A Boisterous Bonfire Night in Tewkesbury, 1876

TewkesReg28Oct1876

Advertisement in the Tewkesbury Register, 28 Oct 1876, for fireworks on sale at a business in Tewkesbury, which may not have been too popular with its neighbours. (British Newspaper Archive. Image copyright The British Library Board. All Rights Reserved.)

 

In the 1870s, many of the residents of Tewkesbury did not look forward to November the fifth. Bonfire Night was a rowdy occasion in many parts of Britain, marked by the customary burning of effigies of Guy Fawkes on bonfires and the lighting of fireworks, but in Tewkesbury it was widely believed that the annual celebrations had got out of hand and that the Borough Police were failing to control the young men and boys who took over the streets as soon as darkness fell.

In 1876, November the fifth fell on a Sunday, and because it was a religious day, many places did not celebrate in the usual way. In Tewkesbury, the people who lived or worked in the buildings along the main streets were hoping for a quiet Bonfire Night for once and indeed, the evening itself was quiet. Unfortunately though, the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot was marked by the town’s revellers on the fourth and sixth of November instead, and the celebrations in Tewkesbury in 1876 proved to be the worst yet.

The Tewkesbury Register and the Gloucester Journal reported on the events which had taken place, stating that on the evenings of Saturday the fourth and Monday the sixth of November, the main thoroughfares were ‘all ablaze’. Youths were striding around, firing off  pistols and miniature cannons (described as ‘nipple-cannons’), and small boys were running about, swinging fireballs over their heads and hurling them and against doors, windows and shutters. Another group were kicking a large burning tar barrel around in the street, with no regard to where it went. At the Cross, a large group gathered which pelted anyone who ventured to pass by with squibs, crackers and ‘other flaming missiles’. Eventually, a building used to store vehicles took fire and was almost destroyed.

The Gloucester Journal, which described the observance of Bonfire Night at Tewkesbury as an ‘annual nuisance’, said that the police had taken a number of firearms off the youths, but otherwise did nothing to ‘subdue this very objectionable manner of remembering the 5th of November, although the public are loud in their denunciation of the nuisance’. The Tewkesbury Register commented that in previous years, the authorities had ‘stood by and winked at these proceedings’, but this year, things had gone too far.

It appeared that the local authorities agreed with the press, as on November the fifth in 1877, there were lots of police on the streets in Tewkesbury, ready to deal with any disturbances. There were very few incidents, except for the odd cannon explosion and the occasional firework being let off. In addition to the police presence, an organised bonfire and firework display was put on for the public, held in a space well away from the main streets, which was greatly enjoyed by all who attended and went on long into the night.

 

Sources:

Gloucester Journal, 11 Nov 1876

Tewkesbury Gazette, 28 Oct 1876, 11 Nov 1876, 10 Nov 1877

All newspapers accessed on www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk

Gagged and Bound by a Mystery Man: Forest of Dean, 1930

Illpolnews30Jan1930

A sketch of the incident on the front page of the Illustrated Police News, 30 January 1930. Image courtesy of the British Newspaper Archive.

On the morning of Monday, 20 January 1930, colliers Kenneth Penn and Clifford Watkins were on their way to work when, as they walked over Morse Hill, between Drybrook and Ruardean, they saw a young woman lying on the side of the road, apparently unconscious. Her hands were bound with string and a lady’s stocking was tied around her mouth. One of the young men stayed with the woman, while the other hurried to the police station at Ruardean to fetch help. When he reached the station, he discovered that another informant had arrived there shortly before him. Collier Jack Brain had seen the woman as he rode past on his bicycle, but had felt too scared to stop and had ridden straight to the police station. A policeman and a doctor went up to Morse Hill and carried the still-unconscious woman back to the station.

When she recovered consciousness, the woman revealed that she was Dorothy Beard, who was twenty-one years old and worked as a domestic servant at the house of Mr Bryant, a schoolmaster in Drybrook. On the previous night, she had been on her way home to her parents’ house in Ruardean. Walking along the lonely road in the dark, she had been whistling to keep her spirits up. Suddenly she came across a man crouching down beside a hedge. Despite the strangeness of his position, she said ‘goodnight’ to him and he replied in kind, but then jumped up and demanded money from her. She said she hadn’t got any money and tried to carry on walking, but he said ‘You shall not pass’, and put something over her mouth. She remembered nothing else until she woke up in the police station. It had been discovered that the stocking which had been tied around her mouth had been soaked in spirits of camphor.

Dorothy Beard described the man as being middle-aged, fairly tall, of big build and clean-shaven. He was wearing a mackintosh and a trilby hat which was pulled down over his eyes. A woman gave a statement to the police that she had seen a man answering this description walking towards Nailbridge, not long after the incident was known to have taken place.

The newspapers reported that this was the latest and most serious in a number of incidents which had taken place in the Forest of Dean in the last two months. There had been many stories of encounters with a strange man on lonely roads or at the back of isolated premises, with most of those reporting the incidents being female. It was said that many young women and girls had been stopped in various parts of the district, until they were afraid to venture out after dark.

On 16 January 1930, The Citizen had reported on another young woman’s ‘alarming experience’ with the ‘mystery man who prowls’. A woman in the Coleford area had been greatly frightened by a man who jumped from behind a hedge and flashed a powerful light in her face. She was so shocked that when she reached her destination, she collapsed and remained unconscious for two days and could remember nothing when she woke up, until seen by a specialist who helped her to recover her memory. The incident was then reported to the police. Since then, the newspaper stated, a strange man had been reported prowling around houses in Coalway and flashing a light in people’s faces.

Whether the man who attacked Dorothy Beard was the same one who badly frightened the Coleford woman is not absolutely certain, although their descriptions were said to be similar. Dorothy’s attacker did not use a flashlight, although this may have been because she saw him before he could surprise her. The earlier victim was not (as far as is known) asked for money and was certainly was not left gagged and bound, but this may have been because for some reason the attacker lost the opportunity to carry out his intended actions.

As far as the use of a flashlight is concerned, it may be the case that the ‘mystery man’ was actually one of a number of people who thought it was good fun to mess around with torches on dark evenings. One such person appeared in early March 1930 at the Littledean Petty Sessions. Reginald Cowmeadow, aged eighteen, was summoned for flashing a torch in people’s faces at Cinderford and was fined one pound plus costs. The police superintendent said that there had been a lot of complaints about this sort of behaviour taking place, especially on Sunday nights.

No more incidents of a similar nature were reported after the attack on Morse Hill. Dorothy Beard’s attacker was not discovered, so the true facts concerning the identity of the ‘mystery prowler’ never came to light.

 

Sources:

Newspapers (all accessed on www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk):

The Citizen, 16 Jan, 20 Jan and 8 March 1930

Gloucester Journal, 25 Jan 1930

Illustrated Police News, 30 Jan 1930

 

©Jill Evans 2019

The Westgate Bridge Riots: Gloucester, 1827

westgatebridgepostcard

Old postcard of Smirke’s Westgate Bridge, with steamboat passing under

In 1806, an Act of Parliament was passed which facilitated the building of a new Westgate Bridge at Gloucester, to replace the medieval crossing over the River Severn. The old bridge, which had been in use for centuries, had five arches through which vessels had to negotiate, and was becoming increasingly costly to repair. The new bridge was designed by Robert Smirke, who was also the architect of Gloucester’s Shire Hall. Smirke’s design was for a simple, single-span arch. After several years of building work, during which travellers leaving or entering the city from the west had to use a temporary structure over the river, the new Westgate Bridge opened in 1816.

One of the clauses of the 1806 Act of Parliament stipulated that tolls could be raised from anyone crossing the Severn on the west side of Gloucester, including foot passengers, to recoup the cost of the bridge’s construction. A toll-house was built on the temporary bridge and advertisements appeared in the local press for prospective toll-collectors, who would bid at auction for the privilege of collecting money from those crossing the river, paying an annual rent of about £2,000 a year. When the new bridge opened in 1816, the collection of money from travellers continued. It was intended that the raising of tolls would stop once the new bridge had been paid for, but by 1827, people were still paying to cross in and out of the city. This was because the Gloucester Corporation had decided to build another new bridge at Over, this time to a design by Thomas Telford, and the tolls raised from Westgate Bridge were used to pay for that.

GJ28May1810tolls

Advertisement for a toll-keeper in Gloucester Journal, 28 May 1810 (British Newspaper Archive. Image copyright British Library Board).

Resentment had been growing over the years among the inhabitants of Gloucester, who were tired of having to pay to get in and out of the west side of the city, over ten years after construction of the bridge had been completed. The men who were working on the construction of the new bridge at Over were particularly disgruntled, because they had to pay twice every day, to get between their homes in the city and their workplace.

On the evening of Thursday, 20 September 1827, a gang of men from Over refused to pay to cross over Westgate Bridge to get back into the city. The toll-keeper’s wife was on duty that evening, and she was determined not to let the men pass without paying. They threatened to tear down the barrier, demolish the toll-house and to hang the woman up on the ruins, but she refused to be intimidated. Eventually, the men forced their way past her and over the bridge.

The next day, the same confrontation took place, and this time the workmen broke part of the barrier and cleared a footway across the bridge. Over the weekend, this path was left open, so for the first time people were able to walk across the bridge without paying. On Monday, the employer of the men working at Over had a meeting with the Trustees of the Westgate Bridge, and a compromise was made by which the workers would no longer have to pay to cross on foot. After this, the barrier once again was repaired.

It was expected that there would be no more trouble from the Over workers, as they would no longer have to pay the toll, but some of them were not satisfied and soon after five o’clock, a group of them arrived at the toll-gate, where gradually they were joined by their workmates, bargemen, and many other inhabitants of Gloucester, until there was a crowd of over a thousand people. An attack on the toll-gate began, with the barrier being torn from its hinges and thrown into the river, followed by every piece of gating and fencing. A number of police constables and specials had attended the scene in order to try to stop the proceedings, but they were overwhelmed and took shelter in the toll-house, along with the toll-keeper and his family. The mob then started to throw large stones at the house, breaking the shutters on the windows. The occupants made their escape through a back window. The demolition of the house then began and all of the toll-keeper’s furniture and belongings were thrown into the river. After the house and gate had been destroyed, some of the crowd went into the city, where they paraded around the streets, until about ten o’clock, when all became quiet.

On Tuesday afternoon (25 September), two troops of the 4th Dragoon Guards, one from Dursley and the other from Wotton-under-Edge, arrived in the city. Under their protection, a new toll-gate was erected and a guard house was built nearby, with a military patrol stationed there. There was no further trouble at the bridge.

In the meantime, a reward had been offered for the apprehension of the ring-leaders of the riot. Four men, named Joseph Dangerfield, Richard Bird, Henry Lane and Benjamin Bennett, were arrested on 26 September and taken to Gloucester’s city gaol, to await trial at the next Assizes. The men were charged with ‘having with a multitude of other Persons wilfully and unlawfully destroyed the Toll House and Toll Gates at the Westgate Bridge in this City’. On 5 October, two more men were arrested. A stone-mason named James Nelson was walking past the Tolsey at the Cross when he was recognised by a police officer as being one of the rioters. He was taken into the Tolsey for questioning. Some of his companions gathered at the Cross and there was talk of getting Nelson out. Another man in the crowd, James McKenzie,  was recognised as a rioter and he too was taken into the Tolsey. It was decided that the pair should be held with the others in Gloucester city gaol, but the police were concerned that they would be attacked as they escorted the men down Southgate Street, so they asked for a military escort. At the gaol, Nelson and McKenzie were charged with ‘feloniously destroying the woodwork connected with the Westgate Bridge in this City’.

After being charged, the men accused of rioting offered to pay bail for their appearance at the next Assizes, which would take place the following April, but they were refused. The city authorities had decided that the atmosphere was so volatile that they would require an order from the Court of King’s Bench before agreeing to release the men. A hearing took place in November 1827 in London. Mr John Phillpotts, for the men, asked for a writ of habeas corpus to be issued to the Sheriff of Gloucester, to bring up the bodies of the men in question. He stated that they had been held in gaol for seven weeks, despite offering to pay for bail. Mr Campbell, on behalf of the Gloucester magistrates, opposed the men’s release, and described the events which had taken place in September, stating, perhaps with some exaggeration, that a mob of over 2,000 people had gathered and after destroying the toll-house and gate, they had paraded the streets of the city waving flags. The men alluded to had been arrested by the magistrates who, in consequence of the disturbed state of the city, were afraid to admit them to bail without the sanction of the Court of King’s Bench.

Mr Philpotts said the men had sworn their innocence. They had offered to pay good bail but the magistrates were determined to keep them in custody until the next Assizes. The men had behaved so well in prison that the Trustees of the bridge and toll-gate had requested the magistrates to admit them to bail. The court decided to recommend that the men be allowed bail, as this would be less expensive than granting habeas corpus. All the men were bailed out on 16 November.

In April 1828, the Assizes began in Gloucester. When it came to the case of the Westgate Bridge riot, Mr Phillpotts addressed the judge, informing him that in the previous October, the Bridge’s Trustees, from the information they had received, believed it was their duty to prosecute the men accused. They had since learnt that these men were not the ring-leaders at all. After being confined in gaol for seven weeks, the men had been allowed to find bail, and, ‘from that hour, the most perfect harmony and good will had subsisted between all parties. The men’s conduct had been unexceptionable’. He was instructed to apply to his Lordship to permit recognizances to be discharged without presenting a bill to the Grand Jury. The judge, Mr Baron Vaughan, agreed to this ‘judicious course’. The men were released shortly afterwards.

So, in the end, nobody was tried and punished for taking part in the Westgate Bridge riot. No doubt the authorities believed that as peace had descended on Gloucester, there was no point in risking stirring things up again. The Gloucester Journal, in its report on the case, had insinuated that the workers were not really to blame anyway, as there were ‘higher powers’ behind the riot. It was suggested that ‘some individuals’ had plied the workers with alcohol and encouraged them to attack the toll-gate. Although the newspaper did not name a particular person, they appeared to be putting the blame firmly on John Phillpotts, the barrister who had defended the men. Phillpotts had aspirations to be an MP for the city, and as he had been a member of the Corporation, it was presumed that he knew the state of the finances concerning the Westgate Bridge. He was said to have told the people over and over again that the bridge had already been paid for.

In the aftermath of this incident, described in the Cheltenham Chronicle as ‘one of the most disgraceful scenes we ever remember to have occurred in this part of the country’, the toll on foot passengers crossing the Westgate Bridge was brought to an end in January 1828. By the end of that year, all tolls on the bridge were abolished.

© Jill Evans 2018

Sources:

Gloucester Journal, 29 Sept and 6 Oct 1827

Morning Post, 28 Sept 1827; Cheltenham Chronicle, 27 Sept 1827; Cheltenham Journal, 19 Nov 1827, 14 Apr 1828 (all viewed on British Newspaper Archive)

Gloucester City Gaol Registers, 1816-35 (viewed on Ancestry; originals at Gloucestershire Archives, under Gloucester Borough Records)

A History of the County of Gloucester, Volume IV: The City of Gloucester, ed. N.M.Herbert, (Victoria County History, 1988)

 

 

 

A sham curate hanged at Gloucester, 1814

In the spring of 1812, the parish church at Newnham-on-Severn was in need of a new curate. The Revd Mr Parsons held the perpetual curacy there, but he resided in Oxford, so he employed a curate to perform his duties in the parish. The former holder of this position had resigned in March 1812, and so Revd Parsons advertised for a replacement. He soon received a response from one Thomas White, a clergyman in his forties, who was sent to Newnham to meet Parsons’ agents, solicitors Thomas Tovey and John James. White told them that he held a living in Ireland, but when they asked to see his credentials, he said that all his papers were still over there and it would take some time for them to be shipped over. Although Tovey and James had some doubts about the new recruit, Parsons had approved of him, so he was allowed to take up his duties at the church, starting on 22 March.

Newnham church

Newnham-on-Severn church (Jill Evans, 2010)

On 17 April, White told the churchwarden, Job Thatcher, that he was short of money. He asked Thatcher if he would give him £30 cash in return for a bill of exchange, bearing the name of a Mr William Jennings, who White said was his agent in Dublin. Thatcher agreed and gave him the cash.

On 15 May, Tovey and James, who had grown increasingly suspicious about White,  demanded to see his references and proof of his qualifications. White said his documents still had not arrived from Dublin and gave the address of Mr Jennings in Dublin, to write to him themselves. Four days later, on 19 May, White disappeared. Shortly afterwards, the bill of exchange the churchwarden had been given was refused payment. In addition, Tovey and James received a letter from Dublin, in which Mr Jennings stated that he knew Thomas White, but was not his agent and had nothing to do with his financial affairs. On making enquiries in Newnham, it was discovered that several parishioners had loaned White money in the short time he had been their curate.

Thomas Tovey and John James were keen to find their sham curate, but it was not until the summer of 1813 that he was sighted on several occasions in Bath, Bristol and Worcestershire. Tovey and James finally caught up with him in Worcester, on 29 November. He was removed from there to the Kings Head in Gloucester, where several of those who had known him as Thomas White came to identify him. He pretended not to recognise any of them, but later admitted to being the person known as Thomas White in Newnham. He said that his real name was Richard Williamson and that he came from Ashley in Wiltshire. It later transpired that his real name was Robert Peacock, but he bore the aliases Thomas White, Richard Williamson, Richard Thomas, William Whitefield and William Whitmore.

While Peacock waited in Gloucester gaol for his trial, more was discovered about what he had been doing in the time between leaving Newnham and being arrested in Worcester. He had gone first to Cornwall, where he had served as a curate under the name Richard Williamson, at the parish of Tailand, near Looe. This time he stayed in the position long enough to marry a respectable young lady, but soon after the marriage, when he had obtained some of her money, he went to London on ‘urgent business’. Not long after that, a notice appeared in a Cornwall newspaper, announcing the sudden death of Mr Williamson. The friends of his shocked wife went to the newspaper offices to find out if this was a mistake and were shown a letter which had been sent commissioning the announcement, which they believed was in Williamson’s handwriting.

After that, Peacock abandoned his clerical disguise, and was seen in in Bristol and Bath wearing more colourful clothing and living in some style. A fortnight before his arrest, he drove from Bristol to the King’s Head in Gloucester, with his carriage, horses and servants bedecked in orange ribbons, and announced that the Duke of Wellington had secured a famous victory over Marshal Soult in the Peninsula War, which proved to be completely untrue.

The Cheltenham Chronicle reported on the case under the headline ‘SHAM PARSON’, and commented, ‘It would be difficult to trace this extraordinary character thro’ the various disguises under which he has for several years been preying upon the public.’ The report added that the solicitors Tovey and James had been tracing his steps for the past two months and during that time, they had prevented his marrying two more ‘unsuspecting females’, one of whom lived in Bristol.

During his time in prison, Peacock repaid some of his debts, especially to people he owed in Newnham and in Wiltshire. He certainly could afford to do this, as when he was arrested he had over £150 in cash on his person, and he was found to be worth thousands of pounds in property and stocks. Many people asked to see him in prison, perhaps hoping to identify him as someone who had swindled them in the past, but he refused all visitors. He spent his time teaching scripture to his fellow prisoners and reading books lent to him by the prison chaplain.

Robert Peacock, alias Thomas White, Richard Williamson, Richard Thomas, William Whitefield and William Whitmore, was tried at the Gloucestershire Spring Assizes in April 1814. He was charged with uttering a bill of exchange, with intent to defraud Job Thatcher of Newnham. The prosecution stated that Peacock had passed the bill for £30 when acting as a curate at Newnham. He pretended the money was due to him as a quarter’s stipend for the living he held in Ballyporeen, Ireland. The bill bore the acceptance of William Jennings of Dublin, upon whom it was drawn, and the prosecution stated that this had been forged by Peacock. Jennings appeared as a witness and swore that it was not his writing on the bill.

After a trial lasting five hours, the jury took only a few minutes to find Robert Peacock guilty of forging and uttering the bill of exchange. Forgery was a capital offence, but the judge, Mr Dallas, respited the sentence on Peacock. The defence counsel had raised a point of law concerning the evidence given against him, so Dallas referred the case for the opinion of his fellow judges. Peacock was sent back to Gloucester gaol, to await the next Assizes.

At the start of the Summer Assizes, in August 1814, Robert Peacock was called before Mr Justice Dallas. The judge told Peacock that in his case, ‘the proof was very clear; but your Counsel contended that the facts were not proved in point of law.’ The evidence had been submitted to the Judges, along with the grounds of objection, and ‘their opinion was that no doubt whatever could be entertained of the facts being clearly proved’. Robert Peacock was sentenced to death. The judge said that he would be executed on 3 September, ‘unless the mercy of the Prince Regent be interposed; and great interest is made to implore Royal Clemency on his behalf’.

A Judge’s Report on Peacock’s case was immediately sent to the Home Office, along with four individual petitions, the first being from Peacock himself. His mother, Sarah Peacock, sent two and the other was from the Marquess Camden. A collective petition was also submitted, signed by the prison chaplain and surgeon and four of the Visiting Magistrates. The grounds given for clemency to be shown were that the prosecutor had asked at the trial that the prisoner be shown mercy, the prisoner had an aged mother and three helpless children, he had been behaving well in prison and had been teaching the other prisoners scripture. The judge recommended that Peacock should be shown mercy, but the appeal for clemency failed.

Robert Peacock was hanged on the gatehouse roof of Gloucester prison on 3 September 1814, alongside another convict, George Symes, who had been condemned for horse stealing. The Gloucester Journal reported that Peacock had been counselling Symes in the condemned cells, ‘bringing him from obduracy to a more perfect understanding of the awful change he was about to undergo’.

On the scaffold, Peacock shook hands with Symes and with the executioner. He told the latter that he would find a few shillings in his pocket. On the following day, his body was buried at St Nicholas Church in Westgate Street, Gloucester.

Sources

Gloucester Journal, 11 April, 18 April, 12 August, 5 September, 1814

Cheltenham Chronicle, 9 December 1813

The National Archives, Judges’ Reports, HO47/53/34, 20 August 1814

Gloucestershire Archives, Parish Registers, St Nicholas Gloucester, Burials (P154/15)

This case appears in Hanged at Gloucester, by Jill Evans (The History Press, 2011)

© 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

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 Beaufort.

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