Living in Newcastle, I know the area well, and a move from Newburn to Newcastle itself would not be much of a move! )

I followed the John that you found b. Woolwich in 1881 and find that he states his birth as

1841  Co Durham
1851 Woolwich
1861 Ringmore
1871 Woolwich
1881 Woolwich

The  Ringmer baptisms are interesting:

1804 William - not found afterwards
1807 Richard - found in Kelloe in 1841,  in 1851 in Bishop Auckland b. Woolwich;  1861 - British Subject; 1871 - NK

I'm coming to the view that there were two John Clish - the one who was transorted and the one who was in the Royal Artillery. So far no proof apart from the two families (1804, 1807 and 1814 for one and 1804, 1806 and 1807 for the other).  Also, he would have had a pension if he'd been the RA one  so less likely to steal.

Maybe some burial records might help 


gnu

[Gadget]

I'm coming to the view that there were two John Clish - the one who was transorted and the one who was in the Royal Artillery. So far no proof apart from the two families (1804, 1807 and 1814 for one and 1804, 1806 and 1807 for the other).  Also, he would have had a pension if he'd been the RA one  so less likely to steal.

Maybe some burial records might help 


gnu

Alternativley, the RA one and the transported one were the same but the one who married Frances was a different one   

A burial of a John Clish before the 1841 would provide more evidence.

gnu

[Gadget]

Maybe we're getting a bit out but I'd like to get the correct John!

Another problem is that there is another John Clish who shows up in Lanchester, Co Durham with wife Frances (I kept having to put them aside last weekend!)

1841
Lanchester
HO107/301/5/3/8

John Clish, 60, pitman, not b. county
Frances, 60
John, 20, ag lab
Frances, 10
Others b. Co Durham

1851
Howl Dean, Burnope and Hamsteels
HO107/2389/549/15

Frances Clish, 69, pitman's widow, b. Stanhope
Frances, d, 25, b. Lanchester

1861
Howl Dean, Burnhope and Hamsteels
RG09/3735/33/12

Frances Clish, 79, b. Bottsburn (?), Durham  (maybe Bowburn but not close to Stanhope - still looking. )
Frances Appleby, d, 31, b. Howl Dean
John Appleby, s in l, 25, ag lab, b. Leeds


An Ancestry tree has this couple as the John and Frances who married Newburn in 1804 . A mixture of children. John's parents given as James Clish and Mary Courley and somehow adopts the Newburn born Frances. Very mixed up and no real citations. Newburn is a way from Lanchester and Stanhope etc. and different county!


This is not the John Clish who was transported or in the RA and this is not the Frances who I reported as a widow earlier in the thread!

gnu

[Gadget]

I've just been looking at the original baptism entries for John Clish and Frances Ramsey's children on the family search pilot site to see if there was any more info.

Newburn  -  Thomas Clish of Callerton b. 7th October 1804 bpt 24th October 1st son of John Clish, pitman, native of Chester le Street parish* by his wife Frances Ramsey native of this parish  (this fits with Rol's 1851 census info on him)

All Saints  - June 14th 1814 Mary daughter of John and Frances Clish of Newburn. Father's occupation - pitman

Now, if he wasn't discharged from Woolwich until July 25th 1814, he'd not be described as a Pitman, would he?  Similarly, on Thomas's entry of 1804 when he was already in the RA.

Ergo, the RA John Clish and the  John Clish who married Frances Ramsey in Newburn 1804 were not the same person.

* a native of Chester le Street parish implies that that's  where he was born.


gnu

[Gadget]

Not sure if this is any help ~

The entry in the  Newburn records for the baptism of John Clish, 23 June 1782, reads

John s. of Thos Clish and Sarah Goodhall. A bastard child, (of)  Callerton


Searching through these unindexed records is doing my eyes in! Don't think there's much more to find in them.


Also:

Deaths/Burials

Newburn, St Michael and All Angels,  24 April 1786 John Clish son of James. Abode - Callerton

-do- 7 Nov 1803 Thomas Clish, aged 43. Abode - Callerton

Ringmer, St Mary, 23 Sept 1804 William Clish


gnu

[Fairmeadow2]

Settlement examination of John CLISH, 4 Oct 1811, ESRO/Par.461/32/4/11 [Ringmer, Sussex]

John CLISH was a private in the Artillery Drivers now at Ringmer. He was born in Newbourne, Northumberland, where his father was legally settled. Nine years ago he hired himself as a yearly servant to a farmer in Washington, Durham, and served for the term agreed. He had gained no other settlement since. He has a wife, Isabella, and four children, John (6), Richard (4), Sally (2) and an unbaptised boy a few days old, who are now with him.

There was a Royal Horse Artillery barracks at Ringmer from c.1795-1827. At this date it housed the artillery drivers & drafts were regularly being sent off abroad (mainly to the Peninsula), so the parish was regularly deporting "followers" (including Ringmer girls who had married soldiers) back to their "home" parish.

There are CLISH baptisms at Ringmer on 9 Sep 1804 (William s. John & Elizabeth), 15 Sep 1805 (John s. John & Elizabeth), 10 May 1807 (Richard s. John & Elizabeth) & 2 Jul 1809 (Sarah d. John & Elizabeth). There is one burial, William CLISH, 23 Sep 1804. No marriages.

[Gadget]

The Newbourne would be Newburn on the North side of the Tyne to the west of Newcastle.

Not sure if he was the tranportee or not - my gut feeling is that he wasn't but .....



gnu