Husband

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

by

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 22nd 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 24th 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 26th 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 30th 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.

Eugene and Emma – An Intercontinental Love Story

by

 

Eugene Sullivan was born in Bangalore, India in around 1833. His parents were British subjects, and his birth place suggests that his father may have held either military or governmental positions in the ever-expanding British Empire. Eugene appears to have continued the colonial legacy of his parents by joining the British army at the age of 18. His active military career lasted eighteen years before he requested to be discharged in 1870. During the discharge process a Manchester-based military hearing was given a synopsis of his career. The hearing was told that Sullivan had spent over twelve years of his military career stationed abroad. Through piecing together Eugene’s war record it would appear he witnessed both the Crimean War (in 1853) and the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (also known as the Indian Mutiny or The Great Rebellion). Eugene’s military postings had taken him to the farthest frontiers of the British Empire – often into dangerous and politically dubious areas. Greater detail of his posts were given as follows; three and a half years in the East Indies, just under five years in the West Indies, seven months in the Mediterranean, a year in Crimea and five years in Canada.

During one of his postings abroad Eugene married his English-born wife Emma Parsons. They were joined together on the 4th March 1857 within an Anglican Garrison in Canada. Together the couple had a total of eight children over a twenty-four year period, with Emma and the three eldest children having followed Eugene across the world.

Their eldest child, Hannah E, was born soon after their marriage in 1858. Following her birth the family moved to Bermuda for a short period, where William J was born in 1861. They then returned to Canada and in 1868 Eugene D was born. Eugene the younger would grow up to become a reverend with a keen eye for financial sales and shares, whilst William would become a skilled workman crafting cabinets. Both brothers would subsequently die in the same death year: 1923.

Following Eugene’s request to be discharged from the army the Sullivan’s settled in Northumberland.  A third son, Ernest Lewis, was born soon after their return to England in 1871. He was baptised at St Paul’s church in Alnwick, near the family’s lodgings at Alnwick’s militia depot on Hotspur Street. From census material it would appear the family lived here whilst Eugene was working as a Drill Master on the site. A second daughter, named Emma Jessie Parsons, was born in 1873 and baptised at the same church as her brother but she tragically died during infancy.  The family’s grief over the death of their youngest child was soon replaced with joy as a third daughter, Amelia Gertrude Edith, arrived in 1878. She was followed in quick succession by two more girls; Ada Madoline in 1880 and Mabel Violet Florence in 1883. But the birth of Ada was overshadowed by the death of the Sullivan’s eldest daughter, Hannah, occurring in the same year.

 

A solicitor’s notes on the Sullivan case, showing the ages of the youngest daughters and the address of Emma’s elected trustee. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

By 1885 the Sullivan’s marriage had spanned almost thirty years. It had created eight children, and endured the death of two. It had survived extreme warfare and stretched its affection across three continents. Perhaps the marriage had run out of steam, or perhaps the recent death of their eldest child was too great for the couple to overcome. Whatever the reasoning behind their decision the couple decided to amicably separate in 1885. They hired the Dickson, Mornington and Archer firm (as the Dickson, Archer and Thorp firm was known during a short period in the late nineteenth century) to settle any legal issues relating to the custody and financial support of their remaining children.

Separation and Agreements

The Sullivan’s separation was a unique one, and their micro-case can be used to trace seismic changes occurring throughout the nineteenth century with respect to divorce, women’s rights and familial settlements. Neither party sought a full legal divorce, perhaps because they wished to avoid any reputational shame or financial demands, but instead opted for a legally-supported separation. During their separation neither party received blame or vilification for the breakdown of the relationship. Contrary to the perceived character of an estranged husband, Eugene Sullivan penned letters to his lawyers filled with warm and affectionate words for Emma. However Eugene’s strong emotions were muted within official separation documents, and his actions were revealed to have been more complex. What therefore follows is an analysis of the couple’s official and private documents, framed within the greater concepts of nineteenth century divorce and marriage.

 

Correspondence regarding the settlement. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

The indenture outlining the terms of their separation cites “unhappy differences” which “have arisen between E.V Sullivan and Emma his wife” as the reason why “they have consequently agreed to live separate (not under the same roof) from each other for the future.” The document was made in the presence of a witness, William Bean, who was to act as Emma’s trustee. Parting to live under a separate roof was important phrasing which Eugene pushed to have included. But the inclusion of the phrase becomes confused when one reads his personal correspondence with the solicitors. In this series of documents Eugene repeatedly emphasises, and encourages, his assumed responsibility to furnish and finance Emma’s new lodgings.

 

Notes amending the legal separation, discussing the clause “to live apart.” REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

Only four of the couple’s children were subject to the document’s conditions (and a potential custody battle) as, by 1885, two had predeceased the settlement and another two no longer lived in the family home. The document decided, and ultimately divided, custody over the children with the following statement;

“E.V Sullivan shall have custody and shall also maintain and clothe the said Ernest Louis Sullivan and the said Emma Sullivan shall have the custody of Amelia Gertrude Edith Sullivan aged 8 years, Ada Madoline Sullivan aged 5 years and Mabel Violet Florence Sullivan aged 3 years. And that the said E.V Sullivan shall have access to the said Amelia Gertrude Edith Sullivan, Ada Madoline Sullivan and Mabel Violet Florence Sullivan and the said Emma Sullivan shall have access to the said Ernest Louis Sullivan under such arrangements as shall to be made between them for this purpose or if they are unable to agree under such arrangements as shall be made by the said William Bean.”

It is perhaps telling that, whilst custody of the children takes up two pages of the document, references to the settlement of property take up three and a half pages. It was agreed, as part of the separation, that Emma would receive a weekly payment from Eugene, to be handled by her Trustee. However, the payment would be forfeited should the marriage be permanently dissolved by “any other jurisdiction.” This clause acted to prevent Emma from pursuing a total divorce. Regarding the inheritance of property, should Emma predecease Eugene, it was stated that he would inherit as was his “marital right.” The document also noted that Emma should not expect, and would not be given, any further financial support for the payment of future debts or every-day expenditure from Eugene.

But Emma also maintained her own conditions; rooted in her personal freedom and independence. She added a clause that, upon following the separate living arrangements, Eugene could not “molest or interfere with the said Emma Sullivan in her manner of living or otherwise.” This clause throws Eugene’s ‘caring’ letters into question. Was he really trying to provide for his estranged wife, and the children she maintained, by keeping her financially and furnishing her new abode? Or was it a way to maintain a level of control over Emma? The inclusion of so many specific clauses appeared to insinuate that, at least for Eugene, the bonds of marriage relating to property and name remained – even if the couple occupied separate lodgings.

Nineteenth Century Divorce and Marriage

During the nineteenth century the concept of divorce and marriage underwent drastic legal change. Marriage became more secular following various parliamentary acts. This drove separation and divorce out the ecclesiastical courts and into the jurisdiction of secular judges and solicitors; such as Dickson, Archer and Mornington. Married women were also afforded greater legal status as the century progressed, with specific regard to the custody of children – developments Emma clearly capitalised upon.

Prior to the latter 1800’s ecclesiastical divorce could be granted in extreme cases of adultery, cruelty or desertion although no party would be allowed to remarry. In 1857 the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act created a Probate and Divorce Court in London which allowed civil divorces. When using these courts parties still had to prove, with sufficient evidence, that serious adultery, cruelty, incest, bigamy or other heinous offences had occurred. Unfortunately, evidential proof was often difficult to establish and pursuing a divorce case could be costly to ones finances and reputation. There was no reference to ill-treatment or adultery in the Sullivan’s case, and perhaps this lack of vilification can be attested as the reason why a full legal divorce had not been sought.

The Married Woman’s Property acts of 1870 and 1882 gradually gave married women the right to hold property in their own name. The 1882 act gave women possession of all property held before or after their marriage – thus allowing women to become independent financial entities. But this still did not entitle married women to sue their husbands (as they remained one legal person) or be allowed to keep a legal residence apart from her husband. Thus Eugene’s acceptance of his wife’s second residence, forming part of a legal separation, was a double-edged sword. Although it allowed Emma to live a separate and more autonomous life, it would doubtlessly have been poorly judged by their contemporaries.

 

A letter from Eugene discussing the furnishing of Emma’s new lodgings. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

The Sullivan’s settlement had been carefully crafted by both sides to suit the middle ground between marriage and complete divorce. The document mediated between both sides, by allowing Emma to keep a separate residence and splitting custody of the children, as well as feeding into broader changes and trends. Emma therefore benefited from legal change and shifting social perceptions.

A Happily Ever After?

In the years which followed their separation neither party pursued an official divorce. Eugene retired as a Drill Master in Alnwick and moved across Northumberland; from 65 Beaconsfield Street in the ward of Arthur’s Hill, Newcastle Upon Tyne to Westgate.

In 1891 the couple appear to have either reconciled, or at least agreed to cohabit, with their extended family. The couple can be found on the census living in Westgate with their son Ernest Lewis. Ernest had returned to the family home having been married at 17 and widowed, during the birth of his son, at 19. Also living in the new family home were daughters Amelia, Ada and Mabel.

The family did not live in the Newcastle area for long, as they subsequently moved onto Alnmouth. Eugene died shortly after the move, in 1896, whereas Emma was still living in the area in 1911 at the age of 71. She peacefully lived out her final days under the care of her eldest son, William, in Alnmouth’s Percy Cottages on Front Street.