Escape from Gloucester’s City Gaol: Mary Steward, 1799

On 6 May 1799, the Gloucester Journal reported that ‘two genteely-dressed women’ had been committed to the city gaol, after stealing a quantity of lace from a milliner’s shop in Gloucester. The pair had been pursued and apprehended in Cheltenham, where some of the stolen lace was found among their possessions. The newspaper commented that it was supposed that the women were members of a large gang of shoplifters, who had been operating for some time in the country.

The two women, Mary Steward and Jane Bowers, were held in the city gaol in Southgate Street until July, when the Assizes were held. When the time came for their trials, it was revealed that Bowers had ‘turned evidence’ against her colleague, and was acquitted as a result. Mary Steward was found guilty of stealing lace from the shop of Mrs Bright, milliner. She was sentenced to be transported to Australia for seven years. She was taken back to the city gaol, to wait there until she was transferred to the next available convict ship.

On 5 August 1799, it was announced in the Gloucester Journal that Mary Steward had escaped from the gaol. The city prison had only opened in 1782, but Steward had been able to make a hole under her cell window, big enough to climb through, then she had lowered herself down into the street, using sheets which she had torn into strips and sewn together to make a rope.

In the same paper, an advertisement appeared, submitted by William Dunn, Gaoler, offering a reward of five pounds to anyone who detained Steward or gave information leading to her recapture. The notice stated that Mary Steward was twenty-eight years old, and from ‘Harwin’, in Ayrshire, Scotland. She had dark brown hair, hazel eyes, was round-featured with a fresh complexion, had a scar between her eyebrows, a mark from a sore on her left arm, near the wrist, and was five feet one and a quarter inches in height. She had previously lived in Nottingham, Sheffield and Birmingham. At the time of her escape, she was wearing ‘a pair of black Stockings, a flannel under Pettycoat and a black Skirt over it, a Night Cap and a black Bonnet, but no Gown, Stays, nor Shoes’.

 

JackSheppard-15

Detail from a sketch by G Cruickshank, in ‘Jack Sheppard. A Romance’ by WH Ainsworth, 1839.*

 

A week later, the Gloucester Journal reported that Mary Steward was ‘still yet at large’, but it was hoped that she would soon be retaken. The advertisement for her recapture was repeated on the same page, with the reward being offered now increased to ten guineas.

Unfortunately, no record has been found of where or when Mary Steward was recaptured, but she certainly was, because she was listed as one of the convicts who were transported to Australia on board the Earl Cornwallis, which set sail on 18 November 1800, arriving in New South Wales on 12 June 1801. Her initial sentence of seven years had been increased to transportation for life.

 

Sources:

Gloucester Journal, 6 May, 15 July, 5 Aug, 12 Aug 1799

Transportees from Gloucestershire to Australia, 1783-1842, Irene Wyatt, ed. (Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, Vol. 1, 1988)

Australian Convict Transportation Registers, Other Fleets & Ships, 1791-1868, via ancestry.co.uk

convictrecords.com/au/ships/earl-Cornwallis/1800

*The full sketch is ‘Jack Sheppard and Edgeworth Bess escape from Clerkenwell Prison’, by George Cruickshank, in Volume II of Jack Sheppard. A Romance, by WH Ainsworth (accessed via archive.org). I removed Jack Sheppard from the sketch on this occasion, because this sister was doing it for herself!

© Jill Evans 2017

 

 

 

Advertisements

Buried at the crossroads: William Birt, 1791

William Birt was supposed to be the first person to be hanged on the gatehouse roof of the new Gloucester Prison, which opened in the summer of 1791. However, having been found guilty of murder and condemned to death at the Gloucestershire Assizes in August 1791, he decided not to wait for the executioner, and took his own life in the condemned cell.

The charge of murder against Birt was far from being a straightforward case. Birt was a carpenter, 26 years of age, who lived in Tewkesbury. He had been ‘walking out’ with Sarah Powell, who was a servant maid in the household of a Tewkesbury family. In the spring of 1791, Sarah had discovered that she was pregnant, and William had given her a powder to take, in the hope of inducing a miscarriage. Unfortunately, the powder caused the death of both mother and child.

Sarah Powell had lingered on for eleven days after taking the powder, and so she was able to tell her doctor who had given her the substance and why. After Sarah’s death, William Birt was committed to Tewkesbury Gaol at first, then was removed by habeus corpus to Gloucester, to await trial at the Assizes. This was in April 1791, before the new prison opened, so he was held in the old gaol in Gloucester Castle, where the conditions were terrible. In the last week of July, although the building works were not entirely completed, the new prison was judged to be fit for occupation, and the prisoners were moved from the crumbling old castle keep into their new quarters, where everyone had their own cell in which to sleep. Birt was held in the gaol section of the prison to await his trial, which took place on Friday, 12 August.

Newspaper reports on the trial were not sympathetic to Birt. They said that he had ‘deluded the Deceased under a Promise of Marriage’. When she told him she was pregnant, he gave her a small quantity of a powder, telling her it would do her no harm, but rather would do her good, as he had taken twice as much in the past. Back at her home, she had taken the powder with some sugar, after which she was ‘seized with violent vomitings’, and after lying in agony for eleven days, she died.

It was clear that William Birt had never intended that Sarah Powell should die, so it might have been thought that he would have faced a charge of manslaughter rather than murder. However, the judge explained that, ‘having recommended to her a Medicine to procure abortion, and death ensuing, he was considered as guilty of Murder’. According to a well known principle of English Law, the judge said, ‘where Death ensues in consequence of an illegal Act, Malice is implied, and the offence, with its consequences, is deemed Murder’. Abortion was an illegal act, so Birt was considered to be guilty of murder. The judge added that although Sarah Powell ‘might be an Accomplice with him in the guilty Design’, her account of how Birt had encouraged her to take the powder was enough to ‘fix the crime upon the Man’. The source of the powder had not been discovered, nor exactly what it contained, but the surgeon who attended Sarah Powell was sure it was poisonous and had caused her death.

Birt was said to have remained calm during the trial and when receiving the death sentence, but when he was taken from the Bar, ‘his Confidence forsook him, and he fainted away in the Pen, and as he was conducting away from the Court, he dropped down again in a Fit’. That evening, when he arrived back at the prison, Birt was conducted to a condemned cell to await his execution, which was to take place on the following Monday, 15 August. As he was taken to the cell, he was said to have ‘wrung his hands as in the utmost Misery and Despair’. Next morning, when his cell door was unlocked, he was found hanging and dead. The prison surgeon made a brief note of the incident in his journal: ’13 Aug 1791. William Birt meant to hang on 15 August but hanged himself in cell.’

A Coroner’s Inquest was held later that day. It was said that Birt’s body had been ‘quite cold’ when the cell door had been opened. He had twisted the sheet of his bed and fastened it to the bars of the window, then tied the other end in a running knot round his neck, before throwing himself from his bedstead. The inquest jury returned a verdict of felo de se. This translates roughly as ‘felon of himself’, and the verdict had great significance, as it meant that Birt’s body was ordered to undergo the traditional fate of suicides who were judged to have been of sound mind at the time they took their own lives, which was to be buried at a crossroads, without any Christian service. The Gloucester Journal of 18 August 1791 reported that on that same Saturday, Birt’s body “was buried in a cross road, near Tewkesbury’. The treatment of the bodies of those buried at crossroads varied, but they were supposed to be ‘desecrated’ in some way, such as having a stake put through their body. The newspapers gave no details of what had happened in Birt’s case.

The authorities were keen not to disclose the exact burial places of suicides, so no details were given of the site of Birt’s burial. However, Bennett’s History of Tewkesbury, published in 1830, gives some useful information on the subject:

‘The corpse was sent by order of the coroner, to the parish officers at Tewkesbury, and buried in the cross-road at the entrance into the lane which leads to the Lodge, near the House of Industry’.

The House of Industry, later Tewkesbury Workhouse, was south of the town, on Gloucester Road. An examination of a map of Tewkesbury from 1835 shows that the most likely place of burial is in the area with the lane leading to the Lodge (now Lincoln Green Lane) on the left and a lane to the right just before the House of Industry (which now leads to the cemetery).

 

Tewkesburydetail1835

Detail from a map of Tewkesbury, from Samuel Lewis’s Topographical Dictionary of England 1835. (via GENMAPS website). The ‘House’ is the House of Industry. The burial took place at the crossroads just below that.

 

The reason for burying suicides at crossroads has never been completely clear. The practice took place from at least medieval times, when crossroads were believed to be ‘otherworldly’, God-forsaken, places. (There is an interesting article about the subject here: www.oddlyhistorical.com/2015/09/27/crossroads-suicide-burials.) Whatever the reasons for the practice, it ceased with the passing of the Burial of Suicide Act of 1823. However, taking one’s own life continued to be a criminal act until 1961.

 

Sources

Gloucester Journal, 11 April 1791, 18 August 1791

Bennett’s History of Tewkesbury, 1830, p.214, note (via archive.org)

Gloucestershire Archives:

Gaol Calendars, Easter 1791 (Q/SG1)

Gloucester County Gaol, Surgeon’s Journal, 13 Aug 1791 (Q/Gc32/1)

“A Profane Burial: Why the English Buried Suicides at Crossroads”, 27 Sept 2015, on http://www.oddlyhistorical.com. (Link in the main text above.)

Map of Tewkesbury 1835 from GENMAPS (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~genmaps/index.html)

© Jill Evans 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

The capture of a highwayman: Daniel Neale, 1763

highwayman

“The King’s Highway”, from Magazine of Art, 1881 (via http://www.ancestry-images.com)

On a night in June 1763, a highwayman rode out to work on the roads between Bath and Tetbury.  He found his first victims at Lansdown, on the outskirts of Bath. A woman returning home from selling butter at Bath market was robbed of her day’s takings, then a collier had three shillings and six pence stolen from him by the man on horseback, who afterwards rode off towards the Monument to Sir Bevil Grenville.

The highwayman found his next victim at Toghill Turnpike, where he came across a  gentleman’s servant who was just paying the keeper in order to pass. The robber ordered the keeper to go inside and shut the door, warning him that otherwise he would blow his brains out, and saying that he would receive the gentleman’s payment. He then relieved the servant of a considerable sum of money.

Continuing on the road towards Tetbury, the highwayman overtook another gentleman’s servant, but instead of robbing him, he travelled with him to Petty France, where they fed their horses and took refreshments in an inn, before setting out together again. However, when they reached a parting point in the road, the highwayman suddenly pointed a pistol at the other man’s chest and demanded his money and watch. The highwayman rode off down the road towards Gloucester and the servant returned to the inn and asked the landlord to help him pursue the robber. The two men set off together and got within 200 yards of the highwayman, but he jumped his horse over a stone wall and got away.

This was not the end of the highwayman’s adventures that night. He next encountered a man described as a pig-killer of Wickwar, who kept the Sign of the Crown public house there. The robber demanded the man’s money and he replied that he only had four shillings and six pence on him. The highwayman then wanted the man’s pocket watch. The man refusing to hand it over, the robber tried to snatch it from him, but the chain snapped, leaving him holding only the chain and seal. Snarling that the man was an “obstinate dog”, he drew his pistol from under his coat and fired, lodging five slugs into his victim’s right breast. While some newspaper reports said the man had died as a result of his wounds, the Bath Chronicle stated that he was still alive, but not expected to recover.

Whether or not the highwayman wore a handkerchief around his face when committing his crimes was not reported, but during his time spent at the inn in Petty France, the landlord had got a good look at him and was able to give a detailed description. He was described as being a short young man, much pitted with smallpox, who was wearing a brown Surtout coat. He was “well-mounted” on a dark-brown horse which was blind in one eye. It was also said that his saddle had one new stirrup and one old.

The highwayman probably lay low for a few weeks after his prolific night of robberies, but at the end of July, it was reported that Mr Samuel Rudder, the well-known printer and bookseller of Cirencester, had been robbed of three guineas and his watch, not far from the town, by “a single highwayman, well-mounted”. On the same morning, several other people were robbed by the same man. At about noon on that same day, a man rode up to a blacksmith’s shop in Chalford Bottom to have his horse shod. While he was waiting, several people on seeing him thought he answered the description given of the man who had shot someone on the Bath Road about three weeks before. He was seized, and in his pockets were found a brace of pistols loaded with stones and bits of lead, and about eight guineas in money. He was taken to a magistrate, who committed him to the care of the constable, who took him to the George Inn at Bisley, to be held there until he could be taken to Gloucester Gaol.

The sensation of a highwayman being taken into custody attracted a crowd, which followed the constable and robber to the George Inn. One of the men who had been robbed that morning went into the room where the highwayman was eating his supper, and declared that this was the man who had robbed him. The robber asked him if he would swear to that, and when the man replied that he would, he took the knife with which he was eating his supper and cut his own throat with it. He did not succeed in killing himself, but was too ill to be taken to Gloucester Gaol immediately, so was kept under the care of the Bisley constable until he recovered.

In the meantime, the newspapers announced that the miscreant was named Daniel Neale, and he was a cloth-worker, living at Frome in Somerset. The mare he rode was the property of the landlord of the Black Swan at Frome Field, but it wasn’t stolen; Neale had hired the mare on several occasions. He had lately shown watches and considerable sums of money to his workmates, telling them that if they would hearken to him they might get a deal of money with much more ease than working at their business. Neale was from Gloucestershire, but had lived at Frome for some time and had married a local girl, who kept a shop there. It was believed that he had committed many robberies between Cirencester, Malmesbury and Tetbury.

In August, the County Assizes began in Gloucester, and Daniel Neale had recovered enough to take his trial. He was charged with robbing Mr Rudder, of Cirencester, Printer, and another person. (The pig-killer from Wickwar must have lived, otherwise Neale would have been on a murder charge.) He was found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. The Gloucester Journal reported that Neale had said that he had taken to highway robbery a few weeks before Easter, with accomplices, whose names he did not disclose, but said they lived near Frome. They “took to the Highway” in order to supply themselves with “Cash for the Cockpit and the Alehouse”.  They had committed many robberies and had also cut cloth from Clothiers Racks. They had formed a grand scheme, which was to have been carried out as soon as good horses, pistols, etc, could be procured. In order to avoid accurate descriptions being given, they had planned to meet every night and exchange clothes and horses.

Some accounts of the executions of highwaymen portray them as heroes who go bravely to the gallows, swaggering and welcoming death. Daniel Neale did not meet his end in such a way. He was executed at Over, near Gloucester, on 26 August 1763, alongside a thief called Richard Johnson. The Gloucester Journal reported that Neale, “expressed Terror at the Approach of Death, and seemed to think his Sins had been too great to be expiated by so short a Repentance, and prolonged the Moment in which he was to be turned off to the very last”.

 

Sources

Gloucester Journal, 1, 15, 22 and 29 August 1763 (at Gloucestershire Archives)

Bath Chronicle, 7 July, 4 Aug, 1 Sept 1763; Derby Mercury, 29 July, 12 Aug 1763; Oxford Journal, 9, 30 July 1763 (British Newspaper Archive)

© Jill Evans 2017

Craig Revel Horwood’s Convict Ancestor: Moses Horwood, transported 1841

Craig Revel Horwood, one of the judges on the BBC’s Strictly Come Dancing,  was the subject of an episode of Who Do You Think You Are?, which was broadcast on BBC1 on 13 July 2017. Craig was born in Ballarat, Victoria, Australia, in 1965. In the programme, he soon discovered that he was descended from a convict, Moses Horwood, who had been transported from England to Australia for committing a theft in Cheltenham. During the broadcast, the British Newspaper Archive was quick to find (and share on Twitter) a newspaper article, reporting his trial at the Gloucestershire Assizes in 1841, at which he was found guilty of burglary from the Queen’s Hotel in Cheltenham.

QueensHotelChelt

Queen’s Hotel Cheltenham (originally the Royal Victoria Hotel), from Griffith’s ‘History of Cheltenham’, 1838. Image via http://www.ancestryimages.com.

Taking to the internet to research the case of Moses Horwood (often called Harwood in the records) myself, I discovered that the robbery was reported in the Cheltenham Chronicle on Thursday, 15 July 1841, under the headline, ‘DARING BURGLARY’. The report stated that a ‘most daring and extensive burglary’ had been committed at the Queen’s Hotel on the previous Monday night or early on Tuesday morning. The thieves had entered the sitting room occupied by Sir Willoughby Cotton, KCB, and had taken a Grand Cross of the Bath, with Badge and Star, a Grand Cross of the Durannee order, a Commanders order of the Guelph of Hanover, a purse containing fifty-seven sovereigns, a five pound note and two neck pins, and a case containing letters and papers and a bill of exchange from Calcutta. The thieves also had taken a hat belonging to Mr Griffith, the proprietor of the hotel. The miscreants had been disturbed by one of the manservants, who heard them moving around. They decamped when they realised someone was coming, making their exit through the garden. They escaped over the garden wall, but in their hurry left behind a large military cloak and three hats.

The manservant alerted the police and three suspects were quickly identified. James Andrews, a shoemaker, Moses Horwood, formerly a porter at the hotel, and James Dunn, an ostler, all had been drinking in the Queen’s Hotel Tap until a late hour on the night of the burglary. They were detained and on 14 July they were brought before the Cheltenham magistrates, who were told that Mr Griffith’s hat had been found in Andrews’ house, footprints in the hotel garden matched boots belonging to Andrews and Horwood, and one of the hats left behind by the robbers had been identified as belonging to Horwood. Dunn was discharged as there was no evidence against him; the other two were remanded to appear again on the following Monday. At that hearing, it was stated that Andrews had been spending a lot of money on the day after the robbery. He and Horwood were committed to Gloucester Gaol, to await the Assizes.

Moses Horwood and James Andrews were tried at the Gloucestershire Summer Assizes, which commenced on 4 August 1841. They were charged with robbery in the Queen’s Hotel, Cheltenham, on 12 July. Samuel Young Griffith, the proprietor of the hotel, in evidence stated that ‘Harwood was a servant for some time in the house and knew every part of it. He had left the employment about five months prior to the burglary’. Several witnesses testified to seeing the men drinking in the Queen’s Hotel until the early hours of the morning. Both men were found guilty and sentenced to transportation. Andrews had a criminal record, as he had been imprisoned in 1838 for stealing a silver watch and a brace of pistols, but the judge sentenced Horwood to fifteen years and Andrews to ten, commenting that there was ‘a particular aggravation in the case of Harwood, as he had been employed by Mr Griffith, whose house he had robbed’.

Moving on to the criminal records, a search on Ancestry.co.uk of the Gloucestershire Gaol Records found that Moses ‘Harwood’ and James Andrews were both committed to Gloucester Gaol on 17 July 1841. Moses was aged 31 and described as having brown hair, grey eyes, a long visage and a freckled complexion. He was five feet six inches tall. He could read and write imperfectly and his occupation was ‘servant’. He was not a native of Cheltenham, as his parish was given as St Peters Oxford. His crime was listed as ‘burglariously breaking open the house of Samuel Young Griffith and feloniously stealing fifty-seven sovereigns and several orders and badges, the property of Sir Willoughby Cotton KCB’. His behaviour whilst in gaol had been ‘orderly’. James Andrews was 32 and from Cheltenham.

Horwood and Andrews also were listed in the Gloucester Prison Penitentiary Registers in 1841. James Horwood was described here as being from Cheltenham and his occupation was given as ‘Porter’. He and Andrews were removed from Gloucester on 27 August 1841 and sent to the Justitia Hulk at Woolwich, to await transportation. The Prison Hulk Registers (also on Ancestry) stated that Moses Horwood was married, a servant, and of good character and disposition. He and Andrews set sail for Australia on 17 November 1841, bound for Van Diemen’s Land.

A quick check of the 1841 Census revealed that Moses ‘Harwood’ was living in Cheltenham, described as a male servant, who was not born in the county. Living with him were his wife Ann and his children, Ann, aged 6 and Sarah, aged 5. It was not uncommon for married couples who were separated by transportation to be considered as single after a respectable number of years had gone by, and this presumably was the case with Moses Horwood, as he went on to marry again in Australia, and started a new family there.

 

Sources:

British Newspaper Archive: Cheltenham Chronicle, 15 July 1841, 12 August 1841

Ancestry.co.uk: Gloucestershire Prison Records: County Gaol Registers, 1838-42, Summer Assizes 1841, no.139; Penitentiary Register, 1841-44, Summer Assizes 1841, no.114

Census Records, 1841 Census, England, Cheltenham, District 30.

© Jill Evans 2017

New book!

New publication!

A History of Gloucester Prison, 1791-1950. 

Published by Glos Crime History Books, May 2017.

ISBN 978-1-5454-7984-1.

Paperback, 136 pages, 13 b+w illustrations, index and bibliography, £8.50. (Kindle version, £1.99.)

This is a short history of the prison, packed full of information on the development of the buildings, the different versions of the separate system employed in the prison over the years, the staff who worked there, the prisoners who were held there and their day-to-day routine, work, diet, punishment and illness, escapes, executions and more.

Available on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Gloucester-Prison-1791-1950/dp/1545479844

 

 

The Dursley Election Riot, 1867

electoraldistricts

Electoral Districts, Gloucestershire, 1835. From Samuel Lewis, Topographical Dictionary of England, 1835. (www.ancestryimages.com)

 

The parliamentary constituency of West Gloucestershire had been created by the Great Reform Act of 1832. The constituency was represented by two members of parliament. In 1867, the West Gloucestershire representatives were Sir John Rolt, a Conservative, and Robert Kingscote, a Liberal. In that year, Sir John Rolt gave up his seat when he became a judge, so a by-election was declared. The Liberal candidate for the vacant seat was quickly announced as Mr Charles Paget Fitzharding Berkeley, second son of Lord Fitzharding of Berkeley Castle. The Conservatives took a long time in declaring their candidate. It had been expected that Sir George Jenkinson, 11th Baronet of Walcot and Hawkesbury, would be nominated. Sir George lived at Eastwood House, in Falfield, Gloucestershire, and he had been the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire in 1862. However, for reasons not made public, the eventual Conservative candidate was Colonel Edward Arthur Somerset, a cousin of the Duke of Somerset.

The market town of Dursley was the place where the hustings for West Gloucestershire elections took place. On 31 July 1867, the candidates, their supporters and crowds of people gathered to hear the declaration of the results. Sir George Jenkinson came to Dursley to support Somerset on the hustings, bringing with him his wife and  children, and other guests, including the Honorable George Charles Grantley Fitzharding Berkeley, commonly known as Grantley Berkeley. Grantley Berkeley was the uncle of Charles Berkeley, the Liberal candidate,  but he had not come to support his nephew. Despite having been a Liberal MP in the same seat from 1837 to 1857, he was now supporting the Conservative candidate, Colonel Somerset. His appearance on the hustings alongside Somerset and Sir George Jenkinson led to hissing and cries of ‘turncoat!’ from Liberal supporters, who made up the majority of the crowd. The Gloucester Journal reported that the proceedings were very disorderly, and the presence of Grantley Berkeley appeared to be the principal cause of the unrest, coupled with the officiousness of Sir George Jenkinson, who ‘made himself conspicuous by obtruding himself on the notice of those assembled, bandying words with the crowd, and gesturing like a Merry Andrew’.*

When the High Sheriff declared that the Conservative candidate had won the election by 96 votes, there were cheers from the Conservative supporters, and jeers and cries of ‘bribery’ from the Liberals. Somerset gave a speech, and there was uproar when he thanked Sir George Jenkinson.  In his speech, Charles Berkeley, the losing candidate, congratulated Colonel Somerset, then made a pointed reference to people who had promised to support him but then hadn’t done so. Grantley Berkeley tried to reply, but his voice was drowned out by booing, and then fighting broke out in the crowd. Grantley Berkeley persisted in trying to speak, shouting that the troublemakers were ‘no more fit to enjoy the franchise than a pack of wild beasts’. He continued to shout at the top of his voice while the crowd booed, but when sticks began to  be thrown, he retreated from the hustings. Jenkinson remained for a while longer, berating and taunting the spectators.

A little while later, Sir George Jenkinson decided it was time to leave Dursley. As he and his family got into their carriage, they were heckled and missiles were thrown at them. The police surrounded the carriage as its occupants were pelted with rotten eggs, offal, horse-dung, turf and sticks, and a sheep’s head was thrown repeatedly back and forth over their heads.

Following this riotous behaviour, five people were arrested and appeared at a special Petty Sessions which was held at Dursley on 10 August. The Gloucester Journal reported that the proceedings “created a great deal of excitement in Dursley, and the court was thronged”. There were six magistrates on the bench and the hearing lasted eight hours. A large number of constables were present in the town, in case of any further disturbances. Gloucester solicitor Mr Taynton represented the prosecutors, while Mr Gaisford of Berkeley appeared for the defendants.

Henry Woodward, Andrew Kilmister, William Dean and Richard Lacy, along with Rowland Hill, described as “a boy”, were charged by Superintendent Griffin of the Gloucestershire Constabulary, that they did, “with divers other evil-disposed persons, to the number of ten or more, on the 31st July 1867, at the parish of Dursley, in the county of Gloucester, unlawfully and riotously assemble and gather together to disturb the peace of our Lady the Queen, and that, being then and there so assembled and gathered together, they did unlawfully and riotously make an assault upon one Sir George Jenkinson, Bart, and the Hon. G.F. Berkeley, and others, to the great disturbances and terror of the liege subjects of her Majesty the Queen then and there being”.

Mr Taynton stated that he had been instructed to prosecute by the Chief Constable of the Gloucestershire Police, who wanted brought to justice all the persons who could be proved to have taken part in this “very scandalous outrage”. The magistrates might decide the defendants had not been guilty of committing a riot, but he prayed that in that case they would be sent for trial on charges of tumultuous and unlawful assembly.

Police Sergeant Monk of Dursley was the first witness. He had been on duty on 31 July, the day when the High Sheriff officially declared the result of the poll in the recent election. There were about four hundred to five hundred people assembled near the Bell and Castle Inn, and their conduct had been riotous and noisy. Monk saw Sir George Jenkinson’s carriage being brought out from the yard of the Bell and Castle Inn, when it was time for him to leave. Sir George came through the crowd with some ladies towards the carriage. He was struck on the back by an egg. As the party got into the carriage, more eggs were thrown. The police surrounded the carriage to protect the occupants. He saw a sheep’s head being passed over the carriage, but he did not see any missiles hit anyone in the carriage. The eggs passed over the ladies’ heads, but one struck the back of the box were Sir George was seated. He had heard the name “Grantley” uttered most by the crowd. Monk identified Henry Woodward and Andrew Kilmister as part of the mob. When the carriage left, it had been followed by the crowd for a few hundred yards, who threw stones and anything else they could find. The crowd dispersed once the carriage had gone.

Captain Kennedy, C.B. (a former governor of Vancouver Island) was another witness. He had been one of Sir George Jenkinson’s party. He had seen stones, eggs, sticks, bones and offal being thrown at the occupants of the carriage. He had caught Lacey with a bag of eggs, and handed him over to the police. Lady Jenkinson and Miss Jenkinson had blood on their faces. The former lady’s face was cut, but the blood on Miss Jenkinson’s face was from being struck by a piece of offal. Kennedy’s wife had been hit by two apples.

Police Constable Gough stated that he had seen Rowland Hill, the boy, pick up the sheep’s head and throw it at the carriage. He also saw William Dean in the crowd, shouting and pushing. Another constable identified Henry Woodward as being the chief culprit. He had seen the other defendants in the crowd, but hadn’t witnessed them doing anything. Woodward had thrown things at the carriages of Sir George Jenkinson and Colonel Somerset.

Having heard all the evidence, the magistrates declared that “a most disgraceful riot” had been committed, and all the defendants except William Dean were committed for trial at the next county Assizes.

After this, Sir George Jenkinson appeared to answer a charge that on the day of the election, he assaulted one Thomas Ward, by striking him with his whip as he drove past him, on his way into Dursley. Sir George was hissed as he entered the courtroom. Ward, described as a labourer and a corporal in the Militia, stated that on 31 July, he was standing at the Kingshill turnpike with others, dressed in yellow, the colour of the Liberal supporters. As Sir George Jenkinson drove his carriage past at a trot, he stood up and brought his whip down on him. He would have been cut across the face if he hadn’t managed to turn his back.

Another witness said that the crowd standing at the turnpike had not been hostile, and only shouted “Yellow forever” as each carriage drove past. There was also a suggestion from Mr Gaisford that Sir George had, in a vulgar gesture, lifted his coat-tails and slapped his “nether-ends” in the direction of the crowd. In his defence, Sir George said that the crowd at the turnpike had rushed his carriage and frightened the horses. He said that Ward had confronted him in an inn at Dursley and demanded money, or else he would accuse him of assault. The bench decided to fine Sir George Jenkinson 40 shillings for assaulting Ward.

The four defendants who were sent for trial on charges of rioting did not have to wait long for their case to be heard, as the Gloucestershire Assizes began soon afterwards.  The charge against them was of riotous assembly and assault against Sir George Jenkinson, Bart, the Hon. Grantley Berkeley, and others. The judge, Mr Shee, in his opening statement, suggested that if the committing magistrates had been afforded more time to reflect, they might have decided that it would have been better to fine the defendants, rather than having them sent for trial at the Assizes.

Opening the prosecution case, it was submitted that the assault on Sir George and his party had been premeditated, because rotten eggs in brown paper bags had been brought in to Dursley from elsewhere. The evidence given at the Dursley Petty Sessions was then repeated. After hearing the case against Rowland Hill (who was about thirteen years old), the prosecution withdrew the charge against him, because he was “only a boy”. The judge said the boy should never have appeared in the dock at all.

Sir George Jenkinson, Lady Jenkinson and their eldest daughter, Miss Emily Frances Jenkinson, all appeared as witnesses.  Lady Jenkinson stated that she had been hit on the temple by a hard green apple, which caused severe bruising. Her daughter Emily had been struck several times by stones and offal, and her little boy had been cut below one of his eyes and was still in bed recovering.

Sir George Jenkinson was given a thorough grilling by the defence counsel, Mr James. He denied having enraged the crowd, said he didn’t recall hitting Ward with his whip, but did admit that he had tried to hit someone else, but had missed. He emphatically denied having lifted up his coat tails and slapped his bottom, in a vulgar gesture. Several Dursley residents appeared to give good character references to the defendants. In his summing up, Mr James castigated Jenkinson, as the prosecutor of the case, for allowing Rowland Hill, a child, to be held in custody for six days and nights before the trial. He also criticised him for taking ladies and children to the election hustings, when he knew such occasions were always rowdy. James was applauded when he sat down.

After consulting together for three minutes, the jury found the remaining defendants not guilty. The trial had lasted nearly five hours.

Detail from An Election Squib

Detail from “An Election Squib” by George Cruickshank, 1841 (www.ancestryimages.com)

 

A note on Sir George Jenkinson

Sir George Samuel Jenkinson was the 11th Baronet of Walcot, Oxfordshire and Hawkesbury, Gloucestershire. He was the son of the Bishop of St David’s and a first cousin once removed of one-time Prime Minister Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool. He had succeeded his uncle as Baronet in 1855. He had been the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire in 1862. He unsuccessfully contested the seat for Wiltshire North in 1865 and of Nottingham in 1866. During these election campaigns, he had gained a reputation for being boastful and bumptious, but was said to be popular with landed proprietors and tenant farmers. In 1868, he finally succeeded in becoming a member of parliament,  being elected as the representative for Wiltshire North. He stayed in that  seat until 1880. He died at his home, Eastwood House in Falfield, on 19 January 1892, and was buried in Falfield Parish Church.

Although his behaviour at the Dursley election caused him to be viewed as an arrogant “toff”, his obituary in the Gloucestershire Chronicle on 23 January 1892 showed a different side to his character. On succeeding to the Eastwood Estates, it said, he had built the present church, vicarage and schools in Falfield, almost entirely at his own expense. He was ‘of a most liberal and generous disposition’, and supported all the local institutions, was generous to the poor and was a large employer of local labour, who was ‘widely and deservedly respected’. Perhaps the passing of twenty-five years had mellowed his character.

*I have no idea what this means.

 

Sources

Dictionary of National Biography

Cheltenham Looker-On, 12 Jan 1867

Gloucester Journal, 27 July, 3 August, 10 August, 17 August 1867

Gloucestershire Chronicle, 23 January 1892

© Jill Evans 2017

 

A Foul Murder on the Cotswold Hills, 1902

Illustrated Police News, 23 August 1902. (British Newspaper Archive. Image copyright The British Library Board. All Rights reserved.)

On 15 August 1902, at around midday, a shepherd who worked at Saddleworth Farm, between Didmarton and Leighterton, in Gloucestershire, was walking along the road when he noticed a trail of blood and some skid marks, which looked like they had been made by a bicycle pedal. Following the trail, he came across the body of a man hidden in a copse. The police were called, and they found that the man had been shot in the head, from behind. A bicycle was found in a nearby quarry.

The deceased person was quickly identified as Mr John Dudley Scott, who had recently taken up residence at the Priory in Horsley. Scott’s life-long friend, William Williams, had been staying at the Priory for a while.  Scott’s wife and two children were away at the time.  On 14 August, after dinner, the two men went out on a bicycle ride, as they often did in the evening. Williams returned to the Priory alone at about half past eleven, changed his clothes, then went off on his bicycle again.

The police discovered that Williams had cycled to Stroud, where he had caught a train to London. Passing on this information to the Metropolitan Police, Williams was traced to a hotel in Dover Street, Piccadilly. He was found in his room, dead, having shot himself with a revolver. An inquest was held soon afterwards, at Westminster Coroner’s Court, in which his brother gave evidence. He said that William was eccentric and quick-tempered, and he had caused their elderly father (Major Scott of Barton End House, Nailsworth) a great deal of worry. The inquest found that William Williams had committed suicide, while insane.

An inquest was held on the body of John Dudley Scott at Hawkesbury Upton, in Gloucestershire. The verdict reached was that Scott had been unlawfully killed by William Williams. The coroner commented that it was a very sad case, and because of the suicide of Williams, the reasons for his crime would never be known.

Sources:

Illustrated Police News, 23 August 1902

Gloucestershire Echo, 16 August and 30 August1902

© Jill Evans 2017