As our post title says, every family has a black sheep, and I would suggest William Humphrey Shaw as the Victorian candidate for his family! William's older brother Robert was the well known Robert Shaw of Robert Shaw and Sons boat builders. A fondly remembered and respectable man, his brother William was on the other hand something of a trouble maker.
The father to both was another William Humphrey Shaw, (wife Susannah). He was an Oxfordshire butcher who moved to Marlow after Robert's birth and so William Humphrey junior was born in Great Marlow in 1841. (Later William senior is working as a watchmen) The family lived in Dean Street before settling at St Peters Street where they would remain for a long time. This street finishes at a dead end formed by the River Thames. If the young William was to walk to the end of this street, he would look across at the Compleat Angler hotel where his brother Robert would eventually go to live and work as a "fisherman" or anglers guide. William also became a fisherman. He continued to work in this role for decades, so presumably he was good at it, mixing this work with the less seasonal work of a waterman. Robert became a famous river guide, one that people from London would ask for by name. It was suggested that in order to successfully secure his services, you would need to write several months in advance. William seems to have done fairly well in the same role initially but perhaps it was hard to follow in the steps of his successful brother. For soon the two brothers paths diverged. Robert would go on to run his boat hire and boat building business, and did very well for himself building an impressive riverside house to boot. William on the other hand seems to have developed a talent for getting himself into trouble.
Many of Williams tussles with the law involved the "demon drink". For example in 1864 William was involved in a scuffle at the Red Lion in West Street. He accused a Mr Andrews of assaulting him there after the pair exchanged "words". However after hearing the evidence of witnesses, the magistrates decided that Andrews was direly provoked and Shaw thoroughly deserved the punishment inflicted on him!
10 years later, William was convicted of a much more serious assault, or rather a string of brutal attacks on his wife Emma (nee Jones). The pair had married in 1869. William admitted suffering from attacks of jealousy and dared to justify his beatings on the fact he suspected her of adultery. In 1873 Emma went to the police and got a warrant issued for Williams arrest based on his attacks on her person, but in the end she got cold feet and refused to appear against him when the matter came to court. But according to Emma, the violence continued, usually precipitated by William's late night arrival home drunk. The neighbours continually complained at his shouting and the couple were asked to leave several homes they rented as a result. In 1878 a particularly bad spell for Emma resulted in William finally getting his turn in front of the magistrates. Emma had been told to leave a 4th house due to Williams outbursts. The events of the 5 or so days before William's arrest make extremely sad reading. He broke her nose, punched her throat, shoved her head against a bed post, kicked her in the face, dragged her from the bed by her hair and repeatedly locked her outside, including in her night dress. Twice she was taken in by her neighbours during the night. Sadly Williams unproven fears of Emma's unfaithfulness were able under the laws of the time to make sure his conviction was for "aggravated assault". His punishment? A fine of 40s and 12s costs. However crucially for Emma, the court was satisfied that "future safety of the wife was in peril" and made an separation order that meant she was free to live apart from him. Without such an order, William could have, in theory sued for Emma to return to their marital home had she left him. He was also ordered to give her a set weekly sum for her maintenance with the promise of time in gaol should he fall behind with this. Yes, William was more likely to go to prison for falling behind with his maintenance payments than assaulting his wife seriously for 5 consecutive days!
Sadly the reality of being a seperated wife was difficult in its own way. Although the court could order that William would maintain her financially, the sum granted was relatively small because allowance was also made for the fact William needed to maintain his own seperate household out of his not too high earnings. She could not of course marry anyone else This is a factor, as well as any psychological or emotional ones, that means we often see Victorian victims of domestic violence return to their partner. This is sadly what Emma eventually did, and we can only hope he treated her better. Unfortunately he certainly did not learn to control either his temper or his drinking.
A further conviction for drunkenness in 1881 saw William plead guilty and receive a 5 shilling fine. The following year, William was back in court for refusing to leave a licenced premises when asked to do so. The rolling drunk William arrived outside the Greyhound Inn in Spittal Street late in the evening. Landlord Thomas Willis heard the swearing William outside but the latter pushed his way into the bar before he could be refused entry. Thomas then asked him to leave at which William let forth the "most foul, disgusting and blasphemous language". He was then ejected. William was not someone Thomas said he would ever serve, drink or sober, based on past behaviour. Another fine was added to the Shaw tally, then one for poaching a rabbit. At this point they were living in Station Rd.
In December 1887 both William and Emma found themselves in trouble. William was convicted of stealing some fowls from James Field, of Wood End Farm near Medmenham. Emma was convicted in turn for recieving the stolen goods, as was Eliza Bowles who had sold them to various people in Marlow on behalf of the Shaws. (Eliza said the fowls had been raised either by her son who had gone into the army, or by a nephew who said she could sell them to pay for her Christmas dinner.) I can't find consistent information as to their sentence. William certainly went to prison, for either 2 or 3 months, and Emma for 1 or 3 months and Eliza for one month. William was described then as a fisherman still, and Emma was working as a charwoman. Later she was a needlewoman. Two low paid occupations.
The following year William was summoned for illegal fishing at Bisham. He was using eel baskets, against the Thames Conservancy's regulations. Another fine followed, but the conviction must have an impact on his ability to work successfully as a fisherman.
Emma died in 1898. Later the same year William married widow, charwoman (and former furrier) Sarah Rose previously of Cambridge Rd. The pair lived in Dean Street. I do not know whether Sarah suffered at Williams hands. Unfortunately his step daughter Harriet did. He was accused of unlawfully wounding her in 1901 when she was 30. She lived nearby in Dean Street with her husband Thomas Pearce. Her two youngest sisters Elizabeth "Lizzie" age 14 and Mary age 10 had the misfortune of still living with their step father. He tried the old trick of "punishing" the girls by locking them out of the home for an unspecified reason.
At 9pm they went for help to Harriet having been stuck outside for 4 hours. She keep them with her for an hour then took them home, and found the front door still locked. The back door was however open, and she told the girls to go in and go quickly up the stairs to bed. But William was waiting inside and smashed a pottery jug into Harriet's face, before hitting her on the head with a poker. The terrified girls ran to get their brother in law Thomas Pearce, who arrived to find William on top of Harriet who had a blood soaked dress. He pulled him off, giving William a minor head injury of his own. The police were called and William was found, drunk, in the High Street with a bandaged head. He claimed it was blood loss that made him appear drunk to Sergeant Crook. His excuse this time? That Harriet and the girls were "jealous" and sulky about not being able to do as they pleased at home. He said he had been knocked about by them. Astonishingly, while the jury took only 10 minutes to find William guilty of common assault they also expressed they felt there had been much "provocation" and asked for leniency. While the bench said they thought the jury had taken a very lenient view, they would be lenient in sentencing and gave William a 7 day prison sentence with hard labour.
By 1908 William had moved to Wooburn and was working as a common (that is general) labourer. At least one more conviction for drunk and disorderly behaviour is attached to his name. A few years later William is unemployed and Sarah was a peddlar, another low paid job. Things must have been financially very difficult. I have not traced Williams death. It was never going to be reported in the same way as brother Roberts, whose passing in 1908 bought Marlow to a standstill as the community queued to pay their respects.
The end of St Peters Street, Marlow. Photo courtesy of R Martin.
Written and researched by Kathryn Day.
Related Posts:
Robert Shaw king of the river here
To find all mentions of a person or family here, use the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu.
Sources include:
Ashby-Sterry Joseph, Tiny Travels (Tinsley Bros 1874)
Fennel, John Greville The Rail and The Road or Tourist Anglers Guide to Waters and Quarters (H Cox 1867)
Bucks Advertiser and Free Press 6 July 1901 - thanks to Michael Frew.
Bucks Herald 27 August 1881, 15 April 1882, 22 January 1887, 5 Jul 1901 - copies from British Library Archive and accessed via the BNA 2019
Northants Mercury 7 January 1888, as above
Reading Mercury 27 February 1864, Reading Library.
Reading Observer 18 July 1888
South Bucks Standard 3 January 1908, 6 July 1901 BNA as above.
"England and Wales Census, 1891," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:4GPM-Z3Z : 22 February 2021), Emma Shaw in household of William H Shaw, Great Marlow, Buckinghamshire, England, United Kingdom; citing PRO RG 12, Buckinghamshire county, subdistrict, The National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.
"England and Wales Census, 1891," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:4GG5-33Z : 22 February 2021), Sarah Rose, Great Marlow, Buckinghamshire, England, United Kingdom; from "1891 England, Scotland and Wales census,"
Judicial research of Jane Pullinger, 1970. With thanks.
Census 1871, transcript from microfilm by Charlotte.
"England and Wales Marriage Registration Index, 1837-2005," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2D2Z-6V9 : 13 December 2014), Emma Jones, 1869; from "England & Wales Marriages, 1837-2005," database, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : 2012); citing 1869, quarter 3, vol. 3A, p. 659, Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, England, General Register Office, Southport, England.
Ginger Frost, « «He Could Not Hold His Passions»: Domestic Violence and Cohabitation in England (1850-1905) », Crime, Histoire & Sociétés / Crime, History & Societies [En ligne], Vol. 12, n°1 | 2008, mis en ligne le 04 avril 2011, Accessed Feb 2022. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/chs/64 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/chs.64