General

Dear Tom: The Words of War

by

During the early 1900s Charles Fenwick Thorp and his nephew, Andrew Fenwick Thorp, penned a series of letters discussing a diverse range of topics, from the First World War to horse racing. The Thorp family were deeply rooted in the affairs of Northumberland, and held large swathes of property across the county. They often sat on various council and governmental boards, and ran a prominent legal firm from their base in Alnwick. The letters penned by Charles and Andrew during this period had been addressed to, and received by, a “dear Tom” (most likely Charles’ younger brother.) These men were the uncles and cousins of Robert and Collingwood Thorp – decorated soldiers whose war-time letters we also hold in our collection. This  particular selection of letters, written predominantly from the home front, have been painstakingly transcribed and researched by our volunteers, and the originals can be viewed here.

Some of the letters pre-date the First World War by two years, and go on to trace the build up to one of Europe’s darkest periods. The letters penned by both Andrew and Charles are therefore hugely significant; as one writer pours out the emotions of a young man about to enter the First World War whilst the second relays the fears of an old man left behind. Andrew’s letters begin by giving us an unfiltered insight into the concerns and joys of a young gentleman in the year 1912. In these letters he discusses money, capital and prospects. He plans care-free excursions and debates the standard of horse racing. He considers his future, with a dose of melodrama, giving the pros of becoming a farmer or the cons of hiding abroad. But Andrew’s letters turn painfully serious as the years progress and he becomes acquainted with the fragility of life. In August 1914 Andrew is twenty-four years old, the world is on the brink of war and he has decided to write a will. Perhaps the most upsetting aspect of his correspondence is his sincere belief that “the war won’t last more than a year.” This is a 24 year old man actively preparing for his own death.

Charles letters, in comparison, predominately cover the period during war. Within them he informs his brother of the whereabouts of his two sons, referred to as John and Arthur, as well as the military activities of their common nephew Andrew. These letters provide small snippets of family news mixed with wry observations about turnips, the war effort and the physical weight of military uniform. Charles even gives a play-by-play account of the location and route of “Zeps” or zeppelins across the English countryside. How Charles feels about the impending doom of war is difficult to decipher. He is initially proud of his younger relatives for having entered the service of their country, and is eager for them to see action, but he also frets about the dangerous position of Andrew on the continent. He finds the process of war frustrating, labelling it “vexing,” and he tries to continue with his day-to-day life as much as possible. Charles is a complex character; full of paternal instinct, strong views and a haunting foreboding that the war will leave an irreversible mark on his family. These letters give us a fascinating insight into how ordinary Northumbrians were affected by war and loss.

Charles Fenwick Thorp

Charles Fenwick Thorp was born in 1857 at Ellingham, Northumberland. He was the eldest son, and first child, of Reverend Charles Thorp the elder and his wife Isabella Frances Fenwick. The Thorp-Fenwick’s had numerous children, all of whom were born in Ellingham. They were Mary Isabel, George, Robert Edward, John, Thomas, William and Frances.  In the 1871 census this huge household had eight servants; including a governess, two nurses, a groom and a gardener.

Charles Fenwick Thorp, and his brother Robert, studied at the Mount School in Northallerton under the Edwin Brittlestone MA Clergyman. Charles pursued his education and, like his father before him, became a reverend taking up residency in Beadnell in 1887.

He married his wife, Jane Booth, in her home town of Warlaby, Northallerton on the 13th September 1894. A few years later, in 1897, Charles was appointed Chaplain of the Northumberland Fusiliers, 1st Battalion situated at Alnwick. In 1901 Charles and Jane were residing at Beadnell Vicarage with their young son Charles Arthur Robert Thorp, whom had been baptised at Beadnell on the 18th July 1899. The couple subsequently went on to have two more children; Frances Victoria Thorp (born 1901) and John C Thorp (born 1904).

Charles moved his family into The Rectory in Ovingham at some point before 1911. This property had ample space to live and entertain, with ten rooms. Charles and Jane remained in Ovingham for almost fifteen years, and most of Charles’ war time letters were written from this residency. Charles died in 1935, at Aldbrough St John in Yorkshire, leaving behind effects equalling £226 2s 1d. The executors of his will were his widow Jane and Thomas Alder Thorp – presumably “dear Tom.”

The Rectory

Ovingham-on-Tyne

Northumberland

April 3rd 1916

 Dear Tom

 I have sent Mother’s cheque by this post to Office, and asked them to pay in balance £10 to my acct on 14th. Very many thanks; I fear I shall be asking you for some help for last half of this month and then shall be clear, but will write you.

 Andrew and a party of 40 had another walk out 8 miles and were all stiff after it.

 These beastly Zeps been about 3 nights, last night only 6 miles away from here at Stamfordham and Ponteland then Northwards, did you have them.

 Yours ever

 Signed:  Chas. F. Thorp

 

A crater caused by a bomb during the Zeppelin Raid at Bedlington, Northumberland on 14th April 1915. NRO 07990/2/32. Letters from Charles, REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

The Rectory

Ovingham-on-Tyne

 May 1st 1917

 My dear Tom,

 Can you help me to get these papers put in order again.  Off Bigge’s payment comes 5 shilling Inc tax he deducts it before he sends it. Papers came this morning.  Both boys left this morning for Bradfield we had to be up at 5. On acct of trains. It was vexing!  Arthur had to go up to London last week and back again, to have his interview and medical exam at Admiralty, they began last week and were taking those who would go either into Navy or Marines first.

 A nice little expense!!  But he traveled up by night and spent one night at Pinner.

 Yours ever

 Signed:  Chas. F. Thorp

 I sent Mothers cheque to Office today to redeem mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letters REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

The Rectory

Ovingham-on-Tyne

 July 15th 1917

 My dear Tom

 Do you think Office can advance me £20 into Bank till Aug 1st to keep me right there and carry me on. On Tuesday will do I expect I shall be 4 or 5 overdrawn there by then.  I enclose cheque for £25.

 Jenny saw some of raid in London she was at Lord Roberts workshops, seeing over … at the time; lot of damage done.  Arthur and his companions at … in Burlington House were sent into basement and not told reason, much disgusted saw nothing.  Arthur went up top of St Paul’s one evening and saw the damage to GPO and other paces.

 We are getting parched up here hardly any turnips.

 Yours sincerely

 Signed:  Chas. F Thorp

 Andrew and 400 been removed from Criffeld into Hanover!!!

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letters, REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

The Rectory

Ovingham-on-Tyne

Sept 6 1917

 My dear Tom

 Can the Office help me with £20 this month. Arthur has gone off to the R N College Keyham, Devenport as a Cadet, will be there till Feb. before going to sea proper as Mids. They are crammed there and on board the “Vivid” in the time and if satisfactory are passed on as Midshipmen. He passed his exam quite well.  7th for Navy of the 50 accepted, 90 were in. 1st out of 20 for R Marines and 8 for Indian Army “Quetta.” His outfit is heavy in clothing line etc. And has to have sextant and telescope as soon as he begins work at College.  Mother is helping with outfit but Mary says they are very short till Nov. So I may have to ask for help in Oct. too in advance. And the times are awful.  If the £20 can be paid in by Sat will do. I still have to allow it, rate of £50 a year while at Keyham; ? ? …. pay it.

 What a mess these Russians are making of it.

 Yours sincerely

 Signed: Chas. F. Thorp

 

Andrew Fenwick Thorp

Andrew Fenwick Thorp was the only child of Robert Edward Thorp (the younger brother of Charles Fenwick Thorp.) His father, Robert, had been born to the Reverend Charles Thorp and Frances Fenwick in 1861. He had married Andrew’s mother Alice Maud Hanning, a Gateshead native, in the October of 1889 at Newcastle Upon Tyne. In the following year the couple welcomed their only child, Andrew. Sadly Andrew was orphaned young in the most tragic of circumstances, with his mother dying soon after his birth and his father being lost “at sea” in 1899. Following the death of his parents Andrew was placed in the care of his grandmother, Isabella Frances Fenwick Thorp, and brought up in the family’s spacious seat of Dene Head House in Ryton. In the 1911 census this house was listed as having 17 rooms, including a kitchen, and a large body of staff.

In Andrew’s letters he frequently refers to a ‘G.’ This appears to have been an affectionate nickname for a woman to whom he is very attached, but not yet betrothed.  In a draft of Andrew’s will, dated the 15th February 1912, her full identity is revealed to be Gwendoline Katherine Leonore Maclean. In this particular draft he leaves all his worldly effects to ‘G’ and, if she should pre-decease him, his cousin Charles Arthur Robert Thorp. A Gwendoline Maclean can be found residing in Northumberland in the 1911 census. This Gwendoline had been widowed in 1909 and had returned to the family seat of Shorestone Hall, along with her young son, to live with her father, brothers, sister-in-law and six female servants. One of her brothers was a theatrical actor. Gwendoline’s son had been born in Bangalore India; this was perhaps explained by her first husband coming from a family of British military personnel. This Gwendoline was most likely the ‘G’ in Andrew’s letters, as her brother is named as an executor in drafts of Andrew’s will and often referred to by Andrew as a “close friend.”

However the relationship between Andrew and “G” did not last the war. Instead, at some point between October and December of 1919, Andrew married Mary Primrose Deane in Dublin. Their only child, Juliette Maeve Isobel Primrose Thorp, was born in Newcastle Upon Tyne in 1925.

Dene Head House

Ryton on Tyne

 Sunday March 31st 1912

 Dear Tom

 I am sorry I have taken such a long time in writing to you but I haven’t had any real time to do things during the week.  I have been carefully over the draft you sent me several times and I am quite sure now that it expresses my wishes exactly and I can think of no alteration or improvement to be made in it.  I never saw you at the Point to Point but I saw your sister and Colin.  Were you there?  The racing was a bit poor I thought. But there was plenty of rank and beauty about.  Roger Marshall and I had a great time. 

I am coming down to Monkhouse at Easter.

 Yours affect

 Signed:  Andrew Thorp

  Northern Conservative Unionist Club

Newcastle upon Tyne

May 29th 1912

Dear Tom

Can you give me any idea of exact amount of capital I am ever likely to have. After five months in the works, I am afraid I don’t think I can go on with it much longer.  Certainly not for 5 years.  At the end of that time I should either have to sit for several exams which my maths would plough me in I am afraid, or else I should have to go to sea and take my tickets which is not much of a life especially down in the engine room. Can farming be possibly made to pay in England. I don’t want to go abroad.  It seems to me that quite a fair average of farmers, who had nothing very much to start on, have managed to make a living out of it.  Do you know what sort of price I ought to pay for mud-pupilling.  I have not told my people of this at present, I am afraid it will be a great disappointment for them my not getting on with the works as I think they had visions of my becoming a manager in 5 years. 

Yours sincerely

Signed:  Andrew Thorp

 Patten Arms Hotel Warrington

Dated Aug 6th (War-Time – assumed 1914)

 Dear Tom

 I am quartered here till Saturday night when I(crossed through), we leave for Blundelsands.  I shall send my address there to you as soon as I can.  I am in the 3rd bat. of the South Lancs regiment.  I feel I ought to make a new Will.  It is not fair to my people to leave everything to G before I am even engaged really to her.  One never knows what may happen in times like these.  So will you draw one up leaving everything I’ve got to Mary in the 1st instance and if she is dead to Arthur, yourself and Frank Long had better be executors as the War won’t last more than a year or so and I can make a new one if I come through.  The executors had better have £100 each.  I will tell you where to send this for my signature as soon as I know.  At present it will only be police work and guarding the Mersey but we expect to have all to go to Belgium.  We have sent off two drafts already to the other two batts.

 Yours affect

 Signed:  Andrew Thorp,  2nd Lieut, 3rd batt, South Lancs

 

We would like to extend a special thanks to the volunteers who have transcribed and listed these wonderful letters, and for their brilliant research which has brought these individuals to life.


 

The Meeting, Marriage and Parting of Ways: The Scandalous Mr Hewgill

by

A Wedding Day

On the morning of the 4th March, 1851, Margaret Dawson was preparing for her wedding day. She was, at thirty-eight years old, about to marry the Reverend Francis Hewgill. Margaret had originally hailed from Yorkshire, although she had spent the last few years in Northumberland. Following her Northumbrian wedding she would move to join her new husband in his parish of Trowell, Nottinghamshire. But the bridegroom was not as sprightly as his bride-to-be, instead he was nearing almost seventy years old. Their marriage would only last seven years before Francis’ death left Margaret a hugely affluent widow.

Documents retrospectively analysing the terms of the Hewgill’s marriage settlement, which had taken place over forty years before. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

During the 1830s Francis, already nearing his sixties, had volunteered to take care for his nephew Henry Hewgill, aged twenty-two. Henry, despite his youth, already had a wife and infant son, who Francis also took on. The household Francis brought them into was one of order and substance. He had four domestic staff (a number which would slowly dwindle when he lived with Margaret) and he supported his nephew to the best of his abilities. This careful nurturing resulted in Henry following his uncle’s spiritual footsteps and becoming the curate in Crofton, Fareham Hampshire. But Francis’ efforts to raise a gentleman were marred with scandal when, in 1853, Henry Hewgill was dragged before the magistrates at Fareham charged with obtaining money by false pretenses. This conviction pierced the quiet and subdued existence Francis had been enjoying with his caring new wife.

Need or Greed?

Henry had used both his uncle’s good name and that of the Rev W. M. Cosser to persuade two local men to hand over large amounts of money. He claimed the first amount, taken from a shop owner called Thomas Watters, was requested by Rev W. M. Cosser to pay off debts. Henry had forged Cosser’s handwriting to support his story and tricked the shop keeper into believing him. The second amount was fraudulently received from a church warden, Daniel Bartholomew, supposedly on behalf of Henry’s uncle. Once again he claimed the money was part of an owed payment and copied his uncle’s handwriting. But why did Henry need the money? And what had drove a well-stationed man to criminal behaviour?

Intimate Dealings

Henry had married Frances Decoetlogon on the 22nd August 1836, aged just eighteen years old. Five years later the young couple, and their infant son Charles Henry, were living with Henry’s generous uncle Francis Hewgill. Ten years later the couple, joined by two more children called Antonina and Ellen, had set up their own large household. Also living within this house was Henry’s mother, Harriet, and a selection of domestic staff. By 1853 the couple had added one more child to their growing family and had been settled in the area of Crofton for around eighteen months.

But the move to Crofton had not brought the couple joy, and Francis soon sought affection elsewhere. Retrospective newspaper reports claimed that, whilst covering for the local rector during a bout of sickness, Henry had been required to attend the local school more frequency. It was during these visits that a “close intimacy had sprung up” between the curate and the school’s mistress; Miss Macfarlane.

Henry concocted a desperate plan to elope with his lover; obtaining the money to do so by defrauding the aforementioned men. In the November of 1853 Henry and Miss Macfarlane “suddenly left Crofton” and their disgraced families with the stolen money and headed for Boulogne.

Following the couple’s disappearance their families found a secret diary written by the school teacher, and the scandalous entries were later published in the local newspaper. These entries described the dates, times and places of the couple’s illicit meetings and included notes such as “Dear Harry kissed me for the first time.”

During their absence in France the couple were reported to have been “living in the first style, and frequenting the theatre and other places of amusement”. They returned to London after a few weeks and, upon hearing an arrest warrant was out for his fraudulent tricks, Henry abandoned his lover with no money and fled.

When both were found Henry was apprehended to be placed immediately before the courts. He was convicted of having obtained money by false pretenses and imprisoned for six months. Ironically, upon Francis’ death in 1858, his uncle left a personal estate worth just under £6,000. Had Henry and his lover cooled their passions they may have received some of this legacy and been able to elope ‘legally’ but, instead, this money allowed Margaret to live comfortably on independent means until her own death in 1902. Whereupon, having resided in Ripon for the majority of her widowhood, she used the Dickson, Archer and Thorp firm to settle her legacy and effects totaling £10934 1s 6d.

 

We would like to thank the volunteers who have tirelessly transcribed the Hewgill’s marriage settlement and related documents. A document retrospectively concerning the original settlement, and Margaret’s assets, can be viewed along with its transcription here.

 

 

The Curious Case of Mr Turner

by

On the 1st May, 1871, evidence was taken before the Coroner’s Jury to discover why Mr James Turner had been tragically killed on Stamford’s level crossing only five days prior. The inquest saw seven witnesses testify, including James’ thirteen year old son and the seventy-three year old level-crossing gate-keeper. The inquest was focused upon three things; firstly whether James’ had been in a state fit enough to drive the cart, secondly whether Edward Dixon (the gate-keeper) should have shown his semaphore signal (danger signal) or even opened the gate at all, and thirdly whether the oncoming train had sounded its whistle. Changing any of these three variables could have saved James’ life and, by proving safety regulations were not adhered to, could end the careers of three men.

The story of James Turner had started long before that fateful afternoon in Stamford. He had been born to Alexander Turner in Wooler, around 1829, and married his wife Mary Moone on the 15th January 1844 at Christchurch in the parish of Tynemouth. The couple had five young children by 1871; John born in 1858, Elizabeth born in 1860, James born in 1862, Margaret born in 1865 and Alexander born in 1867. James had kept his family clothed and fed by working as a ‘hind’ for Mr Davison.

 

Christ Church, where Mary and James married, as it is today

 

On that fateful day in April 1871 James had let his eldest son, John, accompany him whilst he delivered potatoes from his cart. The thirteen year old John gave a brave and emotional testimony of that fateful day before the packed court. He confirmed that they had been travelling from Stamford to Heifeilaw Bank with three carts of potatoes, and “Father had charge of two carts (second horse tied to the first cart) and I drove the third cart.” After they had delivered the potatoes to Mr Craven they were invited to stay a while in his house. During the inquest John maintained that neither had consumed alcohol whilst on Mr Craven’s premises, but eyewitnesses who saw James later that day noted that he looked “lazy and glazed.” On their way home they crossed the railway at the Stamford level crossing, and John described the harrowing event in vivid detail;

“Father had reins upon his horse but I cannot say he had hold of them. I did not call to my Father. I could not see along the line to the north (there was a big bridge ramp); the Gatekeepers house prevented me. The West gate was open. I saw the Gatekeeper Edward Dixon as the first horse was facing the line standing at the east side of the line below the Gate at the rails adjoining the Gate. I cannot say whether the East Gate was open or not but the West one was. I saw no one with the Gatekeeper …. as the cart got onto the up line the Engine came from the north and struck the horse and the fore part of the cart. I pulled up. I did not see what came of my Father. I cannot say how far the Engine went. The next thing I saw was Father lying on the 6 foot with his head on his right arm on his face. He was clear of the rails – he was senseless. I cannot say he was bleeding – I cannot say who took him off. The Gatekeeper was leaning against the rails. The carts did not stop at all – Gatekeeper was looking towards us – this was a few minutes after 6pm.”

 

This image, taken from our wider collection, shows a Dr Burman driving a cart potentially similar to James’ c. 1890. NRO 09703/17

 

Local news reports also relayed a similar tale; commenting particularly upon the brutality of what his son had to witness. Clearly in shock following the incident, John could not recall who helped his father but those individuals also took the stand before the coroner’s court. One of those was Thomas Carr, a platelayer who lived in the cottage on the west side of the Stamford crossing, he recalled how “my boy shouted out Turner was killed …. I ran out – on the upline I saw the Engine … standing 100 yards from the crossing to the south. The horse was dead & 29  yards from the crossing. Part of the cart was on the west line. James Turner was lying on the 6 foot way – with his head on his right arm on his right side, face downwards. The Gatekeeper was standing on the up line above the crossing. Deceased was insensible, I went away for assistance.” Another, Stephen Rea, was also a resident at the crossing and said that he went to help when he heard the Gate keeper shouting a man had been killed. The men took James home where he was attended by Dr Henry Caudlish, who “found [the] deceased suffering from concussion of the brain and inflammation of both lungs, caused by an accident such as has been described by the witnesses. I saw him also that evening and up to his death – which took place from the injuries received on Saturday the 29th at a few minutes past 12. The deceased was a vigorous man in a healthy state of body.”

 

Solicitor’s notes translating the human loss into fiscal damages to win Mary compensation. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

Why James had been able to take his cart over the crossing when there had been a scheduled train approaching confused both the coroner and the media. Thomas Carr called the gatekeeper Edward Dixon a “steady man” who had been in the service of the Railway Company for 23 years. Carr attested to knowing of the regulations of the crossing and that; “it is the Gatekeepers duty to ascertain if there is a train coming or an Engine on the line, before he opens the Gates and he must be satisfied none is in sight before he opens either Gate. He should also show his danger signal (semaphore signal) and keep it exhibited till the line is clear. Then he closes the gate and alters the signals. When on the line an Engine can be seen on a clear day ¾ of a mile to the north and about 1 ½ miles to the south. The express was due at Bilton about 6 o’clock p.m. and at the crossing 10 minutes later. Gatekeepers duty is to stand on the 6 feet to look for her coming. The Express was at this time on Thursday night. I was in the cottage at 10 past 6 but I heard no whistling. My cottage looks onto the line to the east.”

The absence of a whistle, and the need for a semaphore signal, was also noted by other witnesses. Stephen Rea did not hear a whistle or see any signals before the unfortunate event, but he also asserted that Dixon was “perfectly steady, I never saw anything amiss … Dixon’s age is about 70 years, his sight and hearing are perfect. From half past 5 in the morning till 10 at night, his duties last, no person attends between times 10 at night and half past 5 the next morning. He gets one Sunday in the month to himself.” Had a twenty-three years of long hours and stressful work finally overcome the aging gatekeeper? Was he guilty of incompetence by not raising the semaphore signal and forgetting that there was a scheduled train?

 

Examinations from the inquest. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

The train drivers, Richard Dobson and Hugh Laing, certainly believed that fault lay with the gatekeeper. They confirmed that they had “left Newcastle on Thursday last with train leaving at 1.30 p.m. We left Tweedmouth a 5.12p.m … When we got to the back signal before coming to Stamford Laing blew the whistle – I am certain of it. That is about 600 yards before coming to the crossing. The rule does not say he is obliged to whistle and the Drivers act on their own discretion. At that time the rate would not exceed 24 or 25 miles an hour.” The driver, Hugh Laing, had been 23 years in the service of North Eastern Railway and tragically recalled how “When we were about ½ way between the back signal and the crossing I saw the Gatekeeper cross from the west side to the east side of the line – he had no white signal in his hand that I saw. Nor yet was the semaphore signal up I would have topped. The Gatekeeper went to the east gates and I expected he was going to shut them. I then stepped to the left side of the Engine & I saw the Gateman return to the line holding up his hands as if to stop something coming from the west. I was about 50 or 60 yards north of the crossing. I then saw almost immediately the horse & cart come on to the down line. I couldn’t see anyone in it. It kept on and the Engine struck it at the crossing. I had reversed the Engine and pulled up at about 60 yards past the crossing and then went back and saw the deceased on the 6 foot. I assisted in taking him off the line. No notice of the Engine and tender was given to the Gatekeeper. I applied the brakes before the collision as soon as I saw the horse and cart. I could have seen a man if he had been on the cart. It was impossible to stop the Engine sooner.”

This damning evidence of witnesses proved that Edward Dixon, the gate keeper, had failed in at least some of his duties. Edward had been born in the Bamburgh parish and, like Mary Turner, had been widowed with a young family. He had flitted between residing with his daughter Julia and a family called the May’s. Following the subtle indications of his guilt, Edward was finally able to address the coroner’s court as its final witness;

“I am the crossing keeper at Stamford station on the North Eastern Railway. I have been there 10 months. I go on at half past 5 and my duties end at 10p.m. I am 73 years of age. My sight and hearing are not impaired, I can see and hear as well as ever I did. My duty is to watch the gates and shut and open them on anything crossing the line. I have no instructions as to which Gates to open first. I think not, but I generally open the far one first. On Thursday last about 10 past 6 I was opening the East Gate. I saw the carts a minute or two before coming towards the West Gate and I saw the man lying with his head on the fore part of the Cart with his back to the North, he did not speak. When I observed him coming on the line the West Gate was open and I crossed to open the East Gate. I saw nothing coming till I turned round from the Gate. I then saw the Engine & Tender coming perhaps 100 yards from the crossing. I then shouted to deceased and held up both my hands at the last shout he looked over his shoulder lazily and came onto the line. When I shouted first he was just coming in at the West Gate. I heard no whistling. I could have heard a whistle from the back signal post. The wind was from the West but there was a goodish breeze which might carry the sound away. It is my duty to look both ways North and South before opening the Gates. I looked both ways and saw nothing. From the time I went to open the West Gate till the Engine and Tender came up it would scarcely be a minute I could have seen them if they had been at the back signal. He was not within the signal. I was watching the Express…. Unless I see something on the line I do not use the semaphore signal. I have been occasionally a Crossing Keeper before I came here. I live at Lucker but I lodge at the Gate. I never saw the semaphore used unless there was something on the line. I feel no inconvenience from the hours. About 8 or 10 Carts in a day, about 14 or 15 vehicles each way will cross. The semaphores are not used unless there is danger and I saw no danger. There is no rule that I am to put up the semaphore signal every time to open the Gates, that I know of. There is a copy of the Rules in the cabin, but partly defaced, I have read them. I always use the semaphore signal when stock (cattle or sheep) are crossing but not when Carts are crossing. I had no knowledge of the Engine and Tender coming back. I have 12/- a week. Rule “175 says” When the Railway is required to be crossed the Gatekeeper shall before opening the Gates shall satisfy himself that no Engine is in sight – he shall then show his Danger Signals and keep them exhibited until the line is clear when he shall close the Gates and after the signals.”

The inquest duly listened to all the witness statements that day and returned a verdict which found severe failings in the way the Railway Company treated its staff. They concluded that James had died from his injuries sustained at the crossing, and called to the Company’s attention the long hours Edward was required to work and the fact that he was not informed when “special” services were running.

Whether Dixon or the train men were to blame was immaterial to James’ widow Mary. She had lost her husband and the family’s main provider, but the coroner’s inquest gave her a platform upon which to receive compensation from the railway. She was also awarded the jurors fees for her loss. But her recovery from despair was short-lived; as in June 1871 she also lost her daughter Margaret to sickness. This was a sad turn of events which was recorded in the notes of solicitors working for the Dickson, Archer and Thorp firm.

Solicitor’s note regarding the death of Mary’s daughter. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

We would like to thank the volunteer who kindly transcribed the documentation around this case and provided additional information through careful research. We would also like to thank the volunteer who digitised the items to enable us to share them with you.

+ More