Northumberland

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.

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.

Devils in the Bed

by

 

Examination and Diagnosis

On the 30th day of November, in the year 1860, two surgeons came to a home in Narrowgate, Alnwick to examine a Mr William Marshall for proof of “insanity.” The medical examination had been arranged by William’s family and facilitated by Hugh Lisle Esq, a local Justice of the Peace. William’s story, pulled from the Dickson, Archer and Thorp collection, allows us a unique insight into the lives of those diagnosed “insane,” and the families they often left behind, in nineteenth century Northumberland.

 

Order for the Reception of the Patient William Marshall. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

The surgeons examining William were a Henry Caudlish and a Thomas Feuder. In line with the requirements of their positions all three men completed detailed forms evaluating William’s mental well-being. The survival of these medical forms, used to certify William’s illness and record the thoughts of officials, make them rare and insightful pieces.

Henceforth are transcribed extracts from these forms, with the originals shown in pictures:

Facts indicating Insanity observed by myself:

Thomas: “He fancies that there are Devils in the bed, or parties going to do him some grievous bodily harm, he fancies that the bed clothes are moving. He is desponding.”

Henry: “He states that I have a desire to poison him, and that I have an interest in doing so and that I were among many conspirators. Fancies that there is poison in his bed – and in his food.”

Other facts (if any) indicating Insanity communicated to me by others:

Henry: “He persists that a great quantity of poison has been given to him, but not yet the fatal dose, and that if he dies a hundred persons will be living for him – communicated to me by his wife.”

Thomas: “He refuses his food and persists that what is presented to him contains poison – communicated to me by his wife.”

 

Medical Certificate for Marshall Case Signed by Henry Caudlish. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

Medical Certificate for Marshall Case Signed by Thomas Fueder. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

For William the visions of devils, paired with his belief that someone was secretly poisoning him, were vivid and terrifying. Yet the surgeons found a conspiracy unlikely, and they concluded William was indeed suffering from “insanity.” Upon the diagnosis Hugh Lisle arranged for William to be taken from his home to reside in the Northumberland County Pauper Lunatic Asylum, Morpeth. But why was William suffering with such terrifying visions? And what life awaited him in the county asylum?

 

Health and Visions

William was not the only patient sent to reside in the Morpeth asylum for having paranoid thoughts. The admission book for the asylum’s patients shows that many were diagnosed upon arrival as suffering from “delusional insanity.”

On the arrival of each new patient their symptoms, and the presumed cause, would be carefully recorded. These so-called causes often included hereditary problems and work place accidents. The surgeon’s involved in William’s case noted the cause to his problems stemmed from a mix of pre-existing medical issues, including chronic asthma and general ill health, with “straitened circumstances.”

 

Family Troubles and “Straitened Circumstances”

William Marshall was 50 years old when he suffered his first bout of psychological illness in the year 1860. He had lived in Alnwick his whole life, along with his wife Mary and their ever-growing brood.

Together the Marshall’s had eight children; Sarah, Isabella, William, John, Mary, Joseph, Thomas and Annie. The Marshall brood had a staggering age range, with the eldest being twenty years older than the youngest. But, sadly, not all the Marshall children reached adulthood, as Thomas died in 1856 aged just five.

William worked as a coach keeper to support his large family, and his sons followed him into coach and horse-keeping professions. In 1861, less than a year after William was removed from the family home due to his supposed “insanity,” his son John was working as a coach smith whilst Joseph was a hostler. By 1871 Joseph had progressed in the world, and is listed in the census as owning what appears to be 4 acres of land (although how he came to this settlement is a mystery.)

Following her husband’s illness Mary needed to find a way to financially support her young family. She subsequently became a cow keeper. Cow keepers often kept dairy animals, such as cows and goats, within their backyards and would use them to make and distribute dairy products amongst their neighbours. William’s daughters also took up professions to support the family, with Isabella becoming a dressmaker and Mary a domestic servant.

Working hard to feed and provide for his ever-growing family, yet still witnessing some of his children die, must have put strain on William’s own health and mental well-being. These demands, teamed with a potentially dubious financial situation, may explain the “straitened circumstances” referred to in his medical report. Thus, it is unsurprising that these pressures began to manifest in his psychological well-being.

 

The Northumberland County Asylum

Using the asylum’s minute book we know 80 male patients and 77 female patients were in residence when William arrived at the tail-end of November 1860. We also know, from notes made on the asylum’s weekly purchases, that William would have ate a diet of mutton, scotch oatmeal, split peas and livered meat during his first month.

 

Birds eye view of the asylum 1901

 

On the 4th March 1861, roughly three months after William had arrived, the asylum received a visit from its Board of Guardians. What they observed was recorded in the institution’s minute book and can be used to give us a deeper insight into William’s experience of the Northumberland County Pauper Lunatic Asylum. During the visit the gentlemen noted that patients had “good bodily health” and were “without exception quiet and orderly.” They recommended enlarging the chapel, and adding blinds to the patient’s dormitories, to encourage godliness and increase patient privacy. Overall the board members were pleased with the asylum, and noted how they had enjoyed a “good laugh” with some of its residents.

To understand more about the Northumberland County Pauper Lunatic Asylum please see one of the archives’ previous blogs on the subject.

 

The Devil Put To Bed

It is unlikely William ever left the asylum following his 1861 entry. In the 1871 census Mary Marshall listed herself as being a widow, with William’s death having probably occurred less than a year before in 1870. One can only hope William was no longer troubled by devils in his bed.

 

+ More