On the 28th May 1831 a chilling notice appeared in the Newcastle Courant. It read:
“Whereas the Public Bridges in the County of Northumberland have been of late much injured and rendered dangerous by Persons maliciously throwing down the Battlements thereof, (particularly Alnwick Bridges,) the Magistrates, in Order to caution persons from committing such Offences give this public Notice, that by the 7th and 8th George the 4th, Chap 30, any Person who shall unlawfully and maliciously pull down or destroy any Public Bridge, or do any injury with intent to render such Bridge, or any Part thereof, dangerous or impassable, shall be Guilty of Felony and subject to Transportation for Life. And the Magistrates give this further Notice, that they will prosecute to the utmost Extent any Person committing these malicious Offences.”
Robert Thorp’s chilling order, plastered on walls across the county.
The notice was given across the county by order of Robert Thorp, Clerk of the Peace.
This order was originally passed on May 17th 1831 – ten days after John Thompson and Samuel Pringle had ‘wilfully’ destroyed a part of the battlements on Alnwick Bridge. The two men were convicted ‘full damages and costs’ for their destructive crime, and the threat of transportation hung above them. It seems highly unlikely that Samuel was sent away; as a man by the same name was still living in Fenkle-Street, Alnwick in 1839. Interestingly a John Thompson, aged 24, was transported to Sydney, Australia on a hulk called Georgina in 1831. He was sentenced to 7 and a half years; a substantially shorter sentence then the life promised by Robert Thorp.
Transportation was used by Britain’s law-keepers during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as an alternative to imprisonment or hanging. Originally served to those who had committed serious felonies, transportation was also rolled out to political criminals (rioters) and thieves. Transportation to Australia first began in 1787, it provided a cheaper penal solution then imprisonment and also benefited the state by supporting the establishment of colonial outposts. Prisoners traveled to their new lives on huge hulk ships where the conditions were, unsurprisingly, terrible. Disease often broke out on-board, with cholera and typhoid being the most common, and many died before reaching their destination, often weakened by a four to six month long journey.
In the same year that Robert Thorp’s bloodcurdling notice was posted in the Newcastle Courant transportation was being used to punish other convicted Northumbrian criminals. Amongst whom were:
John Fletcher: found guilty of stealing 5lbs of mutton belonging to George Stevenson of Cramlington. He was sentenced to 7 years transportation.
George Turnbull: charged with stealing a ‘great coat’ belonging to James Tate of Alnwick. Mr Tate had hung his coat up to dry when it went missing, he later found it in the prisoner’s home. The prisoner claimed he had bought it the day before for 6s, but the jury found him guilty of theft. He was then sentenced to 7 years transportation but, as a repeat offender, a second charge of theft added another 7 years to his sentence.
William Kennedy and Peter O’Hara: convicted to life transportation for stabbing and cutting “officers of excise” (men who inspect customs and duties.)
We would like to thank the volunteer who carefully transcribed documents relating to the case of Thompson and Pringle.
Bibliography:
Victorian Crime and Punishment: 19th Century, Transportation (http://vcp.e2bn.org/justice/section2196-transportation.html)
The Northumberland Michaelmas Quarter Sessions were held on Thursday, 17th October 1889, at the Moot Hall, Newcastle upon Tyne. Presiding over the court was Sir Matthew W Ridley who was supported by seven magistrates and the Under Sheriff for Northumberland. After the grand jury were sworn in, the chairman of the bench (Sir Matthew W Ridley) addressed the jury saying that the calendar only consisted of nineteen cases and, with the exception of two cases of alleged indecent assault, the rest were ‘ordinary alleged offences of larceny’.’
Thomas Smith did not have to wait very long before he was brought from the cells and placed at the bar in front of the bench. He was charged with two counts of housebreaking in the Rothbury area of Northumberland. The court clerk stood to state that Thomas was a bookmaker, aged twenty three years of age, and believed to be from Newcastle.
The Charges
The charges in the two cases against Thomas Smith were read out to the court.
Firstly, ‘For that the said Thomas Smith on the twenty eighth day of August now last past at the Parish of Rothbury in the said County feloniously did break and enter the dwelling house of George Robinson there situate and therein feloniously did steal one five shilling piece, one shilling, one sixpence, one half rupee, one twenty five cent piece in silver and two half pennies in copper of the monies, goods and chattels of George Robinson’.
The brief for the prosecution. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT
Secondly, ‘For that the said Thomas Smith on the twenty eighth day of August now last past at the Parish of Rothbury in the said County feloniously did break and enter the dwelling house of John Starrs there situate and therein feloniously did steal one silver Geneva watch of the goods and chattels of the said John Starrs’.
Thomas was asked if he was guilty or not guilty to which he replied ‘I am not guilty of stealing but I am guilty of having them in my possession’.
The first charge related to Thomas breaking into the house of George Robinson, a farmer who lived with his spinster sister Mary at Sandilands in the Parish of Rothbury. The second charge was breaking into the house of John Starrs, a general labourer, who lived at nearby North Chirnells with his wife Mary.
The Proof in the first case
Thomas’s trial commenced with the prosecution calling Mary Robinson who, under oath, stated ‘My brother was out and I left between 1.30 and 2 o’clock in the afternoon. I got back between 9 & 10 o’clock the same night. When I left the house in the afternoon I locked it up. When I returned the door was not locked. The drawers downstairs were turned up. The boxes and bed upstairs were also turned up. Everything was right when I left in the afternoon’.
George Robinson was then called and under oath confirmed that he had left the house at about eight o’clock that morning and returned with his sister between nine and ten o’clock that night. He went on to say that the door into the house was unlocked and that on entering they found drawers downstairs had been forced open and emptied and on going upstairs found that boxes had been broken into with their contents lying on the floor. In addition to all of this one of the beds had been ‘turned up’. Continuing, he was able to confirm and describe items that were missing – ‘I missed a five shilling piece, a half rupee, a 25 cent piece, a sixpence worn with a hole in it, some old halfpennies one of which was dished on the edge and was of the reign of George III. I also missed a shilling that that had a lion in it and a number of three penny pieces. I identify clearly the five shilling piece produced by a nick in the edge. I also identify the sixpence produced by the hole on it by it being so worn and 2 Gs on the man’s neck on it as being mine. I further identify the George III halfpenny produced by being dished in the edge as being mine. The lion shilling produced, the half rupee produced and the 25 cent piece produced, and the old halfpenny produced are like what I had. I had several 3 penny pieces and in the money produced there are several 3 penny pieces but I can not identify them. The money was in a box in a drawer downstairs altogether. The lock of the box in the drawer had been wrenched open’.
Further statements were given by Police Constables Metcalf and Aitchison, Police Sergeants Bowmaker and Ewart, and Police Superintendent Dobson. But, as these overlapped with the second case, the contents of their statements will be explored together.
The Proof in the second case
Mary Starr was called by the prosecution and under oath she stated that her husband had left the house at about nine-thirty that morning and she at a quarter-to-two in the afternoon. She confirmed that she had fastened the windows and shutters and had locked the door as she left. Mary continued – ‘I returned a little before 9 o’clock in the evening. When I put the key in I could not unlock the door but when I turned the key the other way I locked the door. There was a false sneck on the door which still prevented the door opening. I forced the door open. I noticed nothing particular downstairs but when I went upstairs I found the doors open and when I left in the morning I had closed them. On going into my bedroom I noticed the bed had been turned up. I then looked round to see if my watch was hanging over the mantel piece but I found it was gone. The watch was hanging there in the morning when I left. I identify the watch produced as my property. Half of the small pointer is off. In the other rooms upstairs the locks of 2 boxes had been forced open and the contents had been ransacked. A cupboard upstairs had also been ransacked’.
For whatever reason Mary’s husband, John Starr, was not called by the prosecution.
Common Proof in both cases
Police Constable William Metcalf was called and under oath he stated that on the twenty eighth of August last, he had been on plain clothes duty with Constable Peter Aitchison for the annual Rothbury flower show. He went on to say – ‘In the forenoon about 11.30 when the train arrived, we saw the prisoner Smith and Williams and other 2 men go through Rothbury towards Thropton, shortly afterwards they returned into the town and from information having been received of a shop in Rothbury having been broken into, we visited the Station Hotel [now known as the Coquetvale Hotel] and saw prisoner Smith with Williams and another man in the bar’. Continuing, Constable Metcalf said that he approached the three men and told them that he wished to speak to them outside.
An aerial view of Cragside, near Rothbury, and its surrounding area. This picture was taken in 1910 and, from the high angle, it shows the Coquet Valley in Coquetdale. This photograph is part of a larger collection taken by local commercial photographer John Worsnop. NRO 01449/541
Once outside of the hotel, they were met by Police Sergeants Ralph Ewart and James Bowmaker. Sergeant Ewart apprehended Smith on suspicion of breaking into a shop at Rothbury. Williams and the other man were apprehended by Sergeant Bowmaker and Constable Aitchison. The group then started to make their way to the police station.
Constable Aitchison under oath stated ‘I saw Sergt. Ewart take hold of the prisoner Smith. I and Sergt. Bowmaker took hold of the other men. We came towards the police station, Sergt. Ewart was first with Smith. When on the bridge, the prisoner Smith made his escape from Sergt. Ewart and ran along the river side. I followed. The prisoner jumped into the water’. Constable Aitchison continued under oath to state that as he followed Smith into the river, he saw Smith throw a purse; a crowbar and a watch into the water and as he reached Smith ‘he attempted to stab me with a knife which he afterwards threw into the water’. Aitchison stated that Sergeant Ewart and Constable Metcalf came to his assistance and that he witnessed Sergeant Ewart recover the said items from the river.
Constable Metcalf, under oath stated ‘When Smith was in the water I saw him throw several articles into the water. Before P C Aitchison got a hold of him in the water, Smith drew a knife and attempted to stab P C Aitchison. Aitchison then got hold of the prisoner’. Metcalf went on to state that ‘I searched the prisoner and found in his possession a five shilling piece, a 25 cent piece, one half rupee, a lion shilling, one sixpenny piece which are now produced. I also found 16 three penny pieces, 5 pennies and 6 halfpennies and 2 farthings which are also produced. I handed them all to Supt. Dobson at the Rothbury police station’. Smith was escorted to the police station where a further search of Smith by Sergeant Ewart found a leather bag containing ten skeleton keys and another shilling in Smith’s boot.
The prosecution then called Sergeant Ralph Ewart who, under oath, confirmed his part of the apprehension of Smith and of the other men and subsequent events as told by Constables Aitchison and Metcalf.
Sergeant James Bowmaker was called on the twenty ninth of August, the following day, and under oath said that Superintendent Dobson gave him the skeleton keys and crowbar to see if they matched evidence at the crime scenes. Bowmaker stated that one of the skeleton keys operated the door lock at John Starrs and that ‘an indentation on the front side of one of the boxes exactly corresponded with the turned end of the crowbar’.
The final witness for the prosecution, Police Superintendent Thomas Dobson, was called and under oath. He confirmed that all of the recovered stolen items had remained in his possession since receiving them at Rothbury Police Station on the 28th August. He also confirmed that on the same day, he had been given the crowbar and bag containing the skeleton keys. Both had remained in his custody except when, on the 29th August, he had given them to Sergeant Bowmaker for comparison to evidence at the crime scene at John Starr’s house.
The prisoner was then asked if he wished to say anything in his defence and he reiterated that he did not break into the houses but that he had been in the company of a man who did.
The jury were then instructed by the chairman of the bench to retire from the courtroom and to return when they had decided on their verdict.
The Verdict and Sentence
When the jury returned, their verdict was announced. Smith had been found guilty on both charges of housebreaking.
The chairman of the bench responded by saying that the man the prisoner spoke of was a professional burglar and bad company. He went on to say that there was no evidence that the prisoner had been convicted before and that he hoped that Smith would not appear in front of the bench again. He then pronounced sentence, Thomas was to serve six months imprisonment on each charge with the sentences to run concurrently.
Thomas was then led back to the cells below the courtroom and later that day he was returned to the Newcastle Gaol situated in Carliol Square where he served his sentence.
Searches of various records have been made to try and find out what happened to Thomas after his release from prison but it was found that there were a number of Thomas Smiths in the region all of whom were of a similar age thus making it impossible to pinpoint ‘our’ Thomas.
We would like to give a special thanks to the volunteer whom tirelessly researched and produced this blog piece.
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.
Saltwell Towers; a side view.Saltwell Towers; a side view.Saltwell Towers; view from the front.
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.
A plaque on one of the Park’s gates
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.
The Blue Plaque celebrating his legacy
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.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. For more information please click 'Read more' AcceptRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
