|
|
|
THE SENSICLES OF DUNSBY
LINCOLNSHIRE
By the Rev. H.R. Hindley
Addendum by Andrew Sensicle
The name Sensicle has developed from “seneschal” (Old Fr.), the word for warden, steward or bailiff of a Norman Castle. The Sensicles are descended from a Huguenot family who came over from Normandy, among many Protestant refugees who fled from France, after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by King Louis XIV of France in 1685. Many of these refugees settled in Lincolnshire and East Anglia. For several generations the Sensicles lived in the village of Dunsby, near Bourne, in South Lincolnshire, about 5 miles from Spalding. In Dunsby churchyard, I have seen the three tombstones in a row of three generations, ALL Henry Sensicles, headed by the father of the first mentioned in the family tree.
 |
|
The first-named in the family tree, Henry Sensicle (1799-1871) was coachman to the squire of Dunsby, Sir John Compton Lawrence, who, following the professional rule of H.M. judges was known as Mr. Justice Lawrence. Henry’s sixth child and only son, Henry Sensicle (1836-1882), was the village butcher. His two sons, Charles Everard (1864-1916) and Frederick (1868-1930), followed the same trade and set up business in Cardiff in 1890 and 1893 respectively. His daughter, Maud, married William Hindley, a grocer, of Hednesford, whose eldest son is the author of these biographical notes.
William Oliver (1790-1853 was a leather merchant at Long Sutton, Lincs., where he was also choirmaster of the Congregational Chapel. His fourth child and elder daughter, Emma Oliver (1829-1921), attended the Great Exhibition at he Crystal Palace, London in 1851; and was subsequently in business as a milliner at Richmond, Surrey, ten miles from London. She was well educated, being able to speak French and play the piano and was a member of the Lon Sutton Choral Society. She was a real little aristocrat, barely 5’ 4” in height and became a churchwoman on marrying Henry Sensicle (1836-1882) in 1860, for the Sensicles had been churchpeople for many generations. In their wedding procession, Henry and Emma were attended by outriders. Henry dies of Bright’s disease at the early age of 46. Emma, known by everyone as GRANDMA SENSICLE, was the outstanding personality of the family, greatly beloved by her three surviving children and fourteen grandchildren, the youngest of whom, Frederick, son of Charles Everard, died in early infancy. She lived to the ripe old age of 92, being vigorous in mind and body to the end. She died suddenly and peacefully in the arms of her daughter, Maud Hindley (1866-1947), at Hednesford, Staffordshire.
Her third brother, David, was equally vigorous in old age and skated on Whittlesea Mere, in Linc., when he was well over 80 years of age.
Addendum by Andrew Sensicle
Henry Sensicle (1868-1930) was my paternal grandfather whom I never knew as he died 8 years before my birth. He married Alice, Ethel Parker (1873-1952) and had three sons, Lawrence, John (Jack), Edwin,Oliver (Ted) and one daughter Marjorie.
John Woodward Sensicle (Jack) (1900-1990) married Edith Mary Woodward (Mollie)(1904-1980) and had a daughter Josephine Anne and two sons John Graham Woodward Sensicle and Andrew Vivian Woodward Sensicle. Jack was christened John Woodward so I assume that the “Woodward” came from Ann Woodward, Alice Parker's mother and has nothing to do with Mollie.
|
|
|
|
I wrote the following notes over ten years ago but I think they are still valid today.
Notes on the
Genetic Modification of Food.
- GM Foods, GMF’s or GMO’s genetically modified organisms.
- Frankenfoods – Frankenstein monster foods
Genetic Modification (GM) has the potential to offer huge improvements in the quality, quantity, affordability and acceptability of the worlds food supply.
However, there lurks a danger common to most human endeavours in that these benefits may be warped by unscrupulous commercialism. This might result in some form of contamination which could insinuate itself into food supply. Note the MAY, MIGHT and COULD but realise that this unknown aspect is the basis for the fear and reaction against GM.
The GM of foods may be split into two loose classes. One is the modification of a plant or animal by inserting genes from similar organisms (same family, genus or species) to produce desirable characteristics of nutrition, flavour or hardiness etc. This has been done for centuries by selective breeding and our whole spectrum of cereal grains and domestic livestock has been achieved in this manner. The process is a very slow and haphazard one typically requiring many seasons or life cycles to produce a result. GM can produce a results very rapidly and at vastly reduced cost, by selecting the desired genes from a donor and inserting them directly into the nucleus of the target organism. It seems to me that there is little risk associated with this form of GM. A good example is the conversion of the rape plant from a marginally grown animal food with a semi toxic oil into a wide ranging oil seed producing vegetable oil of excellent nutritional quality, now known as canola oil.
Another class of GM is concerned with the transfer of genes between species and is consequently much more powerful. The potential benefits to mankind are immeasurable and lie not only in food and agriculture but also in medicine. It is now possible, for example, to modify an animal so that it will directly manufacture a needed complex drug within its milk.
Some of the advantages and potential benefits of GM are:-
- Improved agricultural yields
- Resistance to disease, drought, temperature etc
- Improved nutritional characteristics
- Reduction or elimination of pesticides and insecticides
- Improved processing characteristics
- Improved keeping quality or resistance to spoilage
- Reduced cost, reduced cost, reduced cost
- And many others
At first sight, all we have to do is to reassure ourselves that the resulting food is wholesome. The reduction in the use of pesticides and insecticides for example seems to be an admirable objective. Both from the point of view of chemical residues in the food but also for the protection of the environment, it seems to be a win-win situation.
However, we must look at each case very carefully. Conventional pesticide applications are made within strict rules such that there is always a minimum time delay before the crop is harvested. This allows for the chemical to dissipate. Surveillance data indicates that in general we do a reasonable job of ensuring that pesticide residues are found in less than 1% of the crop. Scientists have now created an insect resistant crop into which has been inserted a gene coding for cryendotoxin. This toxin of course does a great job on the insects but is present in 100% of the crop. Also, the toxin being present within the crop, it does not dissipate with time. Taken together, this could result in a 1000 fold increase in the exposure to an insecticide. I don’t know the human toxicity of cryendotoxin or if there is a satisfactory explanation.
Herbicide resistant crops permit the application of weed-killers which previously would have destroyed the crop. Now, perhaps we should be testing for herbicides. Where does the responsibility lie? Are all these new agricultural development being tested and approved by government? If so, are the results being effectively communicated to consumers?
You can see that there could be many pitfalls and that, as in life, the benefits do not come without their associated risks. Greenpeace and other activists have to try to simplify the situation in order to garner support from the general public. Their “Catch-all” approach lumps together all forms of GM, and does not allow for the selective use of “safe” technologies while controls for the more risky forms are developed.
I do not believe that man has yet discovered any drug or food additive that does not have some side effects. There exists a system of testing and approval for these discoveries that has stood the test of time. The enforced labeling of GM foods will place a wet blanket of adverse public opinion on the whole avenue of development. Rather, we should ensure that the results are scrutinised by independent food professionals and that these proceedings can be challenged in a way that is open and believable to the consumer.
Andrew Sensicle
5th Oct 1999
|
|
|
The French branch of the Reformation came to be referred to as the Huguenots. In the main they followed the teachings of the French-born Reformer John Calvin. By the middle of the 1550's the first congregations became established in France, and before the decade was finished there were over 70 churches, which met for their first Synod in 1559. In 1559, a sickly fifteen year old Charles IX ascended to the throne. The government was run by his mother, Catherine Medicis. Three powerful families contended for supreme power in France. Each was territorially based in a section of the country. Two of the families developed strong Huguenot sympathies. At first, Catherine Medicis tried to promote peace between the Catholics and Protestants by granting certain privileges to the Huguenots by means of the Edict of St. Germain (1561). The peace became short-lived when on 1st March, 1562 a number of Catholics descended on a large Huguenot assembly in Vassy, killing 1200. This ignited the the Wars of Religion which would rip apart, devastate, and bankrupt France for the next three decades. By August 1570, the Regent Catherine de Medici was forced to declare the Peace of St. Germain to prevent the Huguenots from taking Paris. Their leader and spokesman, Gaspard Coligny, succeded in obtaining freedom of religious practice in all cities except Paris. Coligny was the Admiral of the French navy as well as Governor of Picardy. He joined the Protestants in 1559. The Peace of St Germain had illustrated clearly just how much power was vested in the Huguenots. The Catholics feared this power and it was decided to eliminate the Huguenots, particularly their leaders. With the marriage of Prince Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot, to Marguerite Valois (daughter of Catherine Medici) on 23rd and 24th August, 1572 a golden opportunity presented itself. It happened during the wedding, when thousands of Huguenots converged on Paris for the wedding celebrations. At some point during the night of August 23, the decision was taken at the Louvre to kill Coligny and the Huguenot leaders gathered around him. Charles IX was certainly there along with Catherine de' Medici and Henri d'Anjou. It may not have been originally intended to be a general massacre. Charles IX was reputedly badgered into this decision by Catherine and his councillors, and when he finally broke he is alleged to have said, "Well, then kill them all that no man be left to reproach me." The killing spread into the country side and lasted for 3 days. The powerful Huguenot Henry of Navarre's life was spared by pretending to support the Roman Catholic faith. Despite persecution, Protestantism continued to flourish in Orange, Uzès, and especially Nîmes even though religious battles occurred regularly. When Henry of Navarre (King Henry IV) came to the throne in 1589 he pressed for the basic civil rights for the Huguenots although he himself had turned back to Catholicism. The 1598 Edict of Nantes temporarily brought relief to the persecuted church. However, in 1685 King Louis XIV of France revoked the edict. This drove the bulk of the Huguenots out of the country. France lost so many highly skilled and industrious people in this "brain and skill drain," that its economy suffered severely. It is estimated that more than 250,000 French fled. Perhaps that many more were killed in France before they could flee. Chief of state Richelieu, whose obsession was the unification of all aspects of French society into a form approved by Paris, eventually suppressed or destroyed Huguenot communities throughout France. The bloodiest of these skirmishes was in the Atlantic coast port of La Rochelle, but also destroyed were the Provençal strongholds at Uzès and Les Baux. The holocaust continued until the French Revolution. Many Huguenots who did not find their death in local prisons or execution on the wheel of torture, were shipped to sea to serve their sentences as galley slaves. They were chained down to row galley slave ships which were not part of the French Navy (the French Navy was mostly Huguenot). The mortality rate was frightful. Few were released alive, most rowed to glory. One Huguenot that survived was Jean MARTEIHLE from Bergerac. In his autobiography, he mentions a distant cousin, Samuel de RIVASSON. My GGGGGGGG Grandfather, Rev. Pierre de RIVASSON was the pastor of the Bergerac Huguenot church in the 1680's. His notes have survived including the horrible treatment given to his family and torture that resulted in his death. The Huguenots were a martyr church for over 200 years.
Author Unknown.
Read more...
Read more
Read more
|
|
|
|
