Notes on the Banks reference to Roger Terrill, Wapping and Copthall, 1621

by Conrad W. Terrill, April 2009

The Banks reference (PDF, 11.2 MB): This is the reference from the Banks manuscript collection at the Library of Congress to a 1621 Middlesex subsidy roll record at the National Archives in London. This document also contains LoC documentation of the Banks collection.

Middlesex Ossulstone hundred subsidy roll - 1621

National Archives E 179 database documentation (PDF, 215 KB)

An interesting article on rolls, rotulets, parchment, etc., which I came across in my preparation for the PRO. (PDF, 22 KB)

Banks’s transcription of the 1621 Ossulstone hundred subsidy roll, up to the end of the Rosemary Lane section, from Banks’s “London Subsidies” in the Banks gen. coll. at LoC. (PDF, 9.6 MB)

Pictures of E 179/142/279, etc. (the subsidy roll rotulets)

I’ve incorporated here parts of my notes for the day (20 April 2009). Some of what I was told by the archivists does not seem relevant, and so has not been included. All of the pictures included here are unprocessed (not even rotated properly)—straight from my digital camera’s flash card. (The picures are in JPEG format, about 2 to 3 MB apiece.)

This first set of pictures is of E 179/142/279, taken at my table using my own camera and a fluoresent lamp for illumination. The use of your own camera is permitted at the National Archives, but not with photoflash illumination. There were about 8 or 9 copystands in the room, but I wanted to take handheld pictures, to begin. Usually I braced an elbow on the table. Better (copystand) pictures of rotulets 4d and 5f may be found below (images IMG_0085.JPG to IMG_0090.JPG).

IMG_0057.JPG: The roll as I received it, straight on, with the PRO cover in place.

IMG_0058.JPG: Ditto, a sharper picture.

IMG_0059.JPG: Ditto, but from one end.

IMG_0060.JPG: Ditto, from the other end.

IMG_0061.JPG: The roll with the PRO cover removed, straight on.

IMG_0062.JPG: Ditto, but from one end.

IMG_0063.JPG: Ditto, but from the other end.

IMG_0064.JPG: The roll unrolled, to show the first rotulet. The cover was stitched to the top. A room guard gave me lead weights covered with cloth, to hold the scroll open (the roll was very springy, and wanted dearly to roll back up).

IMG_0065.JPG: Another shot of the same.

IMG_0066.JPG: Rotulet (page) 4 dorse (back side), bottom, showing the heading “Copt hall and / Wappinge”. The dorse side of a rotulet is shinier than the face side. The dorse side is actually easier to read, since the face side seems somewhat erased.

IMG_0067.JPG: A better (flatter) shot of the bottom of 4d, but not showing the bottom of the page.

IMG_0068.JPG: A shot showing the bottom of 4d and the top of 5f (face).

IMG_0069.JPG: The top of 5f, headed “Copthall and / Wappinge adhuc” (meaning “still Copthall and Wappinge”).

IMG_0070.JPG: The bottom of 5f, to the tear (about 1/3 down), showing 6f underneath. The lead snake is holding the page down flat. You can see the heading “Holliwell Streete” on 6f, under a “Summa . . .”.

IMG_0071.JPG: The bottom part of 5d, from the tear to “Summa . . .” I don’t seem to have a picture showing the very top of 5d (at the top of the tear). There was the hint of a heading there—a fraction of a letter or so in bold print.

IMG_0072.JPG: The top part of 6f (“Shordich” is buried in the binding—and apparently, from the NA documentation, “S Leonard” was above that—I didn’t notice). Notice that the top half of the entries are for “Lands.” (The bottom half are for “Goods.”)

IMG_0073.JPG: The near-top part of 6f (“Goods”).

IMG_0074.JPG: The middle part of 6f (“Holliwell Streete”).

IMG_0075.JPG: The part of 4d above “Copt hall and Wappinge,” the part for “Rosemary Lane.”

IMG_0076.JPG: What I wanted to show here is how ultraviolet light, at an angle, improves the readability dramatically. This image fails to show it, though. Most of the names I was able to read were read with the help of ultraviolet illumination. An archivist gave me the lamp early in the day, and I was permitted to use it all day. I audio-recorded that archivist reading the names for Copt hall and Wappinge on page 4d. He had a knack for reading this old script.

This next set of images is for E 179/143/410. The documentation for the E 179/142/279 database stated that “The present third rotulet of E 179/143/410 should be inserted as the missing foot of the fifth rotulet of E 179/142/179. I was confident that the name “Roger Terrill” would be on this third rotulet.

IMG_0077.JPG: The document as I received it, in a PRO cover.

IMG_0078.JPG: The document with the PRO cover removed, showing the inside cover.

IMG_0079.JPG: The document with the inside cover removed, showing rotulet 1f.

IMG_0080.JPG: Rotulet 3f (or is it 3d). I did not find the name “Roger Terrill” here. The top heading reads “White chaffish? adhuc” (meaning “still White chaffish?”). The bottom heading, just above the tear appears to read “Noztonfol____e.” (Apparently, these were “Whitechappel adhuc” and “Nortonfolgate.”)

IMG_0081.JPG: Another shot of 3f, closer in.

IMG_0082.JPG: Rotulet 3d (or is it 3f). Again, I could not find the name “Roger Terrill.”

At this point I was beginning to doubt that rotulet 3 of E 179/143/410 is actually the missing foot of rotulet 5 of E 179/142/279. The tear did not seem right, based on my memory of the previous document (the National Archives policy is to let you have only one document at a time). I viewed the tiny image on my digital camera screen, but it was hard to decide, based on that. I asked the document retrieval people if I could be permitted to look at E 179/142/279 and E 179/143/410 at the same time, because of my doubts, and they permitted it, clearing it with the guard. I compared rotulet 5 of the former with rotulet 3 of the latter, and the tears did not appear to me to be a match. I asked an archivist (the second of three archivists I spoke to this day) to examine the tears herself, but she informed me that it was outside her jurisdiction to advise me—that I should submit a database error report. My own opinion, though, is the latter rotulet part is definitely NOT the missing foot of the former rotulet part.

IMG_0083.JPG: The back cover of E 179/143/410, showing a note.

IMG_0084.JPG: A close-up of the note: “This has been mistakenly repaired as if it were an integral document, whereas it is only a sorting accumulation of loose membranes or folios made by T. [M.] G[reen] during the sorting of K. R. records at the Careon(?) Ride Office in the 1840s or 1850s. All the membranes should be restored to their parent documents when these are reconstituted properly. / C A Fth(?) / 25 Apr. 1965”

The following images are of E 179/142/279, on a copy stand, to improve the quality of the photocopy. By this time all of the copy stands were in use, except for one in a far corner, on which a camera was mounted. I removed the camera and mounted my own.

IMG_0085.JPG: Rotulet 5 face, top, leftish.

IMG_0086.JPG: 5f, top, rightish.

IMG_0087.JPG: 5f, middle (to tear), rightish. 6f shows below the tear.

IMG_0088.JPG: 5f, middle (to tear), leftish.

IMG_0089.JPG: Rotulet 4 dorse, bottom. I was pressing down on the binding a bit, to try to get the whole page flattish, and thus in better focus as a whole.

IMG_0090.JPG: 4d, bottom, again, to make sure I got the bottom of the page.

At this point I had to turn the copy stand over to the person who was using it before me, who had returned with a large book which he wanted to copy, and was impatient for me to finish. I asked for his help, so that he wouldn’t have to wait so long. He commented that the rotulet was early 17th century. I replied that it was, indeed, and asked if he could read it. He said that he could. I aksed if his reading services were for hire, and he said “no, sorry.”

I scanned through all 18 rotulets in E 179/142/279, looking for “Roger Terrill,” and did not spot his name, although many pages were extremely difficult to read.

I had submitted a photocopy request earlier in the day to a person from the special photocopy department downstairs (he came up to talk to me and look over the situation). He was leaving early, so he gave me the name of Paul ____, and his phone number, so that I could hand over the documents at the end of the day. I called Paul, and he came up and looked over the situation himself. I asked them to photocopy E 179/142/279 rotulet 4d, from “Copt hall” down, and all of rotulet 5f (the torn rotulet). I asked them to use ultraviolet illumination, but they told me that although they used to do this, they were no longer permitted, for safety reasons. So I asked Paul to do the best he could, without saturating any part of any image, either high or low. The National Archives will send these photocopies to me.

Postscript (26 July 2011): I actually received that photocopy from The National Archives on 29 Apr. 2009, but it came with the warning, “This delivery note does not constitute a right to use” (after I had paid a substantial amount for the photocopy!), so I dared not publish it. It was certainly a very nice photocopy, and I think they must have found a way to flood-illiminate the rotulet with ultraviolet light during the exposure period, since it’s fairly readable. However, now the entire issue is moot since we’ve discovered that the overall problem is that Banks’s Genealogical Notes pointed us to the wrong scroll (see our article “Roger Terrell in the 1624/5 Ossulstone hundred subsidy roll”).