Northumberland

The Meeting, Marriage and Parting of Ways: The Scandalous Mr Hewgill

by

A Wedding Day

On the morning of the 4th March, 1851, Margaret Dawson was preparing for her wedding day. She was, at thirty-eight years old, about to marry the Reverend Francis Hewgill. Margaret had originally hailed from Yorkshire, although she had spent the last few years in Northumberland. Following her Northumbrian wedding she would move to join her new husband in his parish of Trowell, Nottinghamshire. But the bridegroom was not as sprightly as his bride-to-be, instead he was nearing almost seventy years old. Their marriage would only last seven years before Francis’ death left Margaret a hugely affluent widow.

Documents retrospectively analysing the terms of the Hewgill’s marriage settlement, which had taken place over forty years before. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

During the 1830s Francis, already nearing his sixties, had volunteered to take care for his nephew Henry Hewgill, aged twenty-two. Henry, despite his youth, already had a wife and infant son, who Francis also took on. The household Francis brought them into was one of order and substance. He had four domestic staff (a number which would slowly dwindle when he lived with Margaret) and he supported his nephew to the best of his abilities. This careful nurturing resulted in Henry following his uncle’s spiritual footsteps and becoming the curate in Crofton, Fareham Hampshire. But Francis’ efforts to raise a gentleman were marred with scandal when, in 1853, Henry Hewgill was dragged before the magistrates at Fareham charged with obtaining money by false pretenses. This conviction pierced the quiet and subdued existence Francis had been enjoying with his caring new wife.

Need or Greed?

Henry had used both his uncle’s good name and that of the Rev W. M. Cosser to persuade two local men to hand over large amounts of money. He claimed the first amount, taken from a shop owner called Thomas Watters, was requested by Rev W. M. Cosser to pay off debts. Henry had forged Cosser’s handwriting to support his story and tricked the shop keeper into believing him. The second amount was fraudulently received from a church warden, Daniel Bartholomew, supposedly on behalf of Henry’s uncle. Once again he claimed the money was part of an owed payment and copied his uncle’s handwriting. But why did Henry need the money? And what had drove a well-stationed man to criminal behaviour?

Intimate Dealings

Henry had married Frances Decoetlogon on the 22nd August 1836, aged just eighteen years old. Five years later the young couple, and their infant son Charles Henry, were living with Henry’s generous uncle Francis Hewgill. Ten years later the couple, joined by two more children called Antonina and Ellen, had set up their own large household. Also living within this house was Henry’s mother, Harriet, and a selection of domestic staff. By 1853 the couple had added one more child to their growing family and had been settled in the area of Crofton for around eighteen months.

But the move to Crofton had not brought the couple joy, and Francis soon sought affection elsewhere. Retrospective newspaper reports claimed that, whilst covering for the local rector during a bout of sickness, Henry had been required to attend the local school more frequency. It was during these visits that a “close intimacy had sprung up” between the curate and the school’s mistress; Miss Macfarlane.

Henry concocted a desperate plan to elope with his lover; obtaining the money to do so by defrauding the aforementioned men. In the November of 1853 Henry and Miss Macfarlane “suddenly left Crofton” and their disgraced families with the stolen money and headed for Boulogne.

Following the couple’s disappearance their families found a secret diary written by the school teacher, and the scandalous entries were later published in the local newspaper. These entries described the dates, times and places of the couple’s illicit meetings and included notes such as “Dear Harry kissed me for the first time.”

During their absence in France the couple were reported to have been “living in the first style, and frequenting the theatre and other places of amusement”. They returned to London after a few weeks and, upon hearing an arrest warrant was out for his fraudulent tricks, Henry abandoned his lover with no money and fled.

When both were found Henry was apprehended to be placed immediately before the courts. He was convicted of having obtained money by false pretenses and imprisoned for six months. Ironically, upon Francis’ death in 1858, his uncle left a personal estate worth just under £6,000. Had Henry and his lover cooled their passions they may have received some of this legacy and been able to elope ‘legally’ but, instead, this money allowed Margaret to live comfortably on independent means until her own death in 1902. Whereupon, having resided in Ripon for the majority of her widowhood, she used the Dickson, Archer and Thorp firm to settle her legacy and effects totaling £10934 1s 6d.

 

We would like to thank the volunteers who have tirelessly transcribed the Hewgill’s marriage settlement and related documents. A document retrospectively concerning the original settlement, and Margaret’s assets, can be viewed along with its transcription here.

 

 

The Curious Case of Mr Turner

by

On the 1st May, 1871, evidence was taken before the Coroner’s Jury to discover why Mr James Turner had been tragically killed on Stamford’s level crossing only five days prior. The inquest saw seven witnesses testify, including James’ thirteen year old son and the seventy-three year old level-crossing gate-keeper. The inquest was focused upon three things; firstly whether James’ had been in a state fit enough to drive the cart, secondly whether Edward Dixon (the gate-keeper) should have shown his semaphore signal (danger signal) or even opened the gate at all, and thirdly whether the oncoming train had sounded its whistle. Changing any of these three variables could have saved James’ life and, by proving safety regulations were not adhered to, could end the careers of three men.

The story of James Turner had started long before that fateful afternoon in Stamford. He had been born to Alexander Turner in Wooler, around 1829, and married his wife Mary Moone on the 15th January 1844 at Christchurch in the parish of Tynemouth. The couple had five young children by 1871; John born in 1858, Elizabeth born in 1860, James born in 1862, Margaret born in 1865 and Alexander born in 1867. James had kept his family clothed and fed by working as a ‘hind’ for Mr Davison.

 

Christ Church, where Mary and James married, as it is today

 

On that fateful day in April 1871 James had let his eldest son, John, accompany him whilst he delivered potatoes from his cart. The thirteen year old John gave a brave and emotional testimony of that fateful day before the packed court. He confirmed that they had been travelling from Stamford to Heifeilaw Bank with three carts of potatoes, and “Father had charge of two carts (second horse tied to the first cart) and I drove the third cart.” After they had delivered the potatoes to Mr Craven they were invited to stay a while in his house. During the inquest John maintained that neither had consumed alcohol whilst on Mr Craven’s premises, but eyewitnesses who saw James later that day noted that he looked “lazy and glazed.” On their way home they crossed the railway at the Stamford level crossing, and John described the harrowing event in vivid detail;

“Father had reins upon his horse but I cannot say he had hold of them. I did not call to my Father. I could not see along the line to the north (there was a big bridge ramp); the Gatekeepers house prevented me. The West gate was open. I saw the Gatekeeper Edward Dixon as the first horse was facing the line standing at the east side of the line below the Gate at the rails adjoining the Gate. I cannot say whether the East Gate was open or not but the West one was. I saw no one with the Gatekeeper …. as the cart got onto the up line the Engine came from the north and struck the horse and the fore part of the cart. I pulled up. I did not see what came of my Father. I cannot say how far the Engine went. The next thing I saw was Father lying on the 6 foot with his head on his right arm on his face. He was clear of the rails – he was senseless. I cannot say he was bleeding – I cannot say who took him off. The Gatekeeper was leaning against the rails. The carts did not stop at all – Gatekeeper was looking towards us – this was a few minutes after 6pm.”

 

This image, taken from our wider collection, shows a Dr Burman driving a cart potentially similar to James’ c. 1890. NRO 09703/17

 

Local news reports also relayed a similar tale; commenting particularly upon the brutality of what his son had to witness. Clearly in shock following the incident, John could not recall who helped his father but those individuals also took the stand before the coroner’s court. One of those was Thomas Carr, a platelayer who lived in the cottage on the west side of the Stamford crossing, he recalled how “my boy shouted out Turner was killed …. I ran out – on the upline I saw the Engine … standing 100 yards from the crossing to the south. The horse was dead & 29  yards from the crossing. Part of the cart was on the west line. James Turner was lying on the 6 foot way – with his head on his right arm on his right side, face downwards. The Gatekeeper was standing on the up line above the crossing. Deceased was insensible, I went away for assistance.” Another, Stephen Rea, was also a resident at the crossing and said that he went to help when he heard the Gate keeper shouting a man had been killed. The men took James home where he was attended by Dr Henry Caudlish, who “found [the] deceased suffering from concussion of the brain and inflammation of both lungs, caused by an accident such as has been described by the witnesses. I saw him also that evening and up to his death – which took place from the injuries received on Saturday the 29th at a few minutes past 12. The deceased was a vigorous man in a healthy state of body.”

 

Solicitor’s notes translating the human loss into fiscal damages to win Mary compensation. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

Why James had been able to take his cart over the crossing when there had been a scheduled train approaching confused both the coroner and the media. Thomas Carr called the gatekeeper Edward Dixon a “steady man” who had been in the service of the Railway Company for 23 years. Carr attested to knowing of the regulations of the crossing and that; “it is the Gatekeepers duty to ascertain if there is a train coming or an Engine on the line, before he opens the Gates and he must be satisfied none is in sight before he opens either Gate. He should also show his danger signal (semaphore signal) and keep it exhibited till the line is clear. Then he closes the gate and alters the signals. When on the line an Engine can be seen on a clear day ¾ of a mile to the north and about 1 ½ miles to the south. The express was due at Bilton about 6 o’clock p.m. and at the crossing 10 minutes later. Gatekeepers duty is to stand on the 6 feet to look for her coming. The Express was at this time on Thursday night. I was in the cottage at 10 past 6 but I heard no whistling. My cottage looks onto the line to the east.”

The absence of a whistle, and the need for a semaphore signal, was also noted by other witnesses. Stephen Rea did not hear a whistle or see any signals before the unfortunate event, but he also asserted that Dixon was “perfectly steady, I never saw anything amiss … Dixon’s age is about 70 years, his sight and hearing are perfect. From half past 5 in the morning till 10 at night, his duties last, no person attends between times 10 at night and half past 5 the next morning. He gets one Sunday in the month to himself.” Had a twenty-three years of long hours and stressful work finally overcome the aging gatekeeper? Was he guilty of incompetence by not raising the semaphore signal and forgetting that there was a scheduled train?

 

Examinations from the inquest. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

The train drivers, Richard Dobson and Hugh Laing, certainly believed that fault lay with the gatekeeper. They confirmed that they had “left Newcastle on Thursday last with train leaving at 1.30 p.m. We left Tweedmouth a 5.12p.m … When we got to the back signal before coming to Stamford Laing blew the whistle – I am certain of it. That is about 600 yards before coming to the crossing. The rule does not say he is obliged to whistle and the Drivers act on their own discretion. At that time the rate would not exceed 24 or 25 miles an hour.” The driver, Hugh Laing, had been 23 years in the service of North Eastern Railway and tragically recalled how “When we were about ½ way between the back signal and the crossing I saw the Gatekeeper cross from the west side to the east side of the line – he had no white signal in his hand that I saw. Nor yet was the semaphore signal up I would have topped. The Gatekeeper went to the east gates and I expected he was going to shut them. I then stepped to the left side of the Engine & I saw the Gateman return to the line holding up his hands as if to stop something coming from the west. I was about 50 or 60 yards north of the crossing. I then saw almost immediately the horse & cart come on to the down line. I couldn’t see anyone in it. It kept on and the Engine struck it at the crossing. I had reversed the Engine and pulled up at about 60 yards past the crossing and then went back and saw the deceased on the 6 foot. I assisted in taking him off the line. No notice of the Engine and tender was given to the Gatekeeper. I applied the brakes before the collision as soon as I saw the horse and cart. I could have seen a man if he had been on the cart. It was impossible to stop the Engine sooner.”

This damning evidence of witnesses proved that Edward Dixon, the gate keeper, had failed in at least some of his duties. Edward had been born in the Bamburgh parish and, like Mary Turner, had been widowed with a young family. He had flitted between residing with his daughter Julia and a family called the May’s. Following the subtle indications of his guilt, Edward was finally able to address the coroner’s court as its final witness;

“I am the crossing keeper at Stamford station on the North Eastern Railway. I have been there 10 months. I go on at half past 5 and my duties end at 10p.m. I am 73 years of age. My sight and hearing are not impaired, I can see and hear as well as ever I did. My duty is to watch the gates and shut and open them on anything crossing the line. I have no instructions as to which Gates to open first. I think not, but I generally open the far one first. On Thursday last about 10 past 6 I was opening the East Gate. I saw the carts a minute or two before coming towards the West Gate and I saw the man lying with his head on the fore part of the Cart with his back to the North, he did not speak. When I observed him coming on the line the West Gate was open and I crossed to open the East Gate. I saw nothing coming till I turned round from the Gate. I then saw the Engine & Tender coming perhaps 100 yards from the crossing. I then shouted to deceased and held up both my hands at the last shout he looked over his shoulder lazily and came onto the line. When I shouted first he was just coming in at the West Gate. I heard no whistling. I could have heard a whistle from the back signal post. The wind was from the West but there was a goodish breeze which might carry the sound away. It is my duty to look both ways North and South before opening the Gates. I looked both ways and saw nothing. From the time I went to open the West Gate till the Engine and Tender came up it would scarcely be a minute I could have seen them if they had been at the back signal. He was not within the signal. I was watching the Express…. Unless I see something on the line I do not use the semaphore signal. I have been occasionally a Crossing Keeper before I came here. I live at Lucker but I lodge at the Gate. I never saw the semaphore used unless there was something on the line. I feel no inconvenience from the hours. About 8 or 10 Carts in a day, about 14 or 15 vehicles each way will cross. The semaphores are not used unless there is danger and I saw no danger. There is no rule that I am to put up the semaphore signal every time to open the Gates, that I know of. There is a copy of the Rules in the cabin, but partly defaced, I have read them. I always use the semaphore signal when stock (cattle or sheep) are crossing but not when Carts are crossing. I had no knowledge of the Engine and Tender coming back. I have 12/- a week. Rule “175 says” When the Railway is required to be crossed the Gatekeeper shall before opening the Gates shall satisfy himself that no Engine is in sight – he shall then show his Danger Signals and keep them exhibited until the line is clear when he shall close the Gates and after the signals.”

The inquest duly listened to all the witness statements that day and returned a verdict which found severe failings in the way the Railway Company treated its staff. They concluded that James had died from his injuries sustained at the crossing, and called to the Company’s attention the long hours Edward was required to work and the fact that he was not informed when “special” services were running.

Whether Dixon or the train men were to blame was immaterial to James’ widow Mary. She had lost her husband and the family’s main provider, but the coroner’s inquest gave her a platform upon which to receive compensation from the railway. She was also awarded the jurors fees for her loss. But her recovery from despair was short-lived; as in June 1871 she also lost her daughter Margaret to sickness. This was a sad turn of events which was recorded in the notes of solicitors working for the Dickson, Archer and Thorp firm.

Solicitor’s note regarding the death of Mary’s daughter. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

We would like to thank the volunteer who kindly transcribed the documentation around this case and provided additional information through careful research. We would also like to thank the volunteer who digitised the items to enable us to share them with you.

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