BERWICK ADVERTISER, 17TH JUNE 1921 – SPECIAL EDITION

06/01/2022 by Northumberland Archives

The 1921 census online has been released today, 6th January 2022. This special edition gives the reader a snippet on what was happening in Berwick-upon-Tweed when the 1921 census information was taken.

CENSUS

The head of a household will have a busy week-end filling up the census forms which are now being issued, and as the law looks upon the male parent as being the “head,” whether he feels up to it or not, he will have the satisfaction for once of being master of his own house. Happy indeed as this time is the man whose quiver is not full of olive branches, as to the male mind the calculating of the ages, Millicent, Mary Ann, and Agustus John in years and months is a matter of some difficulty. Again there is the preparing of an abstract of your family; but this is a simple matter, as you just make a cross ( just the same kind which figure at the end of Divorce Court letters) against the age of your several offspring. By a kindly dispensation of Providence such questions as “Have you ceased beating your wife?” are not asked. If “heads” had to answer this “Yes or “No” without quibbling it would be rather a delicate matter. The great thing, however, is to have your census paper correctly filled up when the enumerator calls for it on Monday morning.

SWARM OF BEES

At mid-day on Tuesday, passers-by were interested in watching a swarm of bees hovering in the air over Mr Joures’ stationer’s shop at the top of Hide Hill. The bees, belonging to Mrs Crossman, had escaped from the hive in the garden in Ravensdowne.

BRO 0426-355 Hide Hill, Berwick-upon-Tweed

Up to Thursday morning they had not been recaptured and were to be seen working in the eaves of the roof of Mr Joures’ shop. A hive of bees belonging to Mr Ironside, Hope Nurseries, on Tuesday swarmed in the top of a tree in the Plantation, where they have been allowed to remain.

SURRENDER GERMAN STEAMER

ARRIVES AT BERWICK

SHORT OF COAL AND PROVISIONS

On Friday evening the German Steamer “Alsen” (659 tons net register, Capt. Hildebrandt) from Hamburgh to Leith, where she was to be surrendered under the terms of the Treaty, arrived off Berwick and signalled that she was short of steam coal and provisions and wished to enter the port. The vessel was a large one and some difficulty was experienced in getting her up the river, but she was ultimately berthed in tweed Dock.

The vessel carried a crew of 22 and had only about half-a ton of coal left when she was docked. The provisions would not have lasted another day. The crew had no money and seemed anxious to be discharged and sent home to their own country. No coal was available to take the ship o to Leith, and it was decided to let her remain at Berwick until the Naval Authorities at Leith decided whether they would make arrangements for her to proceed there, or for the ship to be taken over at Berwick. The crew were allowed ashore from 12 to 5 on Saturday.

The crew of the steamer were allowed to leave for Grimsby on Monday night. There they will be repatriated as early as possible.

CROOKHAM

On Saturday afternoon, June 11, a meeting in connection with the Women’s Missionary Association was held in the Presbyterian Church when a large attendance listened with great interest to an address given by Miss Maclagan, who is a at present home on furlough from the mission fields of China. Her address dealt mainly with work among women and girls in Changpu and Nasiv and an interesting account was given of the education of native girls which had just commenced during the last year or two.

Miss Maclagan also spoke of the way which the mission was carried on in the outlying villages and gave many interesting experiences which had happened. After tea had been kindly provided at the manse by Mrs Forsyth there were many interesting Chinese things to be seen. A few words of thanks to Miss Maclagan brought the meeting to a close. Miss Maclagan also spoke on Sunday morning in the Church.

William Wailes – Visionary, Creator and Artist

10/11/202308/05/2018 by Northumberland Archives

William Wailes was one of England’s most accomplished and visionary stained glass manufacturers. A key partner in the internationally renowned firm Wailes and Strang, William used his artistic flair to promote philanthropy, decadent design and religious adulation.

A William Wailes design for a stained glass window, *DN/E/8/2/2/173*

German Glass

William was born in Newcastle Upon Tyne in 1808, the youngest son of Thomas Wailes. He had at least three siblings; George, Margaret and Elizabeth Anne. In the early 1830s, whilst still a youth, William traveled to Germany to develop his skills in glass production. Glass production was a meticulous art to master, and contemporaries often commented upon Wailes’ dedication to his chosen trade and the long hours he sacrificed to producing unique and precise designs. Upon returning to the North East he gradually established his own business in manufacturing and designing glass, by creating his earliest designs in a low-budget kiln.

Wailes advertised his abilities through various regional and national newspapers, mixing European techniques with competitive pricing. His hard work eventually paid off and his company soon became renowned for their unique ability to harness the bright colour pigments in glass (a difficult feat in the mid 1800s). Soon his work was being incorporated into religious architecture across the world. These intricate designs can still be enjoyed in many places today including India, Newcastle and Low Fell.

The detail of a Wailes – Strang design, *DN/E/8/2/2/137*

The success of his firm led to the employment (at any one time) of between 60 to 100 persons. William had a good reputation as an employer and, when one of his employees died in 1852, journalists at the funeral commented upon the bond between Wailes-Strang workers. William also enjoyed a good personal reputation, becoming Overseer of the Poor in 1848 for the Parish of Newcastle and patroning pupils from the Institution of the Deaf and Dumb.

Keeping the Business Personal

In January 1834 William married his wife, Janet Elizabeth Carr, at Alnwick. The couple had at least four children; Margaret Janet born in 1834, Anne Kirwood born in 1836, William Thomas Wailes born in 1838 and John Carr Wailes born in 1841. Whilst their youngest son, John, died at the tender age of nine their other children all survived to adulthood.

The Wailes and Strang families were closely interwoven, both personally and professionally. Margaret (William’s eldest daughter) married Thomas Rankin Strang, a partner in her father’s firm and a celebrated stain-glass manufacturer. Together they would have one son, William Wailes Strang, who would continue the family’s glass making legacy. The Wailes’ own son, William Thomas, married Jane Ward and together they had two daughters Frances Margaret and Ann Elizabeth.

In 1861 William and Janet were living in South Dene Towers, Gateshead. Their household at this time was substantial; comprising of their daughter Margaret, their son-in-law Thomas Strang, their grandson William, the ageing Wailes sisters Elizabeth and Margaret, three domestic servants, a visiting widow called Isabella Le Berkeley and a Sarah A Pashley. Their neighbours at this time were the Peasel’s who had made their fortune from banking. Also living nearby, in a row called “Wailes’ Gardens,” were a dozen or so gardeners. These men most likely worked for William on his new vision – redesigning Saltwell Estate in Gateshead.

William’s creative legacy still lives on in some of Gateshead’s street names

Saltwell Park

William’s creative vision led to him purchasing the site in the 1860s and building of a decorative mansion (known as Saltwell Towers). The building, gothically styled, is still greatly imposing with its soaring towers and numerous windows. In 1861, shortly after purchasing the site, William is listed as owning ten acres and employing three men, fourteen boys and two women to care for his land. These individuals were most likely employed to help William realise his vision of cultivated gardens. Ten years later, in 1871, William owned 235 acres of land across the region.

However, almost twenty years after purchasing Saltwell Estate, William ran into financial difficulties and was forced to sell his dream to the Gateshead Corporation whom opened the gardens up as a public park. In the heart-breaking deal William was allowed to remain resident in the towers until his death in 1881.

The Will of Women

When William Wailes died in 1881 his will outlined how his personal estate, estimated in local papers to have been worth £25,403 3s 5d, should be divided between his family. This original document has been found amongst papers within the Dickson, Archer and Thorp collection and its date, late January, suggests it was hastily written on his death bed. The majority of William’s surviving blood relations were female, and it fell to them to both divide and claim his assets. These included his two daughters, two granddaughters, widowed daughter-in-law and two sisters.

An extract from the will of William Wailes. *REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT*

He had appointed his daughter Anne Kirwood, his friend John Gibson and his son-in-law Thomas Rankin Strang to be his executors and trustees. He left a watch, belonging to his previously deceased son William Thomas, to his only grandson William Wailes Strang. He left his recently widowed daughter-in-law £20 for mourning, but instructed that her daughters should remain in the care of their aunt Anne Kirwood. Anne was to therefore act as the girls’ live-in mother and trustee until they reached the age of 21. William also bequeathed to his trustees and executors any money still owed to him by the Gateshead Corporation for the sale of Saltwell Park, and assigned yearly allowances to various family members. He also bequeathed gifts to the institution of the Deaf and Dumb.

The signature of William Wailes Strang, DN/E/8/2/2/137

William may have been gone but his legacy continued through his gifts of philanthropy and his grandson’s development of the family glass making business. William was an exceptional force admired for being hard-working, charitable and upstanding – the ultimate Victorian gentleman.

We would like to thank the volunteer who carefully transcribed the last will and testimony of William Wailes, without which this blog would not be possible.

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

08/05/201823/03/2018 by Northumberland Archives

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 22^nd 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 24^th 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 26^th 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 30^th 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.