Harrower Family Tree » William Noble (1791-1849)

Personal data William Noble 

• He was born in the year 1791 in Roxburghshire, Scotland.Source 2
• Occupations:
• in the year 1836 Mole Catcher: marriage of daughter Margaret.Source 3
• in the year 1841 Mole Catcher in Roxburgh Street, Westside, Kelso, Roxburghshire, Scotland.Source 2
• in the year 1824 Mole Catcher; birth of son, William.Source 4
• Resident:
• in the year 1841: Roxburgh Street, Westside, Kelso, Roxburghshire, Scotland.Source 2
• in the year 1836: Kelso, Roxburghshire, Scotland.Source 3
• on July 31, 1836: Kelso, Roxburghshire, Scotland.Source 1
• (Male Heads of Families) in the year 1836 in Kelso, Roxburghshire, Scotland: Male Heads of families 1836 (NRS Reference: CH2/1173/61 pp. 15-27).Source 5

  Rolls of Male Heads of Families
  In 1834, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed the Veto Act, removing the absolute right of landowners to appoint ministers to their parish. The Act gave male heads of families who were communicants with the parish the right to veto the appointment of a new minister if a majority of them objected. To this end, the Assembly instructed kirk sessions to draw up rolls of the male heads of families in each parish. We have transcribed the surviving rolls, and are publishing them here. They are significant as they pre-date the earliest nominal census, which took place in 1841.

• (Male Heads of Families) in the year 1835 in Kelso, Roxburghshire, Scotland: Male Heads of families 1835 (NRS Reference: CH2/1173/61 pp. 1-13).Source 6

  Rolls of Male Heads of Families
  In 1834, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed the Veto Act, removing the absolute right of landowners to appoint ministers to their parish. The Act gave male heads of families who were communicants with the parish the right to veto the appointment of a new minister if a majority of them objected. To this end, the Assembly instructed kirk sessions to draw up rolls of the male heads of families in each parish. We have transcribed the surviving rolls, and are publishing them here. They are significant as they pre-date the earliest nominal census, which took place in 1841.

• He died on December 28, 1849 in Kelso, Roxburghshire, Scotland, he was 58 years old.Source 7
• He is buried on December 31, 1849 in Kelso Churchyard, Kelso, Roxburghshire, Scotland.Source 7

  1849 NOBLE, WILLIAM (Old Parish Registers Deaths 793/ 100 55 Kelso) 1849 NOBLE, WILLIAM (Old Parish Registers Deaths 793/ 100 55 Kelso)

Household of William Noble

He is married to Agnes Hush.

They got married

Child(ren):

1. Margaret Noble  ± 1815-1879 
2. William Noble  1823-????
3. Thomas Noble  ± 1819-1875
4. Agnes Noble  ± 1825-1893 
5. Betsy Noble  1821-????

Notes about William Noble

1. There is no record of marriage on Scotlands People for William Noble and Agnes Hush.

2. This may be his death record - 1849 NOBLE, WILLIAM (Old Parish Registers Deaths 793/ 100 55 Kelso)

3. BLACK GOLD©
Where have all the molecatchers gone?

The rise and fall of the British molecatcher
[a brief explanation]
by Jeff Nicholls

At the end of the 1700's and throughout the whole of the 1800's the British countryside was peppered with a mysterious character. A solitary figure that roamed across fields and down lanes in search of an eve n more mysterious creature-the mole. They were the mole catchers. At one time a respected position to hold within a parish, travelling molecatchers visited farms and estates where they were given free board and lodgings in return for the strange skill they processed. It was a skill that was cloaked further in mystery with their decline to teach others, a father may pass down to a son to ensure an income to a family but to share the knowledge was to divide the earnings. So if these custodians of the countryside had it so good where did they come from, and where have they gone? The beginning of the end. There were many changes to British agriculture towards the end of the 1700's and the first part of the 1800's from the demand to feed an ever increasing population. This demand for food was met by new farming techniques, crop rotation, land reclamation new crops and higher numbers of stock animals.This new efficient farming produced wealthy farmers who had already with the implemented Enclosure act in 1801 taken the strips of land from the peasants. New mechanised farming by horse and shortly after, steam reduced the labour requirements. Along side all these changes industry was also increasing with better roads and railways making it possible for the now plentiful produce to be sent to the ever growing towns. Farming communities were forced to follow and to work in industry, exchanging the fresh smell of hay for the foul taste of progress. Very soon more people were living in the towns than in the country. Those that stayed lived a life of hardship and poverty, many became the victims of the poor act and the lists of the workhouse unions contain many names bearing the title "agricultural worker." Whilst all this turmoil was changing the face of the British countryside the solitary molecatcher was busy about his work. Work that was to become more and more in demand from the very changes that had bought about the decline of others. The national census that was begun in 1801 and maintained every ten years there after provides an indication to the locations of many molecatchers, during these difficult times. We can see that they were evenly spread across the country with pockets of small numbers where the work was plentiful. Their work ranged from the now large farms and estates that had grown from the changes, to the request to remove moles from parish land such as church yards, gardens of the rich and water barriers like those found in the Fenland areas . The molecatchers were be coming the richest peasants in the Shires. For the moles they caught was black gold, paid for each mole they produced, their trading was not done. Moleskin had many other uses, it was fashionable to wear fur and moleskin adorned many from the rich to the poor, plumbers made pipe joints smooth with a wipe of a mole, the molecatchers also had a lucrative fur trade. So just how prosperous were molecatchers? The Victorian wages recorded during the 1800's fails to document those of molecatchers, probably because it was as closely a guarded secret as the work itself. We can however find evidence from private bill heads and parish records the sums of money that were changing hands. The Parish molecatcher was employed on an agreed contract for a specified period of time, anything up to 21 years. For this he would have been paid an annual sum, £10-00 and most molecatchers would work three or four neighbouring parishes. This work was augmented by farms and estates who would pay on average a further 10 shillings for their control, other individuals with land and of course the sale of the skins filled the molecatchers pockets. At a time when the annual recorded wages for agricultural labourers was £30-00, teachers £40-00 and government low wage workers £46-00, the molecatchers were obviously in a very profitable business. The travelling mole catchers were given board and lodgings and paid for their services, they had regular farms that they would visit, stay a few weeks then move on to the next. Farmers now with a large acreage to tend and sizable flocks to feed required the moles to be removed, as their mole hills contaminated fodder crops and rendered land unusable . It has been recorded that many agricultural workers supplemented their income by catching moles in any spare time that they could find and the poachers also were quick to steal moles from any traps they stumbled upon. The real skill was in the hands of the molecatchers. These extraordinary individuals, who were as secretive as the creature they sought and just as wily. It was all strengthened by the strange superstit ions that have been attached to moles. A pair of moles large front feet worn round the neck prevented rheumatism and should a mole tunnel around a property it foretold a death in the household, a superstition that would demand the attention of the local molecatcher. So if the molecatchers had it so good, where have they all gone? The traditional molecatchers were some what to blame for their own downfall, the silence and mystery with which they cloaked the craft, preventing others from the knowledge paved the way for those to compete with them following the discovery and introduction of the poison Strychnine. Despite its indiscriminate risk of poisoning it provided a cheaper control that required none of the knowledge or respect of the molecatcher. A new breed of eradicator was born the "Mole Killer." No proof to the works completed could be shown, no wisdom of the mole was important, only a jar of worms soaked in the deadly substance dropped into the moles tunnels until the digging stopped. The mole killers could take life at a lower cost to that of the molecatchers, in the new economic world of agriculture where the farmers were growing fat the opportunity for any saving to increase profits was seized. Not all landowners were quick to change, where savings had to be made like parish accounts the molecatchers were under an agreed term of employment, and therefore had some income which was still supported by the sale of skins. It was the demand for mole skin, a commodity that mole killers could not supply that enabled many of the molecatchers to remain in business. Many had to reduce their costs of catching moles but this was added to by the increase in price they could ask for mole skins. The location a molecatcher worked was to become vital to whether they were to survive. Those that worked areas close to major towns almost certainly had an outlet for their mole skins, but towns also provided a retail source for Strychnine. Molecatchers working the parishes surrounding the towns often had confrontation with new mole killers spreading out from the streets of fortune. Molecatchers in the remote areas did not escape the competition from poison. It took the industrial expansion to reach these areas to change how they worked also, they had to decide whether it was necessary to change codes and become a molekiller or struggle to survive. It is clear that strychnine had an immense effect on the molecatchers of the British Isles but prior to this how did they provide such a challenging service, what was some of the mysteries that molecatchers held so close to their hearts, and how did they battle with the creature in the velvet jacket? Mans quest to control moles has been an ongoing battle for centuries, the method of that control has changed very little in that time. Traditional molecatchers have always used traps, a method necessary to permit them to produce the mole as evidence of the completed task and retain the moleskin for sale.These traps have changed very little. We know Molecatchers peppered the whole of the Country so it is another mystery as to how they became to share a knowledge at a time of little travel. They learnt how moles lived, their habits, how they breed and of how to make devices to catch them. It is strange also that these devices or traps are of the same design and constructed in the same way. This was obviously a knowledge that has been around for along time. Long enough for it to cross the country from coast to coast, through shire to shire and to reach the remotest of settlements and localities. Part of this craft was the need to assemble these devices or traps, to create the tools of their trade from any materials that could be adapted to the task. The old molecatchers would spend many hours collecting materials from the copses. Hazel, willow, and elder was cut, this along with string, wire and small blocks of wood they could create a device of capture. These traps changed with time in the materials used to make them, design changes also were made. Barrel shaped traps made from clay and then wood employed the skills of other countryside craftsmen. The earthenware trap used by many a molecatchers fore-father of that time was moulded by local potters. The potters proficient in making everyday utensils were instructed to make traps from coarse earthenware, a mixture of clay and grog, the old ground up fired pots. They were not fired or glazed and so were slightly porous which all owed any strange smells to alert the moles extra sensitive senses to their presence. The molecatchers knowledge of this provided another mystery as why no one else could catch the moles using these traps. The molecatcher would ensure he never tainted his traps, a practice that has been passed down since, if somewhat un-necessarily with other non porous materials. The fragile nature of these traps made them uneconomical until the timber copies appeared. Agricultural changes did not only affect the molecatchers, towards the end of the 19th century factory made wheels started to appear, the village wheelwright was to become a page of time. The wheels of carts and wagons caringly made by the local wheelwright had a heart of elm, These centre hubs were made from elm because it is a particularly tough timber that was resilient to the wet. An ideal material for mole traps. The molecatchers realising a stronger version of barrel trap was available turned to the now struggling wheelwright who had the tools and skill to produce a wooden copy. Still the competition from the molekillers existed, this modern substance of demise was slowly spreading across the country ,those landowners loyal to the old ways stood by the molecatchers. They in turn became even more closed lipped on the knowledge they were gifted with. It was important for them to better their services, the wooden trap was fitted with a metal spring allowing more time to be spent in neighbouring areas, without loss of a captured mole, previous traps required the power of a bent stick referred to as a mole stick for use. Better yields resulted, more moles were displayed for the landowners, as proof of the work completed. Mole killers failing to produce evidence were faced with confrontation, accusations of poisoning and providing a dishonest service. The mole killers responded by broadening their services, providing control of rats and other vermin. Unlike the dedicated molecatchers who had specialised in moles for centuries, the mole killers were quick to expand. Those molecatchers who remained loyal to the old ways were rewarded by the development of new traps. A scissor trap designed to catch moles, powered by its own spring and constructed from steel became commercially available. Another mole trap made famous by its name also appeared - The Duffus trap. The invention of a Scottish shepherd it has become the trap of the British molecatcher. These traps provided the molecatchers with cheap, disposable tools, capable of killing moles. They could be set quickly and required the same knowledge in use as the traps of their fore fathers. The life of molecatchers has changed very little over a long period of time and it seems it will remain for many years to come as changes in this modern world return to the ways of the old. Restrictions now prevent many methods for mole control, new restrictions may prevent mole control in the future, what will never change is a mysterious knowledge that has survived time, and provided another character of the British countryside.

2. Rolls of Male Heads of Families
In 1834, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed the Veto Act, removing the absolute right of landowners to appoint ministers to their parish. The Act gave male heads of families who were communicants with the parish the right to veto the appointment of a new minister if a majority of them objected. To this end, the Assembly instructed kirk sessions to draw up rolls of the male heads of families in each parish. We have transcribed the surviving rolls, and are publishing them here. They are significant as they pre-date the earliest nominal census, which took place in 1841.Rolls of Male Heads of Families
In 1834, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed the Veto Act, removing the absolute right of landowners to appoint ministers to their parish. The Act gave male heads of families who were communicants with the parish the right to veto the appointment of a new minister if a majority of them objected. To this end, the Assembly instructed kirk sessions to draw up rolls of the male heads of families in each parish. We have transcribed the surviving rolls, and are publishing them here. They are significant as they pre-date the earliest nominal census, which took place in 1841.

Do you have supplementary information, corrections or questions with regards to William Noble?
The author of this publication would love to hear from you!