There have been Croxons/ Crocksons/ Croxens in Marlow and Bisham for a long time. The James who is the subject of this (long!) post was born in Reading circa 1807 before moving to Marlow where he had family connections. He was not the wealthiest man in Marlow. He was a baker for most of his life. To some he would become an advocate for the poor, and a stubborn defender of the rights of the many. To others he was a fraudster and troublemaker. What he undoubtedly did was draw attention to a number of issues affecting the lives of the less well off. It was his motive and credibility that was sometimes questioned.
In the beginning...
Back to the beginning. In the 1833 Parish Assessment, James Croxon is listed as a West Street resident occupying a cottage and bakehouse with a relatively high value. This was near Borlase School. A few years later he had the valuable contract to provide the bread and flour for the Union Houses of the Wycombe district - that is the workhouses under another name. But then he lost this contract. His critics say this inspired a campaign to malign the Wycombe board of Poor Law Guardians in every way he could. He began an extremely prolific letter writing career, keeping the pages of the local newspapers busy with his complaints.
James lands in gaol
However just after his loss of the bread contract in 1840, he was implicated in a forgery case and sent to Aylesbury Gaol. It was a little complicated to unravel, but the nutshell is James was accused of forging his father in law James Lee's signature on bills of exchange, and thus defrauding the Stephens & Co bank of money paid to Croxon on the strength of Lee's signature. It was said Croxon had been doing so for about 5 years. Eventually the bills were dishonoured, and then Lee denied having issued them and therefore refused to pay back the money given to Croxon by the bank. He said he was illiterate and so could never have made a signature, nor had he ever authorised anyone else to do so on his behalf. So Croxon found himself committed to gaol on a serious charge.
The 1841 census finds him in the prison, with his wife Hannah nee Lee back in Marlow, alongside several of their children. At this point the family were living in Dean Street, home to several other bakers. At the trial, the case against Croxon fell apart. Several witnesses, including 2 lawyers clerks said that they had previously presented dishonoured bills under his own name to James Lee, and he had eventually paid them, including those presented by Croxon and had never questioned the right for Croxon to hold them. They also said another of Lee's married daughters Mary Ann Wigginton, had managed his affairs and been authorised to sign bills of exchange for him. Both Lee and Mary then changed their sworn statements made on two earlier occasions, that no bills of exchange had been issued. Lee said he did get Mary to organise these, but had meant to say it was only ever in relation to settling his own financial affairs, and never Croxon's. Mary said something similar, that she had meant to say only she had not organised any for Croxon in particular. She also said she thought the signature on the bills was in Croxon's handwriting but could not be certain. The case was dismissed but James Croxon trouble was not over. (See note 2 below for an contested election vote involving James Lee and Mary Ann Wigginton.)
A second charge of forgery related to another signature on one of the above mentioned bill of exchange, that of farmer George Brangwin (Branguin in London news reports, an incorrect spelling) who had endorsed one for 50 shillings. George denied having done so. At trial, George did say he had put his name to another bill for the same amount some time before and Croxon's defence was the contested bill was just a renewal of that. The court decided against him, and James Croxon found himself sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with hard labour.
Guilty?
At his trial, James Croxon was described as a most respectable looking person (although appearances can deceive of course!) and he was able to provide a number of character witnesses. He was not questioned directly, but his defence did not change their story. It must be said that Croxon seems to have upset a number of local people, and at least one of them was the writer for the Bucks Gazette. He called James a "whining fanatic" and "canting hypocrite". He poured scorn on Croxon for being a man who had tried just before his own trial to secure the release of three "desperate ruffians" who had been sentenced to transportation for life for a brutal assault on a young woman. These three men (Bishop, Taylor and Harding) had apparently paid Croxon to write an appeal on their behalf which was then refused. (For the full sad story of this horrifying attack on Patience Martin and the aftermath, see the post here)
The Gazette also accused Croxon of being a "meddling busybody" who put off people from the cause of teetotalism that he was said to promote. In fact they said with Croxon off in gaol, the idea of becoming a teetotaler had suddenly become more appealing. Croxon was most likely a non conformist. We believe he worshipped as one of the Salem Chapel congregation, this we will hopefully confirm later. He clearly upset those unwelcoming to his message. So reports of his conduct have to be filtered through this prejudicial reporting locally. There is also a political element as James sympathised with the liberal & radical cause in town, rather than the Tories who held Marlow as a pocket borough. In 1835 he was listed as amongst the 34 "independent and spirited voters" who had voted against the continuance of Williams as MP. Votes were not secret then and it was said there were many who had wished to vote the same way but had expressed fear of doing so as Williams was their landlord.
Aftermath
What can poor Hannah Croxon have made of the case with her husband pitted against her father and sister? Whatever the truth of the case, it is a definite fact that the Croxons had long standing financial problems and they had just lost their main breadwinner for two years. Things must have been very difficult indeed for Hannah and her children. Hannah was present on the day of Mary Ann's sad death in 1865 so any estrangement between the sisters was not permanent.
I suspect the financial implications of his imprisonment cast a long shadow. He appeared as an insolvent debtor in court in both 1850 and 1853 spending 40 days in prison for debt on the last occasion. At these hearings he gives his occupation as baker. On the 1851 census he is listed as living in the poor and populous Dean Street. Ten years later he is in Chapel Street. In both 1851 and 1861 he had two of his adult unmarried daughters living with him (both working as satin stitch workers or dressmakers) as well as his young son Laban and later a lodger too. The young women's income must have helped the family budget although satin stitch was usually low paid work. Mrs Croxon was a victim of theft in 1859 when a quantity of washing was stolen from her garden along with articles from at least a couple of other houses. Such as lost must have hit hard.
James Croxon wields his pen
James was not a man to let those in authority off if he suspected laziness or incompetence, rightly or wrongly so. Throughout the 1860's in particular he filled the columns of the local papers with letters (those that would print them anyway) in particular disputing how the poor law guardians did their work. This group set and administered the poor rate and managed the workhouses, including that at Marlow. James thought he could do it better, but he was unable to stand for election to the board as it seems he did not occupy property of sufficient value to meet the requirements. He thought the rules should be changed to allow him a chance for election. The guardians did read out his letters at meetings but say he made a number of vague accusations and seemed confused about the law and what was in their power. James was not easily deterred and continued to hold the guardians to account. He noted they had failed to have their books open for inspection by ratepayers on the required number of days for example, and got that rectified. He also rightly questioned why those receiving poor relief were expected to queue outside in all weathers, rather than receive it indoors as formerly. The previous distribution place was the Clayton Arms but it came to be felt that using a public house was inappropriate so the spot outside the distributor's house was used instead. A letter supporting James in this matter spoke of his "humane efforts" to support the poor. Poverty was a sufficiently heavy burden for the aged and sick to carry it said without further indignities being heaped upon them. Some suspected James himself wrote these letters of support. If he did, he was an eloquent writer who spoke with awareness and compassion. He had other battles, refusing to pay the church rate after protesting on its unfairness to non conformists and the inflated costs, as he felt them, of collecting it. He also tried to get the tender for doing work for the new sanitary inspectors in 1865, but failed. We will leave James with his most successful project. In 1865 he was one of prime movers to set up the Marlow Rate Payers Association. No chance now for parish books to linger uninspected!
I have not found the death of James, but his wife Hannah died in 1880.
Notes:
1.
Bill of exchange. Lee signs the bill promising to pay Croxon (or whoever has the note) 50s at a set time in future. Instead of waiting for his money, Croxon takes this to the bank and they give him a portion of the value owed (minus a handling fee as they are inconvenienced by not being able to claim the funds back from Lee until the note is due to be paid) When the note expires, Lee has to pay the bank who bears the note the full amount stated plus any interest applied. Bills could be renewed, sold on etc. It seems Croxon had paid most of the bills off himself, Lee only being chased when he did not. The banks would not accept bills signed by just anyone. You had to be someone thought a respectable citizen likely to be able to fulfil the amount.
Note 2.
Previous brush with authorities for grocer come timber dealer James Lee and daughter Mary Ann Wigginton. The vote of Lee in the 1831 election was considered by some to be invalid. You could only vote if you occupied property of sufficient value in the right area. Lee's vote in the election was based on his occupation of a Dean Street house with shop, stabling and small timber yard. (Dean Street was known as Well End then, it's not the same as the hamlet by Little Marlow) This shop had been managed for some time by Mary Ann, even before her father retired from this part of his business.
James was however discovered to have left the premises 2 or 3 years before the election, to go and live in Little Marlow. His daughter Mary Ann and her new husband William Wigginton, a barge man, had taken over the shop, and Wigginton's name was above the door. Mary was however still the one managing the business. James claimed that he still paid the rent and used the outbuildings for storage but this was not considered enough to make him resident by those contesting the vote. Their complaint was thrown out however and the vote stood.
Mary Ann Wigginton was the subject of an coroner's inquest, held at the Greyhound in 1865. Her husband had accused the doctor (Dr Oliver) attending her of being drunk on duty and hastening his wifes end giving by her the wrong medicine. The full story of that is available here
Written and researched by Kathryn Day
Related posts:
To find every mention of your ancestor here, look at the A-Z Person Index in the top drop down menu. There is over 3025 people there. For general Marlow history posts see the General History option here where there are also links to other posts related to crime.
Chartist Edmund Stallwood here
1847 election riots here
©Marlow Ancestors
SOURCES
Archibald, Thomas Dickson, Streeton, Arthur Towers - Analytical Digest of cases published in the New Series of Law Reports. (1847)
Barron, Arthur Report of Cases of Controverted Elections in the Fourteenth Parliament. (S Sweet, 1849)
1847 Kelly's Directory. (Kelly's Directory Ltd)
Slater's Commercial Directory 1852
The Law Journal papers 1847.
The Sun(London) 22 Jan 1841, 7 Aug 1851, 6 April 1853 - copies from British Library Archive through BNA partnership.
Bucks Gazette 23 Jan 1841, as above
Windsor & Eton Express 26 Dec 1840
Bucks Herald 31 Jul 1880, as above
South Bucks Free Press 02 May 1862, as above
List of Insolvent Debtors, 1850-1855, (R Jenkins 1974)
1841,51,61 Census transcript from microfilm by Jane Pullinger.
