Hexham

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

08/05/201826/03/2018 by Northumberland Archives

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 15^th 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 3^rd 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 27^th 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 20^th 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 3^rd 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 28^th 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.

It’s our custom – day to day life in the manorial documents

24/08/2016 by Northumberland Archives

We can learn a lot about everyday life in the manor by looking at how it was organised. Using manorial documents we can identify individuals and look at what ‘customs’ (rules) they were required to live by, and how they bent or broke the rules that their manor imposed. You could be ‘presented’ before the manor to be ‘amerced’ (fined) for anything from large offences like cheating buyers at your market stall, to not having your chimney in correct repair or cutting back a tree hanging into a neighbour’s garden. Between different manors these rules could be strikingly different.

The customs were upheld by a number of different officials. A Bailiff or Reeve (paid and unpaid versions of the same post) took on the day to day running of the manor. He might be assisted by a barleyman (‘byelaw man’ in charge of upholding the bye laws of the manor), Pinder or pounder (in charge of impounding livestock), lookers (into a particular area, such as fencelooker who examined boundaries and fences), among other roles depending on the needs of the manor. We find evidence of these officials in the manorial documents.

NRO 672/A/3/87 first page giving details of Hexham manor, the names of the borough Jury and the Afeerors. — Part of the first page of NRO 672/A/3/87 giving details of Hexham manor, the names of the Borough Jury and the Afeerors.

To show how customs worked we will take Hexham manor as an example. In Hexham we have an excellent series of what is known as the Borough Jury books (often spelt ‘burrow books’) from the seventeeth to nineteenth century which give ‘presentments’ (judgements of cases) jurored by a group of the townsmen known as the four and twenty. These books list other roles like the common keepers, market keepers, waits, affeerors, and scavengers. Affeerors were appointed from among the tenants to ensure amercements (fines) were kept fair. Waits were watchmen, often required to sound the hour. The (often female) scavengers swept the market and maintained street gutters in the town, fighting against the piles of rubbish (also ashes, thatch, weeds, gravel, bark and stones) Hexham’s townspeople were presented for leaving.

Detail from NRO 672/A/3/87 giving the names of the Scavengers.

Other roles can also be found:

From Stannington to South Africa and other stories – the role of the Boards of Guardians

21/12/202005/08/2016 by Northumberland Archives

Before the NHS supported children at Stannington Sanatorium there were a few sources of finance for patients who could not fund their own places. We have already covered a little of the practice of donations for memorial cots in our online exhibition. From 1929 the Northumberland County Council’s Public Assistance Committee supported places for children from the county, with other councils doing likewise. However what about the children who went to Stannington before 1929?

Before the Committee was created those on low incomes were supported by the Poor Law Boards. They ran the workhouses, provided out-relief to those on low incomes, housed the orphans of the parish, and financially supported the ‘lunatics’ of the parish in the County Asylum (see our recent post). There were ten Poor law unions in Northumberland; Alnwick, Belford, Bellingham, Berwick, Castle Ward (for the Ponteland area), Glendale (for the Wooler area), Haltwhistle, Hexham, Morpeth and Rothbury. We decided to look through our poor law records for children who were supported at Stannington by the Board of Guardians, who dealt with the welfare of individuals, for Hexham Union.

Though Stannington Sanatorium had been open since 1907 the first mention we find in the records isn’t until 1910, when in the minute books we have an explanation of how the system worked:

As the Board of Guardians were not charged for the Stannington patients we do not know how many of the children were sent, but we have a few cases where their return is mentioned.

Though we do not know what became of Janet, the Guardian’s minute book (GHE/20) shows by 1930 Catherine was at the Convent of Notre Dame, Southwark, London. The Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur ran, and continue to run, numerous schools and pupil teacher centres like Southwark across Britain. It is possible that Catherine was training as a pupil teacher, a five year apprenticeship in which girls received lessons as well as teaching younger girls (if you would like to learn more the Sisters have a very informative website). The Guardians sent Catherine £14 11s 9d in National Savings Certificates they had held for her, which were to be kept by her Sister Superior until she turned 21.

Photograph of the Phillipson Farm Colony boys and their manager from the Stannington Sanatorium brochure HOSP/STAN/9/1/1 — Photograph of the Philipson Farm Colony boys and their manager from the Stannington Sanatorium brochure HOSP/STAN/9/1/1

However patients at the Sanatorium were not the only children that the Board financed at Stannington. The Philipson Farm Colony was used as a training facility to prepare boys to go into agricultural jobs. The first we see to be sent from Hexham is an orphaned boy, 14 years 5 months old, called William Young.

We first hear of William’s story in a letter in February 1911 to the PCHA, in which the guardians ask for a place at the Philipson Farm Colony for William. Further letters show this was granted, the Guardians agreed to pay six shillings in maintenance for him, and he was to be sent on the 11^th March or the 1^st of April. The 1911 census, taken on the 2^nd April, shows he was a farm labourer, one of many boys in their late teens and early twenties present at the colony, and was born in Brampton, Cumberland. Sadly we have been unable to discover which of the many William Youngs born in the area he might have been.

The Farm Manager at this time was John Atkin, who had leased the farm since 1900 and was in charge of the boys at the colony from its opening in 1905. An article written by John in the Rotary Wheel magazine of August 1918 describes his endeavour to produce the most from the land in as diverse a way as possible, advocating a mixture of crops, livestock and poultry. William would therefore have learned many different aspects of farming at the Philipson Farm Colony.

In March 1913 the Guardians began to debate his next step, likely at the request of the PCHA or Farm Colony, and on the 4^th April they had agreed for William to go to Canada. At the time emigration to the British colonies was encouraged, and it was a common thing that boys from the colony would make a new life there using their farming skills. The Guardians requested reassurance of William’s willingness to go and the suitability of the place he would be sent to. It seems this place fell through, and another letter on the 20^th of September announced that the Board agreed to his being sent to Australia. However by the 18^th of October the plan had again changed to South Africa. He was sent money for clothing, and we know from later correspondence he departed the next day. It seems however William did not enjoy his time there – he wrote to his sister in Hexham, and the letters were passed on to the Guardians and the Farm Colony for them to look at. A letter dated the 29^th May 1914 writes to the PCHA that the Boarding Out Committee had decided:

John Nicholas Hall was another boy sent to the Philipson Farm Colony by the Hexham Board of Guardians. A letter on the 26^th June 1912 shows they had considered John emigrating to Canada with William, however he went to the Farm Colony instead, again at the same rate of 6/- weekly. All we know from his time there is a brief mention in the minute books. On the 29^th April 1913 we find:

These examples give us a little insight into the arrivals at Stannington Sanatorium and the Philipson Farm Colony in their early years, but also into the end of the Poor Law Unions. Though perhaps not the most caring of organisations (such as their reference to Catherine as ‘it’!) the Poor Law Boards sought to find a home and training for a future career for all the children that came to them. They also made sure that children who were unwell were cared for, including within their own institutions. However William’s case also makes us wonder about the stories of the children associated with Stannington and the Farm Colony. We know many other boys from the Farm Colony also emigrated and it is possible this was under the ‘Home Children’ scheme. The scheme started in the 19^th century and led to the emigration of many thousands of children from the United Kingdom to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Until relatively recently it has been difficult to find information about these children, but now records have become more accessible via national initiatives. The websites of The National Archives of the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand provide useful advice about researching child migration. Sadly there is nothing for South Africa yet, but hopefully we will be able to learn what became of William with further research.