Some of the workhouse residents would go on to better things and never return there but unfortunately they were the minority. And none of our three young men were amongst those fortunate few. Abraham reached adulthood but seems to have died young after numerous minor brushes with the law mainly for vagrancy, and just after finishing a 6 month sentence for robbing a cottage in Rotherfield Greys. And both Charles and Alfred would end up as convicts sentenced to transportation.
Charles goes sheep stealing
Charles received his first conviction for sheep stealing when he was around 16. I'm unsure of his sentence then but it was likely several months in gaol. A youthful age was little defence in the eyes of the authorities.
To be caught a second time was extremely serious. Charles would have known this as several Marlow men had already been sent to Tasmania as result of the two strike rule.
Unfortunately in December 1846 Charles and his friend 17 year old Charles Lomax decided to pay a visit to Little Marlow of an evening. While they were there they caught and killed a sheep belonging to farmer William Simmonds of Monkton Farm, butchering it near the scene (more on Monkton Farm and the occupants of it in Charlotte's post here). This was a common practice as it was easier and more discreet to cart away cut up meat than to drive sheep away through the lanes. They did not remove all of their bounty straight away but took some back to Marlow and hid the rest in a bag amongst some bushes. They probably thought it safer not to be carrying too obvious a load all at once. I have read accounts of hundreds of local poaching incidents and this gradual extraction of stolen meat seems quite common, despite the obvious risks of constantly returning to the scene! Frith took some of his share back to John Badger's beer-house in Chapel Street, Marlow where he was probably lodging. He asked the daughter of the house, Jane, to cook him some of the mutton for his dinner. Most recovered stolen meat ends up sold to the likes of butchers and beer houses prepared not to ask too many questions. Eating some yourself, except some of the offal, was less common it seems. It doesn't mean those stealing it weren't hungry but may be because the sold meat could generate more food if the profit was then invested in cheaper ingredients.
The two men were seen near the farm but not immediately with any sheep so although their presence was noted as somewhat unexplained, they were not instantly challenged. Later the sheep were missed. A search for them found a skin marked with "S" for owner Simmonds in a copse adjacent to the farm. Aaron Simmonds, the nephew of farmer William, was the one to make this discovery. He said the animal had been badly - that is unprofessionally - butchered, and the mark was partially obscured so he could not positively identify it but unfortunately for the Friths, the other witnesses could. The skins, always marked, were usually left behind as they were the most incriminating evidence to be found on your person. A more thorough search uncovered the Frith's bag of stolen meat. After some consideration about the best thing to do it was decided to return the bag to its hiding place and watch, with the aid of one of the parish constables, to see who would come back to claim it and in doing so proclaim their guilt. The brothers were therefore observed as they pulled the bag out of the hedge and were known by name to those watching so escape was unlikely. They were not however arrested immediately, perhaps it was the intention to follow them a little in case they lead the way to any other accomplice. If so this was ruined when Richard Clark, engaged in hedging near the copse, was seen by the Friths during their exit. They were clearly surprised, and now carrying a suspicious bag, they panicked and immediately began to run. Richard called out for them to stop, declaring that he knew them well so fleeing was pointless although he said the latter to their fast disappearing backs. Of course they did not stop, but ran towards Great Marlow. It was now rapidly getting dark and perhaps they hoped any identification would be vague. Then about three quarters of a mile from Little Marlow and in Marlow Fields their flight ended in the arms so to speak of Marlow Parish Constable Richard Davis. He had been alerted about the thefts earlier. He saw Lomax first, who was searched with nothing untoward found upon him. Frith, slowed down by carrying the bag, had now caught up, but on hearing Davis had tried to drop the incriminating bag. As it was now dark he might have hoped this action would not be seen, but in the quiet, it was heard. A knife and cords (for tying animal legs) was found on Frith, and Davis soon found the dropped bag as Frith had had no real opportunity to hide it. With the help of Parish Constable Thomas Walker,* the two were taken into custody.
They appeared before the magistrates which at that time met in a hired room in the Crown hotel. They were then sent to Aylesbury Gaol to await trial at the Quarter Sessions. The verdict was inevitably one of guilty for both men. The Berkshire Chronicle described Frith as a "notorious thief and sheep stealer" on his arrest although it appears he was suspected of being involved in more offences than he was ever convicted of. Lomax did not have a previous conviction for sheep stealing and so he received a 12 month prison sentence. But things were quite different for Charles Frith. A previous conviction meant an inevitable sentence of transportation, in this case for 10 years. Of course this was the same as a life sentence in many ways. I can find no evidence that Charles Frith ever came back to Marlow. He was transported on the convict ship Eden under Captain Murdoch, which left on the 30th September 1848 and arrived in Hobart, Van Diemens Land on the 21st January 1849.
Alfred Frith Follows
Charles may have beaten Alfred to the convict ships, but it was Alfred who had actually troubled the courts for longer.
In 1843 the Union Workhouse at Saunderton was opened to replace the local workhouses. Before long Alfred would be only too familiar with its interior. He was there in 1844 when he was accused of damaging the stove inside, alongside another youth. The boys defence was not recorded in the sources that I found. But their efforts were rewarded with 2 weeks in prison. It appears he flitted in and out of the workhouse, presumably between periods of employment.
In 1846, Alfred was back in the Wycombe Union house. But not I suspect very willingly! For before long he was wanted on the charge of absconding from the place. Alfred was far from alone in making his escape without obtaining official permission. He was supposed to get clearance if he wished to leave for a range of specific purposes eg to look for work or attend a funeral. Or he could give notice of his intention to leave but the authorities would want assurance that he could support himself if doing so (and legally.) The other problem was that Alfred had left wearing a set of clothes belonging to the union. This was regarded as theft. He did not remain at large for long as he was picked up on suspicion of begging (he argued that he was in fact selling combs) and so arrived before the magistrates to receive a 2 month prison sentence. On his arrest he was described by one source as "notorious" but it seems that like his brother, he was suspected of involvement in more petty crime than he was actually convicted of. Those like Alfred who spent at least some time as an itinerant seller were often treated with much suspicion.
Alfred saw the magistrates again early in 1847 for vaguely described "misbehaviour" in the Wycombe Union Workhouse. He had a co accused, and both were sentenced to 6 weeks imprisonment. It's fair to say Alfred was not going to settle quietly into life in such a place.
Alfred's official job was as a tailor. But it does not seem he had much luck with maintaining this employment!
In 1848, 20 year old Alfred would get into much more serious trouble. He had previously served a months sentence for a theft of turnips from a field in 1845. Now he was found guilty along with a 22 year old accomplice James West, of stealing three heifers from Benjamin Reeves of High Wycombe. Theft of livestock was not treated lightly, and although both plead not guilty, the case was regarded as an open and shut one. They were sentenced to 7 years transportation each. James West was quickly transferred to the Defence Hulk at Gosport to await a space in convict transport ship. Rebellious Alfred stayed initially in Aylesbury Gaol but his conduct there was regarded as "troublesome". It was considered that he was "unfit" to be put in solitary confinement so he was transferred to the larger and harsher Millbank prison in London in late 1849. The prison suffered a severe cholera outbreak shortly afterwards and a number of inmates were transferred to a "convict station" or temporary prison at Thorncliffe Barracks in Kent. He was still there at the time of the 1851 census. It could take some time for convicts to leave. I have not been able to trace which ship he left on (records are not complete) but I will update this post if I recover this info or any further information.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Other posts related to Great Marlow convicts, and law and (dis)order can be found in the index here
To find all posts mentioning a family or individual here, see the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu. There's over 6,000 people listed there.
*More about parish constable Walker here
Written and researched by Kathryn Day.
Sources include:
1841 census and parish register transcripts from the microfilm and originals by Jane Pullinger 1970.
Bucks Advertiser &Aylesbury News, November 1846, January & March 1847, February 1849 - British Library Archive and accessed via the BNA Partnership.
Bucks Gazette February 1845 & 1847, as above
Bucks Herald September 1849 & January 1850 as above.
Oxford Chronicle and Reading Gazette January & February 1850
Berkshire Chronicle December 1846, as above.
The National Archives (TNA) : HO 11/15, pp.333-347
Australian Joint Copying Project. Microfilm Roll 92, Class and Piece Number HO11/15, Page Number 333 (168)
© MarlowAncestors
No comments:
Post a Comment