nineteenth century

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. 

 

Trouble at the Inn – The Tale of an Alnwick Riot

by

RIOT AT THE ALNWICK MARCH HIRING!

On Saturday, 6th March 1875, a disturbance in the Angel Inn was to end with the death of a local man.

 

An auction poster advertising a sale to take place at The Angel Inn. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

The events that took place that afternoon were described by the Alnwick Mercury published on the 13th March as ‘RIOT AT THE ALNWICK MARCH HIRING’.

March hiring’s were a common practice in England, it was a time for farmers to hire workers for the next twelve months. The 1875 hiring’s saw a great number of agricultural labourers arriving in Alnwick as well as large number of pitmen from the surrounding collieries. The Alnwick Mercury described that Saturday as “such a concourse evidently contained the elements of tumult and disorder; and what made matters worse was that there was more than the ordinary drunkenness, as the rain that fell heavily during great part of the day drove the people to resort to the public-houses to a much greater extent than would otherwise have been the case.”

The disturbance in the Angel Inn was down to two brothers, John and Thomas Waite. John Waite had been drinking in the Angel and was worse for the drink that he had consumed. The Alnwick Mercury reports that he behaved in a “riotous and noisy manner” in a downstairs room and even worse when he went upstairs. The article continues with “he was so violent that at length Mr (John) White, the landlord, sent for the police to put him out.” When the police arrived, they asked Waite to leave the premises but he refused and continued to act in a violent manner. Waite was taken hold of by the two constables with a view to eject him from the inn but as they walked down the stairs, he broke free and returned to the upstairs room.  The constables recaptured him and this time were able to get him downstairs where he was pleaded with to go home quietly. Instead of doing so, Waite punched one of the constables, P C Robinson, causing him to stagger. Waite grappled with the constable and unable to shrug him off, P C Robinson drew his baton and struck Waite on the side of the head.

The constables then brought their prisoner out of the Angel Inn yard onto Fenkle Street with the intention to escort him to the police station on St. Michael’s Lane. To do this, they had to cross an open space which was crowded with people. It was at this stage that Thomas Waite grabbed his brother in an attempt to rescue him and a number of the crowd joined in to help him. The constables were able to hold onto their prisoner and tried to make their way through the drunken crowd. It was at this stage that Police Sergeant John Hately and two other constables made their way through the crowd to assist P C Robinson and P C Connell. The report states that the route to the police station was packed with almost two thousand people, most of whom were drunk and jostling the policemen. Due to the pressure of the crowd, the policemen and their prisoner were forced to the Shambles on the opposite side. It was here that John Waite was rescued from the police by his friends.

The police formed a line in front of John Dickman’s shop and wielding their batons, were able to clear a space in front of them. Not wanting to provoke the crowd further, Sergeant Hately decided that he and his men should make their way over to the entrance to the nearby Correction House Yard where they could more easily defend themselves should the need arise. Leading his men forward, Sergeant Hately found himself surrounded by the mob and whilst defending himself he fell to the ground, ashen faced. The constables rushed forward to assist but the jeering crowd made it difficult. P C Robinson was first to reach Hately and as he was trying to lift Hately to his feet, he was kicked and jostled by the drunken crowd. Eventually the constables were able to carry Hately and force their way to the police station. Medical assistance was called but to no avail, he was declared dead. The post mortem was held on Sunday, 7th March by Dr A J Main who found no wounds on Hately’s body, but an examination of Hately’s heart found evidence that he had died of a heart attack. Sergeant John Hately left a widow and eight young children.

It was nearly 5 o’clock before the riotous crowd dispersed into smaller groups, both John and Thomas Waite were apprehended and taken to the cells in the police station. The next day, Monday 8th March, saw both brothers in court where the magistrate, Mr H Lisle, ordered them to be remanded for eight days. The Waite brothers, together with six others were charged with assaulting and resisting Police Constables Robinson and Connell in their execution of their duty. All eight appeared in front of the town’s magistrates on Saturday, 20th March and after hearing the evidence, John and Thomas Waite and the other six were all fined the sum of £10 with failure to pay would result in three months imprisonment. All paid their fines except for one, a Thomas Dunn, who was sent to prison.

 

A map showing the location of the Angel Inn as it was in 1827, forty-eight years before the riot.

This piece has been researched and produced by a volunteer working on the Dickson, Archer and Thorp Project. We would like to thank him for his work.

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

by

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

+ More