• BIRTH: ABT 1682
• DEATH: [105]

[106] Current research has established the Catley line back to William

[107] Catley, who married Catherine Barret at Kirton in Lindsey on 9
Aug

[108] 1739. It is known that this couple, together with their four
children,

[109] were subject of a sucessful settlement examination at Harbrough
in

[110] 1750 which established their right to legal settlement in that
parish.

[111] The documentation reveals that William previously had settlement

[112] rights at Broughton - on this point I am not clear as to whether

[113] Broughton was William's native parish of birth or simply the
parish in

[114] which he last had settlement entitlement. In any event he
clearly had

[115] issue baptized at Broughton. In searching for a possible baptism
match

[116] for William I have cast an eye over to Kirton in Lindsey, which
lies a

[117] little under 6 miles to the south of Broughton, where on 24 Sep
1709

[118] (06-22-001-01A / 1708-1766) the baptism took place of 'William

[119] Catley', son of William and Mary. First thoughts are that if he
is our

[120] man, then at the time of his marriage to Catherine Barret (or
perhaps

[121] it should be Barrett or even Barratt), he would have been
approaching

[122] his 30th birthday, which I think is quite acceptable for the
period.

[123] Curiously the Lincolnshire Poor Law Index carries a reference to
a

[124] William Catley and his wife undergoing a settlement examination
at

[125] Kirton in 1707; the couple having arrived there from Caenby. It
would

[126] seem likely that this couple are identical to the William Catley
and

[127] Sarah Arnel (or Arnold) who were married at Pilham on 24 Apr
1696. I

[128] think it unlikely that there could have been two William snr's
on the

[129] go at Kirton, hence, either the baptism entry for William in
1709

[130] should read 'Sarah' instead of Mary, or alternatively Sarah had
died

[131] and William remarried! At the moment I have an open mind on the

[132] validity of Kirton as the source of origin for our man. Other

[133] discrepencies aside a further possible element of doubt arises
from

[134] the 'Broughton' reference in the Harbrough settlement
examination if

[135] it relates to William's native parish.

[105] Y