🎄Christmas Opening Hours for 2024🎄
CLOSED between 4pm Friday 20th December 2024 and 10am Thusday January 2nd 2025
Ordinary opening hours apply before and after this period.

Ann Wilson – Widow, Pauper and Eloping Lover

The Poor and the Law

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries local parishes were made responsible for the care of paupers within their jurisdiction. This care was given in the form of poor relief legislated by a series of ‘Poor Laws;’ the most notable being the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act. The concept of poor relief was a controversial one, attracting numerous critics. One its major flaws related to the notion of ‘settlement.’ Parishes naturally resented paying for paupers whom had originated beyond their jurisdiction, and would often try to forcibly return them to their ‘home’ parishes. Yet the fluid nature of society, especially during the industrial revolution, made it increasingly hard to prove where a “pauper” should be placed. Thus solicitors, such as the Dickson, Archer and Thorp firm, were often called upon to resolve settlement disputes.

This exact issue arose in September 1853 when two Overseers of the Poor from the parish of Saint Nicholas, situated within Newcastle Upon Tyne, began legal proceedings to forcibly remove two “paupers” from their jurisdiction. These Overseers signed themselves in the removal order as Sir John Fife and William Armstrong. The order directed the “paupers” to be moved into the northern parish of Bamburgh. Although it is not clear from archival documents as to why Bamburgh was chosen it is perhaps telling that Bamburgh’s own Overseers of the Poor fiercely disputed the removal order and so employed the legal aid of Dickson, Archer and Thorp.

Widowed Paupers

The two “paupers” facing removal from the parish of Saint Nicholas in September 1853 were the widow Ann Wilson, aged just 25, and her daughter Elizabeth, aged about two years. Sending widows away from a parish of settlement, previously adopted by their deceased spouses, was a common occurrence in nineteenth century Northumberland. The process often caused heart-breaking social and economic turmoil, as vulnerable women were removed from established networks of friends and family and placed in often unfamiliar areas without obvious employment or emotional support.

 

Order to remove Ann Wilson to Bamburgh 1853. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

It is therefore unsurprising that the potential move was also sternly opposed by Ann herself. Ann had already faced the stigma of possibly welcoming a child out of wedlock, braved her employer’s wrath to elope with her lover and tragically endured early widowhood – clearly she was not a woman who would be moved easily. Thus, whilst her experience of parish poor relief could be deemed atypical of a nineteenth century Northumbrian widow, her situation was far more complex and it made fighting the order a matter of survival and reputation.

Young Lovers

Ann was the daughter of a sailor, named in legal documents as Henry Pryle Gibson. He was recorded in ejectment proceedings as living near Forth Banks, close to Newcastle’s Quayside, but in Ann’s personal testimony he seems to have had little to do with her life.

Instead Ann had spent the majority of her youth working as a domestic servant. In this occupation she had spent almost 3 years living in Newton on the Moor whilst working for the publican-come-blacksmith Mr Wall. In her testimony, given to prove she had been legally married to her deceased husband, she tenderly recalled how it was during her first few weeks in Newton on the Moor that she met the colliery engine-man James Wilson.

 

Copy of James Wilson’s baptism certificate, produced as evidence of his existence. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

The young couple began a three year courtship which reached a decisive point when Ann became pregnant in the beginning of 1851. To have maintained a child out of wedlock would have put great financial pressure and reputational shame upon Ann; probably forcing her to give up domestic employment and seek the support of parish organisations. Thus, probably to avoid moral judgement, the young couple decided to elope to the Scottish borders and resolve their situation legally.

The Legality of Love

Marriages conducted by eloping couples on the border were clandestine in the eyes of the Church, this made them notoriously hard to prove in retrospect. Ann’s account of her elopement is lengthy, witty and fast-paced. It was recorded verbatim by the solicitors and had been carefully crafted to prove the legality of her marriage and, in turn, the legitimacy of Elizabeth – two facts which the Newcastle Overseers had questioned. Being a legal widow, and having a legitimate child, would have put Ann in a much stronger position to fight the parish removal order and lift the reputational slur the men of Saint Nicholas’ parish had placed on her. Ann’s account was also verified by a number of witnesses including her mother-in-law (even though her testimony infers that she may not have wholly approved of her new daughter-in-law.)

 

A letter containing extracts of Ann Wilson’s statement. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

According to these accounts Ann and James eloped to the Scottish border on the 6th June 1851, travelling via train from Newcastle to Berwick. Once at Tweedmouth Station they met with the man who was to marry them; Anderson Sommerville. Sommerville first took the lovers by horse drawn carriage to a public house in search of witnesses; here they met George Dobson and George Davison. The latter was a soldier tasked with recruiting in Berwick that day. The group then moved onto the Lamberton toll booth to conduct the ceremony.

The Lamberton toll house was a popular place for clandestine marriages. One of Lamberton’s previous toll keepers, John Foster, had even received lifetime banishment from Scotland for conducting clandestine marriages on his land in 1818. This punishment had little effect though, as Foster primarily lived in England and he would often ignore the notice anyway.

Within the toll house the Wilson’s were taken to a room with a table, bottle of whiskey and a prayer book. It was in this room where they exchanged their vows and signed the relevant documentation. After the brief ceremony all five drank a toast of whiskey to the marriage’s prosperity which was, unfortunately, to be short-lived.

Hanover Street and a New Start

Ann clearly thought she had embarked upon a whole new, exciting life following her elopement. When the couple returned to Northumberland it would appear James returned to Newton on the Moor, to tie up the loose ends left behind by their hasty departure, he then followed Ann down to Newcastle where she had found them a home in the city’s Hanover Street.

It was here that Ann gave birth to their daughter Elizabeth, on the 28th September 1851. But sadly, around the same time, James died following a short illness.

James’ death left Ann with a young child to feed and care for. It was during this painful, and probably traumatic, experience she found herself seeking poor relief from parish officials. Evidence also suggests she was possibly forced out of her new home. These circumstances therefore assembled to bring her to the attention of senior parish officials, whom questioned her marriage and associated right to remain in the area, and set in motion the removal order.

A Legal Success

Proving Ann Wilson’s right to settle in Saint Nicholas’ parish was dependent upon her having been legally married to her husband, however this was difficult to evidence due to the secret nature of their union. Nonetheless, through tireless county and cross-border investigation, solicitors at the Dickson, Archer and Thorp practice were able to successfully evidence an appeal against the removal order on behalf of Bamburgh’s Overseers of the Poor and prove the authenticity of a small marriage certificate, given to Ann on her wedding day. Officials from the parish of Saint Nicholas eventually revoked their removal order and Ann and Elizabeth appear to have found somewhere within Newcastle to stay.

 

Letter adjoining the Appeal notice accepted by all parties. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT

 

Ann had asserted her right to remain within the Newcastle Parish, but it is unlikely she would have had the tools to fight the removal order on her own had she not also had the support of Bamburgh’s parish officials. Hence this is a story of two parties working simultaneously with the solicitors – if only for their own gains.

A final triumph for the unyielding Ann, and an appropriate end to this blog, potentially occurred on the 7th October 1854. When an Elizabeth Wilson, recorded as being the daughter of an ‘Ann Wilson” and born towards the end of 1851, was christened at Saint Nicholas Cathedral in Newcastle.

 

From Stannington to South Africa and other stories – the role of the Boards of Guardians

Before the NHS supported children at Stannington Sanatorium there were a few sources of finance for patients who could not fund their own places. We have already covered a little of the practice of donations for memorial cots in our online exhibition. From 1929 the Northumberland County Council’s Public Assistance Committee supported places for children from the county, with other councils doing likewise. However what about the children who went to Stannington before 1929?

Before the Committee was created those on low incomes were supported by the Poor Law Boards. They ran the workhouses, provided out-relief to those on low incomes, housed the orphans of the parish, and financially supported the ‘lunatics’ of the parish in the County Asylum (see our recent post). There were ten Poor law unions in Northumberland; Alnwick, Belford, Bellingham, Berwick, Castle Ward (for the Ponteland area), Glendale (for the Wooler area), Haltwhistle, Hexham, Morpeth and Rothbury. We decided to look through our poor law records for children who were supported at Stannington by the Board of Guardians, who dealt with the welfare of individuals, for Hexham Union.

Though Stannington Sanatorium had been open since 1907 the first mention we find in the records isn’t until 1910, when in the minute books we have an explanation of how the system worked:

Box 1

As the Board of Guardians were not charged for the Stannington patients we do not know how many of the children were sent, but we have a few cases where their return is mentioned.

Box 2 Box 3

Though we do not know what became of Janet, the Guardian’s minute book (GHE/20) shows by 1930 Catherine was at the Convent of Notre Dame, Southwark, London. The Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur ran, and continue to run, numerous schools and pupil teacher centres like Southwark across Britain. It is possible that Catherine was training as a pupil teacher, a five year apprenticeship in which girls received lessons as well as teaching younger girls (if you would like to learn more the Sisters have a very informative website). The Guardians sent Catherine £14 11s 9d in National Savings Certificates they had held for her, which were to be kept by her Sister Superior until she turned 21.

Photograph of the Phillipson Farm Colony boys and their manager from the Stannington Sanatorium brochure HOSP/STAN/9/1/1
Photograph of the Philipson Farm Colony boys and their manager from the Stannington Sanatorium brochure HOSP/STAN/9/1/1

However patients at the Sanatorium were not the only children that the Board financed at Stannington. The Philipson Farm Colony was used as a training facility to prepare boys to go into agricultural jobs. The first we see to be sent from Hexham is an orphaned boy, 14 years 5 months old, called William Young.

We first hear of William’s story in a letter in February 1911 to the PCHA, in which the guardians ask for a place at the Philipson Farm Colony for William. Further letters show this was granted, the Guardians agreed to pay six shillings in maintenance for him, and he was to be sent on the 11th March or the 1st of April. The 1911 census, taken on the 2nd April, shows he was a farm labourer, one of many boys in their late teens and early twenties present at the colony, and was born in Brampton, Cumberland. Sadly we have been unable to discover which of the many William Youngs born in the area he might have been.

The Farm Manager at this time was John Atkin, who had leased the farm since 1900 and was in charge of the boys at the colony from its opening in 1905. An article written by John in the Rotary Wheel magazine of August 1918 describes his endeavour to produce the most from the land in as diverse a way as possible, advocating a mixture of crops, livestock and poultry. William would therefore have learned many different aspects of farming at the Philipson Farm Colony.

In March 1913 the Guardians began to debate his next step, likely at the request of the PCHA or Farm Colony, and on the 4th April they had agreed for William to go to Canada. At the time emigration to the British colonies was encouraged, and it was a common thing that boys from the colony would make a new life there using their farming skills. The Guardians requested reassurance of William’s willingness to go and the suitability of the place he would be sent to. It seems this place fell through, and another letter on the 20th of September announced that the Board agreed to his being sent to Australia. However by the 18th of October the plan had again changed to South Africa. He was sent money for clothing, and we know from later correspondence he departed the next day. It seems however William did not enjoy his time there – he wrote to his sister in Hexham, and the letters were passed on to the Guardians and the Farm Colony for them to look at. A letter dated the 29th May 1914 writes to the PCHA that the Boarding Out Committee had decided:

Box 4

John Nicholas Hall was another boy sent to the Philipson Farm Colony by the Hexham Board of Guardians. A letter on the 26th June 1912 shows they had considered John emigrating to Canada with William, however he went to the Farm Colony instead, again at the same rate of 6/- weekly. All we know from his time there is a brief mention in the minute books. On the 29th April 1913 we find:

Box 5

These examples give us a little insight into the arrivals at Stannington Sanatorium and the Philipson Farm Colony in their early years, but also into the end of the Poor Law Unions. Though perhaps not the most caring of organisations (such as their reference to Catherine as ‘it’!) the Poor Law Boards sought to find a home and training for a future career for all the children that came to them. They also made sure that children who were unwell were cared for, including within their own institutions. However William’s case also makes us wonder about the stories of the children associated with Stannington and the Farm Colony. We know many other boys from the Farm Colony also emigrated and it is possible this was under the ‘Home Children’ scheme. The scheme started in the 19th century and led to the emigration of many thousands of children from the United Kingdom to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa.  Until relatively recently it has been difficult to find information about these children, but now records have become more accessible via national initiatives. The websites of The National Archives of the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand provide useful advice about researching child migration. Sadly there is nothing for South Africa yet, but hopefully we will be able to learn what became of William with further research.