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

 

Advertisements

Poison in the Pepper Box: The Aftermath of the Tarring Case

Advert for rat poison, in Royal Society of Health Journal, 1814 (Uploaded from Flickr Commons)

Advert for rat poison, in Royal Society of Health Journal, 1814 (Uploaded from Flickr Commons)

In my last post, “A Tarring and Turfing in the Forest of Dean, 1877“, I related the tale of a grocer in Lydbrook who had tar poured over him by three women, who were all fined and ordered to pay costs and damages. One of the women, Sabrina Cole, was sent to Gloucester Prison, because her husband, George Cole, did not pay up. She did not spend long in the gaol because her sister paid her fine, but two weeks later she was back in court, accused of trying to murder her husband by poisoning him.

On 29 August, The Citizen reported that Sabrina Cole had appeared at Coleford Police Station, having been arrested in Woolwich, on a charge of attempting to murder her husband, George Cole, by administering poison. The case was heard in full at Littledean Police Court on Monday, 10 September. The Citizen reminded readers that Sabrina Cole was one of the three “nymphs of the Forest” who had tarred the grocer. Her husband had refused to pay her fine and she had been “marched off to prison at Gloucester.” It was alleged that in retaliation she mixed vermin powder with pepper and put it in his sandwiches.

George Cole was supposed to have given evidence against Sabrina a week earlier, but  he had failed to turn up in court, so the hearing was postponed while he was issued with a warrant to attend. Cole still did not  arrive at the start of the proceedings, so two policemen were sent to find him and eventually he was escorted to the courtroom. On his arrival, Cole said he no longer wanted to give evidence against his wife, but when he was threatened with being charged with perjury, he went ahead.

Cole stated that a week after the tarring incident, he had got up to go to work at the Trafalgar Colliery, and watched Sabrina make him a beef sandwich for his lunch. He saw her sprinkle some seasoning from the pepper box onto the meat. Shortly after eating his lunch at work, he started to feel numbness in his hands and shoulders, and he felt sleepy. On going home, he found his wife had gone and the house was locked up. He had to climb in through a window. After realising that Sabrina had apparently gone away, he took a train to Gloucester, where he asked at the ticket office about her and discovered that she had bought a ticket for Paddington, London. He then went to Gloucester Police Station and spoke to Deputy Chief Constable Chipp. He informed Chipp that Mrs Cole had taken some of his property with her, and also said something about her ordering their little boy to steal something from a shop stall. He was still feeling unwell, but he didn’t say anything about it to Mr Chipp.

After leaving the police station, Cole said he went to a public house and had a pint of beer. Soon afterwards, he started to feel very ill indeed, with pain in his stomach and bowels. He went to another bar and ordered a gin and peppermint, but this failed to ease his discomfort. He wondered whether he might have been poisoned. Two girls in the bar (one called Annie, who he knew, the other a “short, fat, ugly one”, who was a stranger to him) took him to a doctor’s surgery. The doctor gave him a draught, which helped temporarily, but by the time he got the train home, he was feeling terrible. He got off the train at Newnham, and spent the night at the King’s Arms, but couldn’t lie down to sleep.

When he returned to his house in Lydbrook, he looked in the pepper box, because some money had been kept in it, which he found was gone. He noticed some blue grains in amongst the pepper and showed it to a neighbour, who said, “Oh God! That is poison in there.” He then took the pepper box to the police station and asked P.C. French to issue a warrant for his wife’s arrest.

When George Cole was cross-examined by the counsel for the defence, it transpired that once Sabrina had been apprehended at Woolwich and brought back to the Forest of Dean, he had applied for his wife to be released on bail, saying the poisoning may have been an accident. He had also written to Sabrina, asking that they might make it up and live together again.

At this point, the hearing was postponed for another week.

At the next hearing, the County Analyst gave evidence of examining the contents of the pepper box. He found that a small quantity of strychnine, in the form of a few grains of rodent poison, was mixed amongst the pepper.

Mr Albert Pleydell Carter, the doctor who had seen George Cole at his Gloucester surgery, said he was sure Cole was tipsy when he was brought in by a prostitute. The doctor believed Cole had drunk some bad beer, and this had caused his discomfort.  Cole’s symptoms did not match those of strychnine poisoning, because he had been doubled up in pain, whereas someone who had taken strychnine would have muscle spasms and his back would be arching. Also, numbness of limbs and drowsiness were not signs of strychnine poisoning.

When P.C. French was questioned about Sabrina Cole’s arrest, he said that he had found out where she was because she had written a letter to him, giving her address. She had asked a friend to send on some clothes to her, but she hadn’t received them, and her letters had not been answered, so she wanted P.C. French to go and speak to the woman. She also said that she had found a good position in London and would not be returning to Lydbrook. When she was apprehended in Woolwich, Mrs Cole had looked very surprised on reading the warrant, and said she knew nothing about it. The police had been around various chemists in the area, including one at Ross-on-Wye which Sabrina sometimes visited, but there was no record of her buying rodent poison at any of them.

George Cole was cross-examined again. He stated that he had been alone in the house with the pepper box for about ten minutes, before he showed its contents to anyone else. He denied putting the poison into the box himself.

Questioned as to his conduct towards his wife, he said he had gone to Gloucester to fetch Sabrina when she was released from gaol, but denied that he had threatened her during their journey home, although at Ross-on-Wye he had warned her that if he caught her carrying on with other men, he would “warm her noddle.” It was true that he sometimes kept a hatchet under his bed, but this was because it cost 12 shillings and he needed it for his work. He hadn’t threatened her with it, and indeed he could do her more damage with his fists than with that. Asked about a former incident, he said that he had been “in drink” when he “used the poker to her”.

This last exchange led me to do a search further back in the newspapers for any former cases involving George and Sabrina Cole. The poker incident referred to was reported in the Gloucester Journal on 27 December 1873. George Cole had married Sabrina Davies in September 1872. Due to his violence towards her, Sabrina had left George several times, and in September 1873 she went to live with her mother at Longney. George followed her and begged her to come home. When she repeatedly refused, he hit her with a poker, which he had warmed in the fire first. George ran away and the police were called. He was arrested in a brothel in Gloucester. Sabrina was in hospital for weeks. George was tried in December  1873 and sentenced to 18 months hard labour, the judge describing him as a “merciless ruffian”. Other cases of a less serious nature took place in the years following.

After discussing all the evidence, the Littledean Bench dismissed the case. Sabrina Cole’s defence lawyer applied for George Cole to be made to enter into sureties for his good behaviour towards his wife, otherwise there might be “very serious consequences”. Mrs Cole was questioned by the magistrates. She said she was in bodily fear of her husband and she would not return to their home. Cole said he would leave the district to “relieve his wife”. He was called on to enter into sureties, then left the court.

So, what do I think really happened? George Cole was a violent and controlling man, and his wife had left him many times, but he had always persuaded her to go back to him. This time, he found that she had gone to London, so he went to the police in Gloucester and accused her of stealing his property and of forcing their son to commit a crime, in the hope that a warrant would be issued for her arrest. This didn’t happen and while he was in a bar, he drank some bad beer, which gave him a stomach ache. Sometime between then and his return to Lydbrook, he decided to accuse his wife of trying to poison him, in the hope that the police would find her and bring her home. Alone in his house, he found some rodent poison and put some in the pepper box, then showed it to his neighbours and the police. When Sabrina was arrested in London and brought back to the Forest of Dean, he tried to get the case dropped by refusing to give evidence against her, but he was forced to go ahead. Fortunately for Sabrina Cole, George didn’t know exactly what type of poison was in the vermin killer, and his symptoms did not match those of someone who had taken strychnine.

I don’t know whether Sabrina managed to get away from her husband for good, but George was still living in Lydbrook nine months later. In June 1878, he was charged at the Gloucestershire Quarter Sessions with uttering counterfeit coinage. He was sent to Gloucester Prison for twelve months, with hard labour.

Sources:

All from the British Newspaper Archive:

The Citizen, 29 Aug and 18 Sep 1877; Gloucester Journal, 27 Dec 1873, 6, 15 and 22 Sep 1877; Gloucestershire Chronicle, 22 Sep 1877; Western Mail, 12 Sep 1877

© Jill Evans 2015

A Tarring and Turfing in the Forest of Dean, 1877

"Tarring a Grocer at Lydbrook", from the Illustrated Police News, 1 Sept 1877. (From the British Newspaper Archive. Image copyright The British Library Board. All Rights Reserved.)

“Tarring a Grocer at Lydbrook”, from the Illustrated Police News, 1 Sept 1877. (From the British Newspaper Archive. Image copyright The British Library Board. All Rights Reserved.)

One Monday morning in August 1877, the atmosphere at Littledean Police Court was lightened considerably by the appearance of two “respectable-looking” married women, Sabrina Cole and Susan Phelps, who were accused of assaulting a Lydbrook grocer by pouring tar over him, then pelting him with clods of turf. Another woman, Maria Phelps, was also charged, but did not appear in court. The case was, according to The Citizen newspaper, “of a most amusing character”.

The complainant, James Cook, worked for the Lydbrook Store Company, and would go  round houses to take orders and collect money for goods which had been bought on account. He had become unpopular with the local housewives through persuading them to buy groceries on credit, then demanding payment soon after the goods had been received.

On 23 July, Cook had gone out on his rounds as usual, and while he was inside the house of his second customer, he heard two of the defendants calling in a hostile manner for him to come out. He went to the gate and persuaded them to go away, but while he was visiting his next customer, an invalid who was lying in bed in a downstairs room, the three accused women came inside and caught hold of him. As they tried to drag Cook outside, he clung onto the bedpost, much to the consternation of the poor lady in the bed.  The description of this scene caused outbursts of laughter in the courtroom.

After a struggle, the women got Cook outside, where he was met by a small crowd, one of whom was a boy holding a kettle containing cold tar. One of the Phelps women dipped a brush into the tar and gave Cook a good coating. The other Mrs Phelps then poured the remaining contents of the kettle over his head. To finish, a tar-covered rag was tied round his neck. As he left the scene as quickly as he was able, the women and some boys pelted him with turfs and – according to Cook – with stones.

Sabrina Cole, who had helped to drag the grocer outside, but hadn’t taken part in the tarring, was fined five shillings and costs, while the two Phelps women each had to pay ten shillings and costs. The court also awarded Cook damages of 30 shillings for his ruined clothes, the payment of which was to be shared between the three defendants.

The newspaper reports on the case ended with the women being led away, protesting at their treatment, while their husbands stepped forward to pay their fines. However, it transpired later that one of the men, George Cole, refused to pay, and as a consequence, his wife was sent to Gloucester prison. A few weeks later, Sabrina Cole found herself in court again, this time on a charge of attempting to poison her husband.  This part of the story is told in my next post, Poison in the Pepper Box.

Sources:

The Citizen, 15 August 1877, Gloucester Journal, 18 August 1877, Illustrated Police News, 1 September 1877 (all via the British Newspaper Archive website).

© Jill Evans 2015

Plum Duff for the Prisoners: Gloucester Gaol, Christmas 1929

Illustration from Dickens' A Christmas Carol, by S. Eylinge, 1869 (British Library, via Flickr Creative Commons)

Illustration from Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, by S. Eylinge, 1869 (British Library, via Flickr Creative Commons)

An article appeared in The Citizen on 17 December 1929, bearing the headline:

Gloucester Gaol’s Xmas

“Lags” Now Making Their Way Home to Prison.

Readers were informed that plum duff, “the poor man’s Christmas pudding”, was to be served on Christmas Day to all the prisoners who were undergoing sentence in Gloucester Gaol. The chief ingredients of the pudding were to be currants, minced apples and raisins, with breadcrumbs “to give it lightness”. In addition there would be extra allowances of roast beef and bread. For those who spent the day in the prison hospital, there would be a dessert of apples and oranges.

A prison official was quoted as saying: “There are scores of old ‘lags’ now at liberty who are thinking out ways and means of spending Christmas with us. You will find them committing some minor offence in order that they may be the guests of His Majesty at Christmas time.”

The official continued: “It is not because we pamper them – we don’t – it is because they find the world unfriendly to them, and they would rather be amongst their own sort. Our special Christmas Day diet, if roughly served, is at least wholesome and appetising, and it is as welcome to them as is roast turkey to folk more fortunately placed.”

A search of the petty sessions proceedings in the Gloucestershire newspapers of December 1929 did not reveal dozens of people committing crimes in order to be in prison for Christmas, but there was one case of a man who wanted to be gaoled for longer than the festive period.

The Citizen of 3 December 1929 reported a recent meeting of the Gloucester City Petty Sessions court, presided over by the Mayor, in which James O’Hagan, of no fixed abode, appeared for stealing a pair of boots from the shop of Messrs Cash & Co. in Westgate Street, Gloucester. A policeman stated than when he asked O’Hagan to explain how he had got the boots, he replied, “I pinched them.” When he was charged at the Police Station, O’Hagan had said, “Guilty, my lord.”

Asked by the court if he had anything to say, O’Hagan responded, “I want to go to prison.” He was asked if he would like to say for how long, and he replied, “I don’t mind; the winter, anyhow.” He was sentenced to two months in prison. In a slightly different version of this report, printed in the Cheltenham Chronicle, the Mayor in sentencing him, said, “I am afraid we cannot see you eating your Christmas dinner outside Prison”, to which O’Hagan replied, “Thank you, sir.”

Interestingly, at the same court session, another man of “no fixed abode” appeared, who was also charged with stealing a pair of boots. James Edward Kettle was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for stealing boots from Messrs Baker and Sons in Westgate Street. Perhaps this particular form of theft was regarded by those in the know as the perfect way to get sent to prison, just in time for Christmas.

Sources:

Gloucester Citizen, 3 Dec 1929, 17 Dec 1929

Cheltenham Chronicle, 7 Dec 1929

© Jill Evans 2014

“Don’t thee do that no more, or I’ll shoot thee.” A poaching case, 1833

Gloucestershire’s County Petty Sessions records have numerous examples of people brought before magistrates for poaching offences, but this return from December 1833 is unusually detailed and colourful.

Edwin E. Page, an attorney-at-law from Wick and Abson, was charged with trespassing in search of game in Bean Wood, Wapley and Codrington, on land occupied by Sir C.B. and Captain Codrington. The case was heard at the Petty Sessions court on 27 December 1833, which was held at the Cross Hands Inn, in Old Sodbury. The defendant did not attend, although constable John Fussell assured the Bench that a summons had been handed to Page.

John Evans, a labourer of Wapley and Codrington, deposed that he was in the woods on 7 October, when he saw Mr Edwin Page with a gun and three dogs, and two other men beating for game. The two men ran when they saw Evans, and the accused came out of the wood. Evans put his hand on Page’s chest and told him he was trespassing. Page responded, “Don’t thee do that no more or I’ll shoot thee.” Evans cried, “For God’s sake, don’t shoot me!” He and Page then went to Francis Evans (John Evans’ father), described here as a labourer, but in other cases he is said to be a deputy gamekeeper.

Francis Evans stated that the accused gave his name and address as Charles Slade of Westgate Buildings, Bath, but, Evans said, “he was certain that he had made no mistake in the name as he made a note inside his hat, which he later copied into his memorandum book.” It is unclear from this whether Evans wrote the name down as Slade, or whether he recognised Page and wrote down his correct name.

Page was fined £1, to be paid to the overseer of the poor at Wapley and Codrington, and £1 6s costs to be paid to the informer (James Harrison, gamekeeper to Sir C. B. Codrington). Page was given until 13 January 1834 to pay, or in default he was to serve one calendar month in Horsley House of Correction.

The Poacher, by F. Marryat, 1883. (British Library, on Flickr Commons.)

The Poacher, by F. Marryat, 1883. (British Library, on Flickr Commons.)

It may be that Page was a frequent offender, or at least that indulging in a spot of poaching ran in the family. Another case had been heard at the Old Cross Hands Inn at Old Sodbury on 6 December, when Edwin Page, gentleman, of Pucklechurch, was accused of trespassing on land at Shortwood, occupied by John Haskins. As in the other case, the accused did not appear. A witness who kept pheasants there said that on 4 October 1833, he  saw two men with three dogs on the land. The witness knew one man, and the other identified himself as Edwin Page. When Page was asked if his intention was to kill the witness’s pheasants, he replied that he would if he saw them.

Page was fined 10 shillings, to be paid to the overseer of the poor, and £1 9s. 9d, costs, to be paid to John Haskins, or in default one month in Horsley House of Correction.

I have been unable to find out whether Edwin E. Page and Edwin Page were the same person, or whether they were related. Either way, it seems that this was a case of men of a certain social class who would sometimes trespass on other people’s land in pursuit of game, and were not too concerned if they were caught, as they had no trouble paying the fines given to them.

Sources: The original records are at Gloucestershire Archives, Quarter Sessions Records, Petty Sessions (Q/PC2). On this occasion, I made use of Irene Wyatt’s book, Calendar of Summary Convictions at Petty Sessions, 1781-1837, Gloucestershire Record Series Volume 22, published by The Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 2008.

© Jill Evans 2017