Introduction
If we thought this was going to be a simple task we were soon to be disappointed because after many weeks of searching we were still no closer to locating the elusive William. We had heard from an Aunt that he was known to move about the county and Dorothy began to refer to him as 'Wandering William', a name he has been stuck with ever since.
In checking the various records to locate 'Wandering William', we took note of all the other 'Cufflins' we came across, which has resulted in a large number of records being compiled and, as a consequence, a few more families of Cufflins. We now look forward to the day when they will all fit together.
Our next stage was to contact all the 'Cufflins' listed in the Leicester telephone directory, some 26 or so, hoping to obtain some information which would help us to link up our family group but of those who replied it seemed they all belonged to different families. It must also be said that we did experience some reluctance from a few of our contacts to speak about their families which tended to give the impression that perhaps they had 'something to hide'? The more likely reason of course probably goes back to the not so distant past when children were expected to be 'seen and not heard' or were told when enquiring, to 'ask no questions and you'll be told no lies'.
Thankfully many did reply giving us a great deal of information and one of the first to contact us was David Braden Cufflin of Leicester, who sent us a copy of his parents marriage certificate and his fathers birth certificate, he was also orphaned at an early age when his father Samuel Henry Clement Cufflin was killed in 1915 at the battle of Loos. David was very keen to know more about his family but we found it equally difficult to link him with other Cufflins or to gain any additional information.
However, with the publication of the 1891 census we were able to check 13 Larch Street, Leicester which was the address from which my grandfather, William Frederick Cufflin, was married in 1894. There we found two Samuel's and three Williams. The head of the house, Samuel, turned out to be David's grandfather who was living with his two sons, Samuel (Davids father) and William. The other two Williams were 'Wandering William', the brother of the first Samuel, and his son, my grandfather, but there was no trace of Dorothy's grandfather who would have been about 12 at that time. However, when checking the 1891 Census for Sileby we found that Dorothy's grandfather John Henry Cufflin was living with an Uncle, the brother of our Great Grandmother Alice Smith.
Since those early days of 1988 we have made much progress with Dorothy making additional contacts with three other Cufflin Researchers. This was mainly achieved as a result of writing to Cufflins listed in various telephone directories, who had themselves recorded details of their respective branches of the family, but it still remains for us to make our final connection with them.
One part of our research which gave an insight into the conditions of the time was the number of infant and early deaths which we came across. For example, of the 45 members of the family buried at Welford Road Cemetery between the years 1859-1899: 19 died under the age of 2 years; 8 aged 2 to 20; and 3 aged 20 to 30 years; leaving only 15 who survived beyond the age of 30.
Another 'sign of the times' was indicated in the 1851 Census which shows that William Cufflin aged 10, of Ratby was an inmate of the 'Union Workhouse' at Market Bosworth and a record of burials at Ratby shows that on 30th June 1856 William Cufflin of Market Bosworth was buried aged 14 years. What kind of life he must have had can only be guessed at.
Census Returns The census returns, which gave the ages of residents, the relationship to the head of the household as well as the place of birth, were found to be very useful, particularly when common names were used, which seemed to be in some cases almost habitual. This often occurred within the same family, following say, the early death of a child, when perhaps there was a desire to carry on a family name.
We noted a number of entries consisting of grandchildren and other relatives living and working within the family home in what could be described as the 'family business', particularly Framework Knitters, where they were employed mainly from the age of 12 but in some instances included children as early as 9 years old.
Anstey Leicestershire We have traced our family group to the village of Anstey which is situated about five miles to the north west of Leicester where the earliest family record we have found so far is 1742. The Old English spelling for the village is Anstiga meaning 'a path for one or a narrow path'. In the Domesday Book it is spelt Anstige and the 1841 census has the spelling 'Ansty' but by 1851 this is changed to the present day Anstey. One writer claims that this was to distinguish it from the village of Ansty near Coventry.
Other family groups have been set in Ratby, Swithland and Mountsorrel but the earliest records we have found are at Blaby (1565), Ratby (1660) and Aylestone (1683), where the Constables Accounts for 1672-1710 contain the entry for 1683-84:-
To John Cufflin for killing of three foxes.... 1s 0d.
Anstey will always have a place in history resulting from the actions of an allegedly half witted apprentice by the name of Ned Ludd. It was Ned Ludd, who, by smashing up two stocking frames in a fit, later gave his name to the Luddite movement. The 'Luddites' became active around 1811-1818 but ceased following a court case when one of the gang gave evidence for the prosecution with the result that six of their leaders were hanged and three transported for life to Australia.
The following extract from the Leicester Mercury in 1874 also hints at unruliness in the village around the 1870's causing parishioners 'of influence and enlightenment' to promote the implementation of the Elementary Education Act.
"Anstey has been known in times past as one of the least "ruly" of all the villages around Leicester. To what causes that reputation has been ascribed, we are hardly able to say; but probably the chief has been the absence of good educational agencies in the district. Toryism has long reigned supreme in it and Toryism distrusts the education of the people - believing they should be kept in bondage by squires and parsons. In consequence, the working classes have grown up in ignorance, poverty, suffering and discontent; while, had they been instructed, they might have become intelligent, provident and comparatively happy. Under these circumstances, it has occurred to persons of influence and enlightenment, resident in the parish, to attempt the introduction of the Elementary Education Act in a spirit of fairness to all sects and parties and with due regard to the equal rights of all religious denominations. From the day the school doors opened, a new era of improvement and progress began".
Framework Knitting Hand knitting was introduced into Great Britain in the 15th century. In 1589 a Nottinghamshire parson, William Lee, invented the mechanical frame. The new technique was first employed in London, where the Framework Knitting Company came to have a monopoly for a while. Subsequently the industry developed in Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire. Sundry other devices were invented, notably Strutt's ribbing machine in 1758, and Brunel's circular frame in 1816. An important innovation was William Cotton's patent in 1869 which permitted an automatic increase or decrease in the number of stitches required to produce a fashioned garment.
Stockingers, or Handframe Knitters formed an important part in the life of the North Leicestershire villages during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Yarn was obtained from merchants who in a number of cases also rented out the frames. At the end of each week the finished goods would be taken to the merchants and new yarn obtained. This was sometimes carried out by a middleman known as a bag hosier, or bagman. The frames were situated in the home or in some cases in outside sheds or 'shops'
Framework knitting appeared to be the main area of employment in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries with the stocking frames situated in the house, thus giving all the members of the household the opportunity, of necessity in many cases, to contribute to the family income. The knitting would generally be carried out by the husband with the wife doing the seaming and the children winding the wool on to the bobbins.
As the demand for knitted goods increased more frames were installed in new factories and house extensions.
There was a period of relative prosperity from the 1780's up until the time of the Napoleonic wars (1803-1815) when high taxation, the disrupted market and the development of the stocking frame caused high stocks of finished goods to be held and wages to be reduced. As a consequence of this, the 'Luddites' went about at night smashing the stocking and lace making frames in the factories. This was particularly so in the Nottingham area where large sums of money, as much as Fifty Guineas, were being offered as reward to anyone giving information which secured a conviction. Heathcoat's lace factory in Loughborough was one particular place which was attacked by a group of Nottinghamshire Luddites burning the lace and destroying nearly all of the fifty-five machines. As noted earlier one of the gang later turned King's evidence and after a widely publicised trial in Leicester six men were hanged and three transported for life.
On the loss of his factory in 1816, Heathcoat moved to Devon and was MP for Tiverton from 1832 to 1859. He died in 1861
Wellingtons victory at Waterloo in 1815 was followed by a period of deep economic depression and the plight of the framework knitter continued. By 1843 conditions had become so bad that a petition to Parliament was signed by twenty five thousand framework knitters asking for a commission of enquiry. The petition was granted and the parliamentary commission shows that wages had fallen from fourteen shillings (70p) to seven shillings (35p) for a full weeks work of fifteen hours per day. Out of this had to be paid frame rent, heating and lighting, tools and frame repairs. Other costs had to be paid for seaming and winding if this was not carried out by another member of the family. During this time the boot and shoe industry was being developed in Anstey and Whites Directory shows that from the single manufacturer listed in 1863 this had risen to four in 1870 and no less than seventeen Wholesale and Export Boot and Shoe Manufacturers by 1896.
Origins of the Cufflin name William Cufflin Jnr. of West Corvina USA, who has traced his family roots back to Ralph and Margaret Cufflin at Blaby, has been researching the Cufflins' for some twenty five years and has sent us some valuable data. Among the information that he has given us are the notes on the origins of the Cufflin name which are reprinted below.
MacCoghlan, O'Coughlan, (Cohalan) There are two quite distinct septs of Coughlan, one being MacCoughlan (MacCochlain) of Offaly and the other O'Coughlan (O'Cochlain) of Co. Cork-- who were not the same, it should be observed, as O'Cathalain (anglice Cohalan and Culhane) also of that county. Down to the eighteenth century the former were far the more important of the two, but since then they have dwindled and become dispersed. The MacCoughlan country comprised the modern barony of Garrycastle, Co. Offaly, where they had many strong castles in the Banagher-Clonmacnois area: no less than ten of these are mentioned in the sixteenth century by the four masters. The head of the sept, which was by origin Dalcassian, was known as Chief of Delvin MacCoughlan (to be distinguished from Delvin or Delvin Mor in Co. Westmeath). Sir John MacCoughlan, so styled, died in 1590. They are prominent in the annals from the twelfth century; and even after the destruction of the Gaelic order the family remained influential in their native territory for nearly two centuries. A MacCoughlan represented Banagher in the Irish Parliament of 1689 and another held the same seat in 1790. In 1665 two McCoughlans possessed 3,400 acres in Co. Offaly. In 1828 they were still found as landlords at Cloghan, near Banagher; but fifty years later they were no longer there.
The Coughlans of Co. Cork belonged to the baronies of Carbery and Ballymore where they are today, they were numerous at the time of Petty's census. Even then the prefix 'O' had, in their case, already been almost entirely lost.
The following are taken from copies of correspondence between William Cufflin Jnr. of West Corvina USA and a local newspaper;
Dear Miss Rule: I have traced the name Cufflin to London, England in the early 1800's.-- W. C., West Corvina.
W. C.: Cufflin is an English spelling of the Irish surname Coughlin. Irish families have continually migrated to England for centuries, which explains your family's background in the 19th century. Coughlan and Cufflin began as the descriptive name MacCochlain, meaning "Son of the man wearing a cape." The family ancestor was the recipient of the name given him by his neighbours, engendered by his unusual mode of dress. The powerful family ancestor, Cochlan, who died in 1053, was Lord of the Barony of Garrycastle in County Offaly. The family coat-of-arms has two silver combatant lions on a red shield.
Certainly there were movements of the Irish into the county as this extract from the records of the Borough of Leicester for 1377-8 shows.
Box 9, No 204 [1377-8] Leic. Note of divers profits arising from divers causes and received by Robert Horninglow and John Prentice, bailiffs of the aforesaid town from Michaelmas 1 Ric II to Michaelmas next following.
For Fees taken and Suits (The fees were probably from strangers for leave to trade.)
From fee and suit taken...
...from three men from Ireland 1s.
The Cufflings It was interesting, but not particularly surprising, to note the number of times a 'g' had been added to the name at various times. This no doubt can be put down to the lack of literacy when many documents such as marriage certificates were signed 'X his (her) mark'. It was often being added at one census and dropped at another but we know of a number of cases where this has become a permanent feature. In the Swithland branch of the family for instance the Cuffling name has been carried on in Canada to the present day and in Yorkshire there are Cufflings descended from the Ratby Cufflins.
I can recall as a ten year old being inclined to the view that a 'g' or possibly a 'k' was missing from the name and a number of people we have spoken to have recalled having similar problems when at school so we do not find the spelling variations surprising. We are however quite certain that regardless of how the name is spelt we are all of the same family origin be it Cuflin, Cufflin or Cuffling. There is also the possibility that Cuff, Cuffy's and Cuffley's may be related but this has not so far been established
We have copies of three marriage certificates, and one birth certificate each involving the added 'g'.
The first of these relates to the marriage certificate of our great grandfather William. Both William and his father, Henry have the spelling 'Cuffling' as also is William's signature. However there is no sign of the 'g' being used on my grandfathers birth certificate some four years later in 1876.
The second is the marriage certificate of David Braden Cufflin's father Samuel Henry Clement Cufflin, again both Samuel and his father Samuel have had their surname spelt with an added 'g' but in their case these have both been corrected by a crossing out, and a note to this effect appended in the margin.
The third involves the Yorkshire branch of the family and the marriage and birth certificates of Charles Cuffling. He was the son of Enoch Cuffling, a coal miner and were descendants of William Cufflin of Ratby.
Throughout these notes the tendency (if any) has been to ignore the 'g', hopefully without causing any offence. The 1994 Leicester Telephone Directory did not list any Cuffling's.
So who's related to who ? We have been asked on occasions what the relationship is between different members of the family to whom we have come into contact with and the following table should be able to show this for practically everyone, assuming of course that there is a relationship in the first place.
It is necessary first, to find an ancestor who is common to them both [CA]. That having been done, the relationship to [CA] of the first person should be established along the top line and the relationship of the second person (to CA) down the first column. By completing the square, the relationship of the first person to the second person can be shown.
For example, the relationship between a second Gt. Grandson (E1), and a Gt. Grandson (4A), is shown at E4 below as a second Cousin once removed.
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | |
| 1 | CA | S | GS | GGS | 2GGS | 3GGS | 4GGS | 5GGS | 6GGS | 7GGS |
| 2 | S | B | N | GN | GGN | 2GGN | 3GGN | 4GGN | 5GGN | 6GGN |
| 3 | GS | U | C | 1C1R | 1C2R | 1C3R | 1C4R | 1C5R | 1C6R | 1C7R |
| 4 | GGS | GU | 1C1R | 2C | 2C1R | 2C2R | 2C3R | 2C4R | 2C5R | 2C6R |
| 5 | 2GGS | GGU | 1C2R | 2C1R | 3C | 3C1R | 3C2R | 3C3R | 3C4R | 3C5R |
| 6 | 3GGS | 2GGU | 1C3R | 2C2R | 3C1R | 4C | 4C1R | 4C2R | 4C3R | 4C4R |
| 7 | 4GGS | 3GGU | 1C4R | 2C3R | 3C2R | 4C1R | 5C | 5C1R | 5C2R | 5C3R |
| 8 | 5GGS | 4GGU | 1C5R | 2C4R | 3C3R | 4C2R | 5C1R | 6C | 6C1R | 6C2R |
| 9 | 6GGS | 5GGU | 1C6R | 2C5R | 3C4R | 4C3R | 5C2R | 6C1R | 7C | 7C1R |
| 10 | 7GGS | 6GGU | 1C7R | 2C6R | 3C5R | 4C4R | 5C3R | 6C2R | 7C1R | 8C |
| Key | |||||
| CA | Common Ancestor | S | Son or Daughter | ||
| GS | Grandson | GGS | Great Grandson | ||
| 2GGS | 2nd Gt. Grandson | B | Brother or Sister | ||
| N | Nephew or Niece | U | Uncle or Aunt | ||
| GN | Grand Nephew | GU | Grand or Great Uncle | ||
| C | First Cousin | 2C | 2nd Cousin | ||
| 1C1R | 1st Cousin once Removed | 4C2R | 4th Cousin twice Removed | ||
Calendars A few words on the changes to the calendar over the past centuries is worth a mention as some dates can be confusing. For example someone born on the 30th March 1700 would be almost a year older than someone born on the 20th of March 1700, this is because until 1752 New Years Day was on the 25th March. A good example of the confusion that could arise from this relates to Theothana Cufflin of Evington who was born in October 1723 but died in February 1723.
Some documents were also dated according to the year of the Monarch's reign and continued right into the 20th century so that a reference such as "3 James II" would refer to the third year of the reign of James II and cover the period 6 Feb. 1687 to 5 Feb. 1688.
In early Roman times there were only ten months in the year and the year began on March 1st. In 153 BC the months of July and August were added and New Years Day became January 1st. which explains why Sept(ember), Octo(ber), Nov(ember) and Dec(ember) became the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th months instead of, previously (as their names suggest), 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months.
Julius Caesar reformed the calendar in the year 46 BC in which the ordinary year has 365 days with every fourth year a leap year of 366 days. This remained the norm until the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar, apart from a minor change in the 12th Century when New Years Day was moved to 25th March (Lady Day)
In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII declared that the length of each year was actually 365.2422 days and in order to correct the error ten days were suppressed in 1582, so that 5th Oct. 1582 became 15th Oct., and that the centennial years, (1600,1700) etc., should only be leap years if they were divisible by 400.
In Britain however, the Gregorian Calendar was not accepted until 1752 when in order to bring Britain into line eleven days were suppressed in September 1752 and New Years Day reverted to January 1st.
The start of the Tax Year however did not keep pace with the changes but remained at March 25 and when the eleven days were suppressed this moved the start of the tax year to April 5th. This was done in order to keep a tax year of 365 days, so that a full years tax could be collected without any arguments. A further day was deleted in the 19th Century when it was realised that 1800 should not have been a leap year, hence the current starting date for tax purposes, of April 6th.