Northumberland Archives

Execution of George Hunter

by

 

Extracted from Morpeth Herald on 1 April 1876.

On the Tuesday morning at 8am George Hunter, a miner aged 23 underwent the extreme penalty of law within the walls of Morpeth Goal in accordance with the sentence of death passed by Baron Bramwell at the last assizes for the county for the murder of William Wood at Dinnington. This was the second execution that has taken place within the walls of the prison in less than 3 months when Richard Charlton, was hung for the murder of his wife on the 23 December 1875. George’s hanging was the second since the introduction of the Act for executions being performed in prisons was passed. The last public execution took place on 17 March 1847 when James Welsh and George Matthews were hanged for murder.

George Hunter and the murder victim William Wood were both miners, the former working at Burradon Colliery and the later Dinnington Colliery. They were on friendly terms at about 2pm on 9 December they together with two other miners called Thomas Arnott and Robert Scouler went on a shooting expedition. Hunter, Arnott and Scouler all had guns, Wood didn’t. Things were friendly all afternoon. At 5pm they went into Carr Gate public house in Dinnington and were later joined by two other men Sampson Mead and Thomas Thorn. The Landlady Mrs Bell served them 7 or 8 pints and when they left they were sober “As far as she could judge”. Apparently Scouler was teetotal and drank no beer. They were all friendly and amused themselves by drawing puzzles.

Shortly after 10pm they left the house and walked along the road towards Dinnington Church. The ground was covered in snow and the deceased threw a snowball at Thorn. The men were met in the road by the schoolmaster George Stoker who had been going around the district obtaining signatures for a petition to the Home Secretary in favour of a reprieve for Charlton who had been condemned to death at the Winter Gaol Delivery for the murder of his wife at Gardeners House near Dinnington. He was in Morpeth Gaol awaiting execution. He asked the men if they would sign his petition and all consented. Mr Stoker left the men and a little further along the road Mead and Thorn parted and went to their homes. Arnott and Scouler walked along the road together with Hunter and Wood a little further behind. Arnott then tells this in his own words “When I got to the school I heard Hunter say if you don’t stop heaving or clotting I’ll fire.” I heard Wood reply “You would not fire Geordie?”. About half a minute after that I heard the gun. Scouler and I stopped and Hunter came up to us and asked me for a powder flask I said “What have you fired at Geordie?” He said “I fired at Willie” I said “You don’t mean to say you have fired at Willie, George?” He said “I have Tom” I said “Have you hit him?” He said “Yes”.

Scouler and I went back along the road and left Hunter standing by the school. Wood was lying on the road between the corner of the road and the churchyard wall. He was lying on his elbows and knees with his face in the snow. A witness Christopher MacDougal, a Mole Catcher of Dinnington was coming out of his house and he heard a man say 2 or 3 times “Take a shot” someone replied “Geordie are you not going to fire” and soon after heard the shot. Mr Allan Walker was sent for and on examining the body found a great many shot wounds in the left shoulder and chest and the cause of death was haemorrhage from wounds. He took 48 shot corns from various parts of Wood’s chest. A policeman was also sent for and apprehended Hunter who was still lying on the road, he had to be lifted up and taken to the Police House and would not speak. The following day he was charged with murder at the Moot Hall he replied to the charge “I cannot mind anything about it”.

At the trial Mr Blackwell defending Hunter endeavoured to show that the gun might have gone off accidentally and Hunter was entitled to acquittal. Mr Bramwell in summing up pointed out that according to Hunter’s own statement the gun was intentionally fired at Wood without provocation and said “How are the jury to deal with the evidence they have heard and find a verdict in favour of the prisoner? I do not know”. The judge further said “It was a sad thing to think that a man for a momentary act, bitterly repented of perhaps ever since should be in danger of undergoing a very severe punishment. It was necessary that a person who possibility was in no danger of repeating an offence of this sort should be punished in order that his punishment might deter others.”

The jury was out for 45 minutes and returned the verdict of guilty with a recommendation of mercy on account of his previous good character and also in consequence of the slight provocation he received (snow thrown at him). We wish to strongly recommend mercy. The judge passed the sentence of death in the usual terms, but would forward the recommendation of the jury and the notes to the Home Secretary. The prisoner was taken immediately to Morpeth Goal in the charge of the Governor Mr Wookey. In the meantime the reports were sent to the Home Secretary and it is understood these reports were very unfavourable as regards to Hunter’s previous character. It was shown that he had twice previously shot at people and only days before he shot Wood had a quarrel with another man and threatened to shot him if he had a gun. The Home Secretary armed with this information saw no reason to allow mercy.

Preparations for his execution began and even Hunter assumed he would be spared the death penalty until he was told otherwise on the Sunday evening. Hunter was attended night and day in the condemned cell by a warder, but from the Sunday evening an additional one was in place with him. He was visited by his parents and two brothers a brother in law, an uncle and aunt and 4 cousins. The visit did not last long and few words were spoken the final leave taking was deeply affecting to all. To the unhappy man himself, it was extremely painful for unlike Charlton who was executed in Morpeth goal and who was fully prepared to die and wished for the hour of his release Hunter clung to life. Marwood the executioner arrived ta Morpeth Station on Monday evening at 6.15pm. He was met by Mr Wookey and was taken to the gaol without having attracted much attention either at the station or the prison gates.

On Monday night Hunter sought his pillow for the last time and slept well. He rose soon after 6am and dressed himself in the clothes he wore for his trial. He appeared in low sprits. He could not face his breakfast other than he did partake of a little tea. Outside the weather was very wet and changed to snow and sleet soon after 7.00am. At 7.45am the prison bell began to toll to let all know that there was 15 minutes life left for the doomed man. At 7.50am Hunter was taken from the chapel to a dark cell where the body of the prisoner was demanded for execution. Marwood then placed the main strap round the body of Hunter and attached small straps round his arms and wrists all the time the prisoner had his eyes fixed on the floor and was holding a small pocket handkerchief in his left hand. At about 6 or 7 minutes to 8 he was moved in the direction of the scaffold. Hunter seemed weak and down in sprits as he took his last walk and shed no tears. In height he appeared about 5ft 7”, medium build, respectful looking with a dark complexion, dark whiskers and small black moustache. Marwood placed Hunter under the fatal beam. No words were spoken. Marwood with skill which only experience in such a dreadful calling can bestow strapped the legs of the victim and drew the white cap over the face and adjusted the rope carefully whilst the rector read the service in a low voice. Once ready the lever was pulled and the two doors fell with a clanging sound. As Hunters body went down it gave two or three movements and soon was over. At two minutes to 8 the black flag was hoisted on the court house to inform the public the deed had been done. The prison bell tolled till 8.15am. At 9 am the body was cut down and examined by the surgeon and placed in a coffin and on the breast plate of the coffin were the words:-
George Hunter
Died March 28th 1876
Aged 23 years

No reporters were admitted. There was a rumour that the execution was bungled and the condemned man suffered more than generally was the case and that one person fainted. Whether this was true we will not know. We have been given to understand that Marwood experienced some difficulty in adjusting the rope, due to the way Hunter kept his chin down. Another report states that Hunter shouted “Murder” three times. The body of the prisoner was interred in the north east side of the prison near where the remains of Charlton were buried, the coffins placed end to end.

The Meeting, Marriage and Parting of Ways – “All bigamies are heartless”

by

Whilst trawling through newspaper articles for references to William Procter the younger and his future wife Isabella Young Gilchrist to include in our recent blog we uncovered a national scandal involving the Gilchrist family, bigamy, adultery and divorce. This research shaped our second blog in the “The Meeting, Marriage and Parting of Ways” series, which uses the Dickson, Archer and Thorp papers to open up and explore the intimate relationships of nineteenth century Northumbrians.

 

A solicitor’s handwritten instructions placed on the front cover of a marriage settlement between Isabella Gilchrist and the Rev William Procter (subjects of our previous blog.) REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

A National Scandal

The scandal which awarded the Gilchrist family national notoriety related to the bigamous marriage of Isabella’s younger sister, Georgina, and a Mr William Henry Stainthorpe. William Henry was born to John and Mary Stainthorpe and christened in Hexham on the 15th September 1839. Like his father before him William Henry pursued a legal career, eventually becoming a solicitor. Georgina, sometimes referred to as Georgine in contemporary documents, was the daughter of Thomas and Margaret Gilchrist. Her father had been the Town Clerk for Berwick Upon Tweed and, having been born in 1841, she was the youngest of six daughters.

It is likely that William Henry and Georgina were first introduced whilst William was serving his articles in Berwick Upon Tweed, under the instruction of a Mr Sanderson, in the late 1850s. It is also likely that William Henry was known to Georgina’s older brother Thomas Gilchrist, who was also operating as a solicitor in Northumberland at the time.

Youthful Love

From the very start the young couple experienced opposition to their relationship. Georgina’s mother was initially against the courtship as she believed her daughter was too young to be engaged. But only a few years later on the 3rd December 1862, when Georgina was of age, the couple defied their families and married at St Clement Danes in London. Georgina’s sister, Isabella Young Gilchrist, witnessed the ceremony and subsequently testified to the legitimacy of the marriage in front of a Liverpudlian court.

A “Two-Wife” Man

Following the ceremony at St Clement Danes the couple lived together in London until October 1863 when Georgina fell pregnant and returned to her mother in Berwick Upon Tweed. Whilst retrospectively reporting on the scandal The Berwick Journal noted that the move was not caused by;

“any disagreement or any apparent want of affection, but his inability to support her; and she herself thought it would be better for her to live with her mother until such times he should be in a position to take her to his house.”

Their daughter, Mary Harriet Georgina Stainthorpe, was born on the 27th February 1864. Georgina noted in her divorce documents that she heard less and less from her husband upon her return to Berwick and, following the birth of their daughter, their communication ceased altogether. At the same time, according to subsequent news reports, William Henry had made the acquaintance of Mary Louisa Allin whilst working in Plymouth. He wrote letters to Miss Allin and her mother informing them of his intention to court, and subsequently marry, Mary. In these letters he made no reference to, or disclosed, his actual marital status.

In 1867 William Henry moved to Liverpool to take up the position of managing clerk in a solicitors firm. He then returned to Plymouth to bigamously make Mary his wife on the 20th April 1867 at Charles’ Church. The newly married couple then moved to Liverpool and set up home in no. 34 Egerton Street. William Henry had now completely deserted his first wife with a new baby and no money, but his lies were about to catch him out…

Lies in Court

Towards the end of 1867 Dr Clay, husband to one of Georgina’s sisters, was also living in Plymouth. He had heard about Mary Allin’s recent marriage through his friend Captain Julian. The Captain was married to Mary’s sister and both men became suspicious when they realised a series of similarities between their respective brother-in-law’s. Both men shared the same name, had the same occupation and appeared to match the same description. The suspicious men therefore took a letter, signed by William Henry, and compared it to his signature in the London marriage register.

Upon finding a likeness between the handwriting the men raised the alarm and both wives were instantly informed of the truth. William Henry was taken into custody to stand before a Liverpudlian court charged with bigamy. During the court case a Mr Cobb provided the defence, whilst Mr Samuel appeared for the prosecution.

The case was great fodder for the local and national press. Court reporters described William Henry as being;

“fashionably attired; … about 26 or 27 years of age, and a person of good appearance and address. He seemed greatly agitated, and was evidently affected at the degrading position in which he was placed.”

Mrs Isabella Proctor, previously Young Gilchrist, was sworn as a key witness in court. She attested to a number of damning claims against William Henry, thus proving his infidelity;

“It was there (Berwick-Upon-Tweed – her hometown) I became acquainted with the prisoner. I think it was the winter of 1860. To the best of my knowledge it was at Berwick-on-Tweed that he became acquainted with my sister. Between that time and the spring of 1860 he was introduced to our family, and visited at my mother’s house. It was about that time that he became engaged to my sister. She was twenty years of age at the time. In 1862 I received an invitation from my mother to go to Ashford, near Windsor, to London, to be present at the marriage of my sister… She was married to the prisoner on the 3rd December 1862 at St Clement Dane. I signed the register as one of the witnesses. My sister is still alive. I saw her yesterday morning. She is residing in Berwick-on-Tweed with my mother. She has a child living with her…. I always heard my sister speak in strong terms of affection for her husband.”

Several further witnesses were also called to stand alongside Isabella; including the policeman and detective who had arrested William Henry, a Berwick-based vicar and Captain Julian.  Mr Cobb tried to argue that the first marriage had ended in mutual separation, and that his client knew nothing of little Mary’s birth or the witnesses stood before him. Yet the prosecution sarcastically remarked that “he cared to know nothing at all about it.”

William was refused bail and the judge remarked that it was a “very heartless case.” He was subsequently sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for his crime.

Divorce and Forgiveness

In light of the scandal Georgina chose to pursue a divorce. To receive a divorce Victorian women had to provide a reason; with bigamy and adultery widely accepted as grounds for separation. But reason alone was not enough, as proof also had to be submitted before the court. This was often off-putting for women who did not wish their personal business to become public scandal. But Georgina’s marriage, and her husband’s indiscretions, had already become national news and she had the evidence of a court case to promote her argument. Thus, following the case, Georgina delivered a divorce petition to the courts providing both adultery and bigamy as her reasoning. She also requested to maintain sole custody over their child. Her petition and request was granted by the court at the end of 1867.

It would have been understandable for Mary Louisa to have also walked away from her relationship with William Henry. Being his second “wife” the marriage was never legally binding. But she stayed with him and, following his release from gaol, she re-married him on September 28th 1869 in Kentish Town.

The Stainthorpe’s moved back to Northumberland, and in 1871 can be found living in William’s home town of Hexham. During this period William is listed as a solicitor awaiting a position or, in layman’s terms, unemployed. In September 1872 the couple had a son, Percival John, in the parish of Tynemouth but the child died less than a year later. What happened to the couple after this is a mystery, but we do know that William’s first child, Mary, chose to retain his surname before marrying in 1891.

 

We would like to thank our volunteers who have tirelessly worked to transcribe the original marriage settlements found within the Dickson, Archer and Thorp Collection.

The Meeting, Marriage and Parting of Ways – “To be placed in a safe till called for”

by

This is the first blog in our mini-series entitled “The Meeting, Marriage and Parting of Ways.” The series will use a number of marriage settlements, discovered amongst the Dickson, Archer and Thorp papers, to explore the intimate lives of nineteenth century Northumbrians. Nineteenth century marriage settlements were very similar to modern prenuptial agreements. They would be used to outline how ownership and inheritance of property would be protected during a marriage; thus protecting both individual assets and familial legacy.

 

A solicitor’s handwritten instructions; “to be placed in a safe till called for.” REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

The first relationship to be considered will be that of Reverend William Procter, occasionally referred to as Proctor in contemporary documents, and his betrothed sweetheart Isabella Gilchrist Young. This young couple hailed from northern Northumberland and were contracted to marry in the spring of 1867. They seem to have chosen the Dickson, Archer and Thorp firm to draw up their marriage settlement as the Dickson and Procter families were closely linked. The solicitors gave due care to the drafting of the document, and issued specific instruction it to “be placed in a safe till called for.” This blog will explore the interesting circumstances under which the couple met and how their relationship progressed. You can read a transcribed version of the Procter’s marriage settlement, as well as marvel at the original piece, on our Flickr page.

Family Ties

William Procter the younger was born in the parish of Doddington, in the county of Northumberland, in 1839 and baptised on the 22nd of December. William was the son of William Procter the elder; Doddington’s parish vicar. William the elder had been born in 1792, and had married his wife Esther at some point in the early 1830s. The couple also had a second child, Mary, born in 1842. The family lived together in the Doddington vicarage adjoining St Mary and St Michael’s church, now a grade I listed property.

In adulthood William the younger followed his father’s spiritual footsteps, and in 1871 was listed as curate for the parish of Doddington. His role as a curate would have involved assisting his father, the vicar, in administrating both spiritual and daily tasks within the parish.

William’s future sweetheart, Isabella Young Gilchrist, was born in Berwick-Upon-Tweed in 1832, making her roughly seven years older than William. She was the second of six daughters born to Thomas and Margaret Gilchrist. Her sisters were Frances, Margaret, Josephine, Elizabeth and Georgina. The couple also had a son called Thomas. This brought the total number of children to seven – a significantly larger family then William’s.

Acquaintances

How Isabella and William became acquainted was referenced to in documents adjoining the marriage settlement. These papers allude to a close connection between the Procter and Gilchrist families; a connection which potentially spanned decades. A Procter relative, Reverend Thomas, was based in Berwick upon Tweed and a regular visitor to the Gilchrist household. The families even attended social events, with an article from The Alnwick Mercury in 1863 noting the attendance of both the Rev. William Procter and the Gilchrist sisters to a “Grand Ball” held at Alnwick’s Assembly Room in honour of the Second Northumberland Artillery Volunteers. More interestingly, it is possible Isabella and William may have even spent their childhoods in the same household.

Exactly where Isabella was living in early 1840s is difficult to ascertain. Her name appears on forms compiled for the 1841 census in both the Procter and Gilchrist households. In the Gilchrist’s census return she is listed as a daughter living in the family home, but her occupation and social standing becomes harder to interpret on the Procter form. Here she is listed alongside two other women, Jane Murphy. (35 years old) and Jane Henry (15 years old), and given the occupational status “F.S.” The term was an official abbreviation used for female servant. Her age is also listed incorrectly in the Procter return form – but it was fairly common for ages to be recorded inaccurately during the 1841 census.

The Gilchrist family appeared to be of a settled and prosperous nature, with Isabella’s father named in newspaper articles as “Thomas Gilchrist Esq” the Town Clerk for Berwick Upon Tweed. Even more interesting is the notion that, on three separate census returns, the Gilchrist’s appeared to have two or three domestic servants of their own. Moreover their only son, Thomas, went on to pursue a legal career and his daughters are listed in subsequent censuses as living on “independent means” (or family money). Hence, if the Gilchrist family were so well stationed and comfortably maintained, why was Isabella listed as serving as a female servant in the Procter household?

This mystery is most likely explained by an incompetent census taker mixing non-family members with the domestic staff. Also living in the Procter household at this time was an aging Dorothy Dickson (which had been misspelt as Dixon) along with her daughter Grace Eleanor and granddaughter Grace Thorp Dickson. Dorothy was the widow of William Dickson, one of the founding fathers of the Dickson, Archer and Thorp firm, and she chose the parsonage belonging to her close friends as a place of respite in her old age. Isabella may therefore have been staying in the house to further her domestic education or to act as a companion for the Proctor/Dickson girls. Either way it is highly unlikely that she was there in the capacity of a domestic servant.

Isabella’s appearance on the Gilchrist census return could also be explained by the census taker, or the person giving the information, not quite understanding the concept of the census and listing all immediate family members regardless of whether or not they were residing at the address. Nonetheless the 1841 census clearly pinpoints a moment in time, illustrating the intimacy between Isabella and William’s families.

Witnesses and Marriage

Twenty-six years after the erroneous 1841 census the legal firm of Dickson, Archer and Thorp drafted a more considered legal document for the couple’s marriage.

The marriage settlement was sent across the country to be checked, signed and counter-signed by stream of varied witnesses. Firstly the young couple signed the document, under the watchful presence of Isabella’s mother and James Gray. They were followed by Reverend Aislabie Proctor, possibly William’s uncle, and Arthur Baxter Visick, a London based dentist, who signed the document in the presence of Edwin Trevor Septimus Carr. Carr was a well-established individual whom had recently been elected to be a fellow of St Catherine’s College Cambridge in August 1862.

 

Witness signatures as shown on the original marriage settlement, 1867. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

The document was then returned to Northumberland and officially dated 24th April 1867. The young couple married at Berwick’s parish church three days later in a ceremony presided over by Reverend William Procter the elder and his brother the Reverend Aislabie Procter.

Marital Tears

Unfortunately the marriage attracted tragedy when Isabella died on the 26th November 1868 in the parish of Tynemouth. Her death came barely a year since the couple had uttered their marriage vows. It appears William never remarried and also died young, at the age of 34, at Budleigh Salterton in Devonshire on the 30th January 1874.

Because the young couple predeceased their respective parents any issues regarding the protection and ownership of inheritance, covered by the settlement, never occurred. The “future children” repeatedly mentioned in the marriage settlement were also never born. Hence the document which had been carefully constructed during a period of happiness and intended to stand the test of time, lay unneeded and forgotten on a solicitor’s shelf.

 

We would like to especially thank the volunteers who made this piece of research possible by tirelessly transcribing the original marriage settlements.

+ More