DicksonArcherThorpCollection

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.

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. 

 

Guilty or Innocent? The Trespassing Shepherd

by

BE IT REMEMBERED that on the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Six, at Alnwick …. Thomas Brown of Alnwick Moor …. Shepherd is Convicted before the undersigned, Two of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said County, for that he the said Thomas Brown on the ninth day of September 1876 at the Township of Alnwick in the parish of Alnmouth in the County aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully commit Trespass by being on the day time upon certain land then situate in the occupation by one ‘Potts’ of Cook Hill Morpeth in the said County in the search of Game to wit  Grouse contrary to the Form of the Statute in such case made and provided. And we adjudge the said Thomas Brown for his said offence to forfeit and pay the sum of nine shillings and six pence to be paid  and applied according to Law, and also to pay Henry Embleton Trotter of Alnwick in the said County, the Informer, the sum of ten shillings and six pence for his cost in this behalf; And if the said several sums be not paid forthwith, We adjudge the said Thomas Brown to be imprisoned in the House of Correction at Morpeth, in the said County and there to be kept to hard labour for the space of fourteen days. Unless the said several sums shall be paid sooner.

Alnwick, 4th November 1876

Thomas Brown (Appellant) and Henry Embleton Trotter (Respondent) faced each other at the Northumberland Epiphany Quarter Sessions, 1877 . Mr Brown was appealing against an accusation of trespass made by Mr Trotter. The alleged trespass took place on the heath of Alnwick Moor; an area which had been divided under enclosure Acts dated 2 March 1854. The Freemen of Alnwick possessed eatage (the right to use the grassland for pasturage) on Alnwick Moor. They had let this portion of the moor (where the trespass allegedly occurred) to Mr Trotter. Mr Trotter also leased game from his Grace the Duke of Northumberland, as evidenced by a stamped and sealed lease dated 13th July 1876. This game was to be managed by Mr Trotter and reserved for the Dukes’ private hunting. Alnwick Moor also adjoined the Dukes’ personal park, where another large group of game was also preserved. Consequently, game belonging to the Duke frequently came over the Duke’s Wall onto the heath moor (possessed and managed by the Freemen of Alnwick).

Mr Trotter had employed Mr Brown and his father to act as shepherds. They were instructed to care for the moor and given accommodation on the allotments. But Mr Trotter argued that their treatment of that portion of the moor was motivated by greed, and that they had abused their position by illegally hunting. In court Mr Trotter, a Gentleman of Alnwick , claimed Brown had illegally trespassed and hunted the Duke’s game. He was supported in his claims by a string of witness testimonies.

In the initial trial Henry Embleton Trotter attested to:

“[finding] the Defendant on Alnwick Moor between Reedside Road and Turnpike. I am leasee of Game. He had a dog and gun and ranging the ground. I cautioned him a fortnight before. He said he had a right to carry a gun. He fired a shot after I left him. I watched him for an hour and half with a glass – grouse on the place. I know he is the shepherd’s son. No sheep were where I found him and the dog ranging.”

Mr Trotter claimed he had seen Mr Brown stalking (passing between parcels of land with no obvious permission to do so.) Mr Brown claimed he was carrying out his duty as a shepherd; to carry a gun and protect the land. Mr Dix, who represented Mr Brown in the original trial, addressed the magistrates stating there was no actual case to answer, as Mr Trotter had not actually seen Mr Brown fire his gun and had actually only observed him passing between parcels of land. This, Mr Dix stated, was not a crime. He claimed his client carried a gun as two sheep had been lost to stray dogs during the previous month. He also emphasized how willing and compliant Mr Brown had been when searched for illegal game – a search which proved to be fruitless.

The bench of Justices consisted of the following individuals:

  • J Craster Esq
  • S F Widdrington Esq
  • T Clutherbuck Esq
  • J R Carr Ellison Esq

Despite Mr Dix’s strong case this gathering of men believed, for whatever reason, that the evidence against Mr Brown was quite sufficient to justify a conviction. However, the defendant had 3 days to serve a Notice of Appeal following the Justices Meeting. The case had been heard on a Saturday; thus meaning Sunday was the 1st day, Monday the 2nd & Tuesday the 3rd. But the Respondent did not get the Notice until the 4th day (Wednesday morning) when it was picked up in the Archway near the outer door of his house. If the Notice had been put under the door anytime before 10.30 pm o’clock on the Tuesday the respondent said he would have seen it; for he had “set a friend of his to the outer door at that time and no Notice was seen in the Archway at where it had been pushed under the gate next the street.”

The notice stated:

To Henry Emblazon Trotter of Alnwick in the County of Northumberland Gentleman.

Take notice that, I , the undersigned Thomas Brown of Alnwick Moor, in the County of Northumberland, Shepherd, do intend to enter and prosecute an appeal at the next General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace to be holden not less than 12 days after the 7th day of October instant at Newcastle upon Tyne, in and for the County of Northumberland against  a certain conviction or order bearing the date the said 7th day of October instant and made by John Craster and S F Widdrington Esquires Her Majestys Justices of the Peace for the said County of Northumberland.

Mr Brown chose to appeal these false accusations and, as it would appear from related documentation, he had a strong case to do so. We can only hope he was found innocent of false charges.

 

We would like to thank the volunteer who carefully transcribed these documents and allowed this blog to be produced.

 

 

+ More