Dickson, Archer and Thorp Volunteer Project

Sir David William Smith, 1st Baronet

by

The name, signature and reference ‘D.W. Smith’ frequently occurs within Dickson, Archer & Thorp paperwork from the 1820s and 1830s; particularly in relation to transactions involving the Duke of Northumberland (Hugh Percy, 3rd Duke). In a letter, discovered amongst paperwork covering the purchase of premises in Walkergate, Alnwick by the Duke, ‘D.W. Smith’ was referred to as ‘Sir’ and ‘Baronet.’  So, who was D.W. Smith?

David William Smith was the son of Colonel John Smith and his wife, Anne.  Born in Salisbury, Wiltshire, he joined his father’s regiment, 5th Regiment of Foot, as an ensign in 1779.  He married his first wife in 1788 and rejoined his father’s regiment at Detroit in 1790 (at that time, Detroit was still under British rule).  Smith served on the land board in the Hesse District (named after the Hesse region of Germany and subsequently part of Quebec) in 1791 and 1792, was Acting Deputy Surveyor General in 1792 and Surveyor General of Upper Canada in 1798.  He resigned from the army and, in 1792, was elected to the first Parliament of Upper Canada (part of British Canada established in 1791 to govern the central third of the lands in British North America) representing Suffolk and Essex, and went on in 1796 to be elected for the 3rd Riding of Lincoln.  Smith became a Member of the Executive Council of Upper Canada in 1796 and in 1800 was elected to the Legislative Assembly representing Norfolk, Oxford and Middlesex, becoming Speaker from 1796-1801.

An influential and wealthy man, he owned 20,000 acres of land in Ontario, was an established politician, businessman and known to be fair-minded.  He was even the author of the snappy-titled book: “A Short Topographical Description of His Majesty’s Province of Upper Canada in North America to which is annexed a Provincial Gazeteer”!

It would appear he was well-respected, and yet he turned his back on Canada and returned to England in 1802 where he became Land Agent for the Duke of Northumberland and was made a Baronet in 1821. Whether he left Canada due to some political disagreement or his health is unclear, however he did frequently suffer from fever and correspondence within the Dickson, Archer & Thorp collection does often refer to his health. With correspondents wishing him better and, in one letter, describing himself as being “too weak” to become embroiled in lengthy arguments.  These documents were dated between 1827-8, although Smith did not die until 1837.

We would like to thank the volunteer who has kindly cataloged and researched D. W Smith’s correspondence, their blog is a fascinating insight into an engaging character.

James Forster’s Crime

by

In the winter of 1855 Messrs. Smith and Appleford were executing a series of contracted works on Alnwick Castle. During the works large quantities of lead went missing and James Forster, a mason working for Messrs. Smith and Appleford, was accused of the crime. He was incriminated by a great quantity of lead found buried in his garden “under suspicious circumstances” by a policeman named P.C Marshall. Following a further search James was also charged with stealing a wedge and piece of zine from his masters.

Alnwick Castle, 1866

James was 54 years old at the time of the theft. He had a wife, Marjory, and two children, Jane aged 19 and William aged 9. James was prosecuted for the theft by Hon. A Liddell and defended by Mr Blackwell. The contractor’s foreman and blacksmith were called to identify the wedge and piece of zine recovered from James’ person, but neither could positively confirm whether these were the missing articles. On this count James was found not guilty. He was then tried for “stealing three stones and a half weight of lead from the roof of Alnwick Castle, the property of his Grace the Duke of Northumberland.” According to newspaper reports “the lead in question was lying on the roof of the Castle, tied up in bundles, and the prisoner was observed by the foreman of the masons to go to one of the bundles and cut off a piece of lead, which he placed in his left jacket pocket.” The foreman immediately reported this to the contractors’ overseer and James’ premises were searched by PC. Marshall that same day. James was sentenced to six months hard labour for this crime.

Alnwick Castle

In 1861, six years after the theft, James and Marjory were residing in Clayport Street with their unmarried daughter Jane (now a dress maker) and Marjory’s mother Jane Spours (aged 80). Jane the elder was listed on the 1861 census as being an Innkeeper from Ellingham. She was also familiar with the law, having been fined in 1857 for keeping her public house open and “selling exciseable liquors during prohibited hours on Sundays.”

Alnwick, 1827

The Forsters had been living in in Clayport Street since at least 1841, where they are listed in the census alongside their four young children:

Martha, then aged 12.

George, then aged 10.

John, then aged 8.

Jane, then aged 6.

Also living in the street in 1841, although not in the same property, was the 60 year old Jane Spours.

Another Forster child, who died in 1841 and most likely before the census, was Robert Spours Forster. He was less than a year old when he became the first Forster to be placed within their family burial plot in Alnwick. In 1849 George Forster, James’ eldest son, also died and was buried in the plot. He was followed in the same year by a third child, Eleanor Forster, who was seven years old. Martha, the Forster’s eldest daughter, became the fourth child to go to the grave young, dying in 1851 aged twenty-two. She was followed by her paternal grandmother, Ann Forster, aged eighty. Finally, in 1863, Jane Spours, the ever-present matriarch, was buried in the plot aged eighty-four.

Having such a large family to feed, and losing so many children in quick succession, may have driven James’ to extreme lengths – including stealing from his own employer. James and Margery’s death dates are not clear, but they were interred in the family plot with their children and mothers.

 

This blog was inspired by a document found within the Dickson, Archer and Thorp papers outlining the crimes of James Forster. We would like to thank the volunteers who have cataloged and researched this piece.

 

The Story of John Walker

by

An undated document found within the Dickson, Archer and Thorp collection tells the heart-wrenching story of John Walker and his young family. The Walkers were forcible ejected from their home in Warkworth due to their Scottish ancestry. The document details the terrible treatment of the Walker family by their Warkworth neighbours, and its author requests legal advice from the Dickson, Archer and Thorp firm regarding how to proceed with what has become a complex and sensitive issue involving three warring parishes.

The case probably occurred in the mid-1800s. John Walker, his wife and four children had been residing in a room in Warkworth for two years. John earned a living as a shoemaker, working for different masters. Due to a prolonged period of illness John was unable to work for a time, and his family received temporary poor relief from Warkworth’s overseers of the poor.

The Walkers were of Scottish origin and had been granted legal status to settle in England a few years prior. The people of Warkworth, reflecting nineteenth-century anti-Scottish sentiment, were “devious” and had been conspiring to push the Walkers out of their village. They saw an opportunity with John’s illness and forced his shoemaker master to stop giving him work once he recovered. They then bullied his landlord into seizing his rooms and articles of furniture.

Warworth Church © Mick Knapton. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Despite such cruel and unfair treatment the Walker family refused to leave the parish; probably because they had no place to go. The overseers then took legal action to achieve their aims. They escorted the family to be examined by two local Justices of the Peace over their legal right to settle in England. During the examination John explained that, whilst he had been born in Inverkeithing in the “shire of Peebles”, he had been granted legal status to stay and work in England. However, the Justices sided with the scheming overseers and signed a warrant to forcibly send the Walkers to the parish of Peebles. The family were to be accompanied to Scotland by Warkworth’s overseers.

Once in Scotland the family were delivered to the clerk of the Kirk Sessions for the parish of Inverkeithing. A meeting was called by Kirk members and they decided to refuse settlement, even though John had been born in the parish, as he had also resided in a place called Penicuik for many years. The Walkers were then forced to travel to Penicuik, Scotland under instructions to settle there instead. But the Penicuik overseers also refused entry and sent the family back to Warkworth.

The family were left with no other option than to return to Northumberland. They were “fatigued and exhausted with so long a journey in an open cart in severe winter weather, they remained a few days in a lodging house in Alnwick to refresh themselves.” When they finally arrived in Warkworth John demanded he be treated justly and granted entry. He also insisted on having his previous lodgings returned to him. The overseers complained loudly about the Walkers return and John went to the house of the resident magistrate to plead his case. But the magistrate was one of the Justices who had signed the original warrant and the Walkers were once again denied settlement in the parish.

The family were forced to make the eight mile trip back to Alnwick in awful winter weather. This final journey was almost fatal to their youngest child. John went to the Alnwick overseers of the poor and made a complaint against the conduct of the Warkworth parish. The Justices of Alnwick demanded the Warkworth overseers came and answered these astonishing claims of cruelty and mismanagement. Whilst the overseers obeyed the summons and traveled to Alnwick, they still refused to grant the family access to their old lodgings. The Warkworth overseers claimed they had obeyed the law by delivering “paupers” to their parish of origin, and maintained that they were not responsible for what had occurred after they had issued the warrant. They also told the Alnwick overseers to “do their worst,” but warned that they would stand by their original decision.

Exasperated, the Alnwick overseers requested legal advice from the Dickson, Archer and Thorp firm. The firm returned a final and damning opinion. They called the conduct of the Warkworth overseers “very disgraceful” but warned it would be difficult to punish them “as they deserve.” They suggested obtaining an indictment against the Warkworth overseers on grounds of conspiracy (based upon their initial scheming behaviour). Due to the absence of dates it is difficult to find any further record of John and his family, although it is hoped the Warkworth overseers received a suitable punishment.

 

We would like to thank the volunteer who kindly listed the documents relating to this case. 

 

+ More