The Most Difficult Job In Marlow History?

 Marlow is a place where even the election to an unpaid parish position could result in civil disturbances, accusations of bribery and corruption and occasionally bloodshed. Elections to parliament were even worse. The 1880 election riot, and women's bread riot of 1800 are probably the best known. Someone had to officially call these elections or polls and announce the often unpopular (with the disenfranchised) results, and for the first half of the 19thc the man with the short straw was Henry Stallwood. 

Hidden history of Quoiting Square

Henry was of relatively humble origins and yet he came to wield some power and responsibility. Born in 1807, I believe he was the son of William and Maria Stallwood and therefore brother to influential Chartist Edmund Stallwood whose biography I've linked to below. William ran the small Three Loggerheads beerhouse in Quoiting Square (later The Queen), and Henry lived next door for a while. He worked as a young man as a shoe maker like William. (Combining beer selling and boot and shoemaking is almost a cliche in Marlow at this time.)  But it's Henry's parish roles we are going to focus on. Quoiting Square was the centre of non conformity in Marlow, home to the Congregational Church or Salem Chapel as it was then known. It was also the centre of liberal and "radical" politics (the Clayton Arms pub was in particular, named for local landowner and liberal political  candidate Sir William Clayton of Harleyford Manor.) So many of the residents of West Street, Oxford Rd and Quoiting Square  were identified at this time with being "independent" either in terms of how they voted or how they worshipped (and usually both). 

Marlow was regarded as a pocket borough, which returned two M.Ps. In other words, it was in control of the majority land owners the Williams family of Temple House. Generally it was considered, rightly or wrongly, that if you were one of the minority of Marlow residents with the right to vote, and you were one of Williams tenants, you'd better vote for him and his running partner or you might find yourself promptly evicted or trade withdrawn from your business. Accusations of voter bribery and intimidation were common on the other side too. Who you voted for was publicly known after all. So in 1835 Henry, and William Stallwood, found themselves commemorated in a list of 34 "Independent Voters" who'd dared to vote against the status quo, unsuccessfully as it turned out.  This list was intended to mark the bravery of those concerned but it probably marked them out for a certain amount of abuse from opposing quarters too. 

Parish Constable - A Bloody Business

I've mentioned one fairly thankless task Henry will have, that of returning officer for the borough. But Henry may have come to mind to those who voted him in because he'd already fulfilled another clutch of very difficult roles in Great Marlow history. These were those of parish constable, tithing man, and hayward. You might think a little country town might not be an especially stressful place to be a petty constable. Unfortunately for Henry you'd be wrong. Marlow had a reputation as a centre for poaching and some of these men were violent, both to keepers, witnesses against them, and to the arresting officers. Generally Henry took the option of  safety in numbers and a group of tithing men and petty constables did their best to surprise the offenders at home. The tussle to arrest one of the most notorious poachers, watched by a 100 strong crowd in 1840, is covered in detail in this post here. You will see from that that in 1842 Henry inflicted some severe injuries on the same suspect during an arrest. Henry was not afraid to use the staff given to him shall we say. Were the suspected criminals violent on arrest because the police were rough to them or was it the constables felt they were entitled to give as good as they got? Hard to say but it's fair to say Henry and his colleagues often had the crowd against them, and they were very much outnumbered. When Henry as tithing man was attending the Marlow horse races* in 1836, his attempts to keep the course clear nearly got him a ducking in the river. He was implicated in an assault by a parish constable on a race goer who had apparently ignored instructions to stay behind a line. The man received a head injury, and the crowd thought the constable and Stallwood had used excessive force to make their point. No action was taken against Henry but the constable was successfully sued for damages. 

Henry the sleuth 

Henry was a parish constable for much of the 1830 and 40s. Technically any householder could be selected for this role, which was then unpaid, and the position lasted a year. But if you were selected, and didn't want to do it, you could nominate a substitute and pay them to do the job for you. Henry was obviously one who was willing to take more than his fair share of turns. He was regarded as a brilliant constable, at least by those who didn't feel the brunt of his official staff. 

He took the role seriously, and very frequently we can find him patrolling the streets at all hours of day and night looking for the criminally inclined. (In this age of violent arrests, Henry was nevertheless usually patrolling alone. There were not enough police to do otherwise even if they wanted to.) He seems to have been a vigilant soul. To give one example from 1838.. One night, Henry sees William Meads lurking suspiciously outside the shoe shop of John Beck. He waits and watches as William breaks open the shutters, and goes inside. William then emerges back  through the window and sidles off. Henry follows him back to his lodgings, collars his man, and finds 12 pairs of shoes about his person. William Meads had a previous conviction for theft and so the sentence was inevitable - transportation for life. 

A bold thief attempted a break in at Henry's own house in 1854. (He was then living in Chapel Street.) The bolts were too strong to break through. They did manage to get into a store and liberate 2lbs butter though. 

More jobs for Henry

In 1839 Henry was elected to the position of surveyor of the parish roads. It was a hotly contested affair with numerous candidates, and allegations yet again of nefarious tactics.  Why did anyone care so much about what seems a role of only very local importance? More people had the right to vote for these parish positions than had the right to vote, and candidates were promoted by one political party or another so it became a way to show support for them. Many of those who won were the "liberal" or "independent" voters in political elections and they said it showed what the result would be in terms of their choice of M.P if the franchise was wider. Henry obviously did a good job as he was returned with little opposition the following year. In this role he had to check the roads were in good order and repaired in good time if not. 

Then in 1842 he was nominated for the joint position as registrar and relieving officer  (eg for the administration of poor relief funds) for the Marlow district of the Wycombe Poor Law union. The previous man in the job has been sacked due to numerous "defalculations" in his accounts.  How many of these roles Henry wanted to fulfil in their own right is hard to say, but I suspected he was generally put forward to represent the liberal interest whenever an opportunity arose. On this occasion he was unsuccessful at the poll, although he did come second. 

This was a time the parish position contests were getting yet more political. A sustained attempt to ensure Conservative voters turned up at the parish vestry in 1843, meant all "rad" holders of parish positions were ousted - including "Lord Chancellor Stallwood" as one paper put it. No more parish constable Stallwood either. However any attempt to keep our man out of local affairs were doomed to failure. 

Dirty tactics of another kind

Henry was still occupying parish positions in the 1850s and 60s. He continued in the unpopular (elected and this time paid) role of parish rate collector for more than 20 years from 1849. In other words, he issued demands for payment of the local taxes 3 times a year, and then came to collect the money due. Marlow people did not like paying their rates in general. In this job he would clash with some of those on his own side politically who objected to some specific rates or how they were administered. But Henry showed no favour and was not averse to applying a little pressure on the late payers. One  complained that Henry employed a group of "dirty boys" to "huzaa" (shout and create a hullabaloo) outside the house of anyone who wasn't ready to pay the first time he called to collect his dues. The magistrates were sceptical that someone in a respectable position would do any such thing, but when asked Henry happily admitted that he did employ one boy to create a disturbance! He suggested the youngsters' friends probably tagged along. The J.Ps responded that Henry had "a painful duty to perform".

He was obviously doing his best to be impartial as regards collecting the rates but I suspect he sympathised with those who felt they were too high. He was one of the founding members of the Marlow rate payers association, and at its inaugural meeting in the Clayton Arms in 1866, he was elected to the chair. Their brief was to watch over parochial spending  and ensure everyone got good value for money. 

From 1859 he was also the parish inspector of nuisances and chair of the Nuisance Committee. This usually meant investigating reports of overflowing cesspits, stinking drains and overgrown piles of farmyard manure. The scale of the challenge facing Henry here is hard to imagine. In his first year he reported  605 cases of nuisance within the town! This only accounts for those cases where he found there was a legal cause for complaint, not every one he had to investigate. Let's hope he didn't have a good sense of smell.

These kind of offences were not just unpleasant but often dangerous to health. In 1866 Henry chaired a meeting which aimed to prevent another cholera outbreak in the town. (In recent years there had been ones in 1832 when 49 people died, 1849 with 12 deaths, and 1850 with "many" fatalities.) It was settled upon to begin a house to house inspection to look for dodgy wells whose water would be tested. It was also decided to organise a subscription for a new parish pump to provide access to clean water.  I'm not sure which pump this was - the ones in Quoiting Square and St Peters Street are both possibilities. 

I will mention one last role, which he kept up to his death - county court bailiff. 

At election time

As mentioned above, one of Henry's most eye catching roles was the one of returning officer.  He took this on in 1836 and continued it for decades. This involved him taking the official public nominations for "right and proper persons" to represent the borough in parliament. Special hustings were erected outside the town hall/ Crown in Market Square for this to take place. If only as many candidates were bought forward (and seconded) as there were seats, this was straightforward. If not, a show of hands in favour of each would be M.P was requested. Henry had the job of deciding if two people had a clear majority of support. If not, he would declare a poll was necessary, and formal voting would take place on another day shortly after. If Henry's decision was disputed by either side, a poll could also be requested by those present. I don't think the show of hands ever actually settled the election, it was more of a formality. Henry usually gave some speech appealing for calm and good conduct.  He was present on the platform throughout voting  and supervised the recording of each eligible persons vote in the poll book. He then had to announce the winner. The actual voting part of the day was usually accompanied by some shouting and jostling but the real trouble generally began once the victor came forward. I don't think Henry was ever injured as a result, but as missiles were recorded as thrown at the stage more than once, he may have just learned when to make a speedy exit.  Winners and losers almost always make a point of thanking Henry for his even handed behaviour and diligence in this position. 

Henry himself was not prevented from engaging in political causes. In 1867 he was present at a reform meeting at The Greyhound Inn. Almost all those publicly recorded as attending were non conformists. He put forward a proposition that the franchise should be extended to the working class and that there should be a clamp down on voter intimidation and bribery. This was unanimously carried. In particular Henry wanted to see those accused of either offering bribes or accepting them punished properly. Other votes were to support the use of a secret ballot. 

Family man

I've not mentioned much of Henry's personal life because his public one has taken up so much room! Married to Mary (b c 1809), he had several children including little Clara who died after 3 weeks illness in 1853. Another daughter, Mary Ann would be a school teacher as a young woman. As such she was considered for the position of schoolmistress at the Union workhouse school at Bledlow but in the end was unsuccessful. I've wondered whether this Mary Ann may have been one of the juvenile pupil teachers of the Marlow girls British school but more research is needed. Henry was definitely an early supporter of the Marlow British schools (that is ones that were non denominational in their religious teaching) and was on the committee to start the first one (boys only originally) in 1852. Mary Ann also worked as a dressmaker. 

The Stallwoods were members of the Congregational Church in Quoiting Place (Quoiting Square now). Henry was a proud teetotaler like so many of his fellow worshippers. He said he took the pledge in 1841 and never looked back. He addressed the local temperance society several times. 

It's hard to imagine Henry had much leisure time but we know where he could be found when he did -  at the Great Marlow Literary and Scientific Institute reading room in the High Street. He was a supporter of this from the start, and often sat on the committee. 

Goodbye Henry

Henry died in the summer of 1872 age 65. The Bucks Herald declared he had been a "shrewd, industrious and diligent man" who was "painstaking and efficient" in his work. At that point he had moved to Cambridge Terrace (Cambridge Rd). Marlow would have to find someone else to do their dirty work!

Additional information:

Chartist Edmund Stallwood : here

 Early policing - crime fighting societies, parish constables, tithing men, sheep stealing and the night watch here

Index of posts related to Quoiting Place / Square: here

Index of posts about riots, dodgy elections, bribery and other crimes here

*Marlow Horse Races- comprehensive history, updated October  here

The British schools in Marlow: here

The Literary and Scientific Institute - here

Three Loggerheads beerhouse : here

All mentions of a person or family here can be found in the A-Z person index on the top drop down menu. 

Written and researched by Kathryn Day.

 

SOURCES INCLUDE:

1833 parish assessment, from original in our possession. 

Robson's Commercial Directory 1839. 

Census - transcript from the originals by Jane Pullinger. 

Windsor and Eton Express February 11th 1854, 13th December 1862, 11th August 1866, 23rd March 1867 - Slough Borough Libraries

Report of The British Schools Society 1856. 

Bucks Herald 6th January 1838,  31st March 1860, 2nd Jan 1862, 27th July 1872. Bucks Gazette 28th March 1840 & 5th November 1842, Bucks Advertiser and Aylesbury News 20th July 1872,  Berkshire Chronicle May 11th 1842, Reading Mercury 5th November 1853 & 23 March 1867  - all British Library Archive. 

"England and Wales Death Registration Index 1837-2007," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2JT4-32Z : 31 December 2014), Henry Stallwood, 1872; from "England & Wales Deaths, 1837-2006," database, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : 2012); citing Death, Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, England, General Register Office, Southport, England.

© MarlowAncestors

From Work-House to Convict Ships - The Brothers Frith

Today's subjects are three young boys who caught my eye amongst the many young residents in the Great Marlow Workhouse in 1841. Charles, Alfred and Abraham Frith aged approximately 15, 13 and 9.  The two eldest are our focus here. There were a number of other Friths resident there then.  Young Charles and Abraham were the sons of John and Maria Frith, and most likely Alfred is their brother baptised 1827. It appears the boy's mother Maria was dead. Their father was not, but he was not with them in the parish house. It was not unusual for children left without a mother to end up in such a place, but sometimes this was only a short lived experience until perhaps the father remarried or another relative could help care for the children. At other times a child or two from a large poor family might be taken in temporarily to relieve the pressure on the household budgets if the breadwinner was out of work. In the end the same reason is behind every admission to the workhouse: poverty. At this time the work house managers were the Reeves, who you can read about in a dedicated post from Charlotte here. The buildings of the former still remain in Munday Dean Lane, just beyond Berwick Road.

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

Life at Great Marlow Workhouse 1775-1843 - here and life at the Wycombe Union workhouse at  Saunderton for Marlow residents 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

Holland Road Marlow Early History

 Holland Road was laid down late in 1901 by the workers of Mr Fossett of Slough. Earlier that year much of  the land that the early properties in the road would be built on had been bought bit by bit by speculator James Andrews Holland and in his honour it was decided by the Urban Council to name the new road Holland Road. (Often referred to as Holland's Rd early on.) The land was previously part of the "Quarrydale Estate", perhaps the grounds of the house Quarrydale which was by it though that does not look to long predate the Holland Road. 

James had no previous experience in property speculation. He would later state in court that his main former career was that of an employee of the Midland Railway. On the 1901 census he was the manager of a timber merchant in Ashford near Staines Middlesex and in 1881 he appears as a carpenter and joiner which seems at odds with his statement of being a Midland Railway employee for much of his career. Unless he was employed as a carpenter in some way by them ??? He did have some experience working as an assistant manager of a brickyard too. 

Regardless of his experience, thanks to loans from Mr Cripps of Marlow and Garner and Sons of Uxbridge he was able to begin building up Holland Road. You can understand why this area seemed a golden prospect to such a speculator. Holland Road was within walking distance of the station and the river yet would have still felt removed from the main body of Marlow. A peaceful but well connected semi rural idyll. James admitted he had only a small working capital and "few qualifications" but he was obviously able to win the confidence of his backers nevertheless. 

First in the new road came a bungalow with an attached artist's studio, then 2 cottages. These cost £729, 18 shillings and 6 pennies to erect on top of a purchase price for all the land of £567. These were followed by five more houses in a block for himself and two for his wife Sarah (or so he would later state) on more of the land. The couple lived in home called "The Maisonette" New Town/Quarrydale, possibly also in Holland Road.  (N.b there were two cottages known as no 1&2 The Maisonette, in New Town Rd proper around this time, which may be one of those meant.)  Unfortunately James had overreached himself financially and could not afford to continue to build on the rest of his land. He had no money left to continue his grand development scheme.

Though he had tenants for some of the built property this was not enough to keep him afloat and he was forced to try to sell the bungalow with studio, and 2 houses. These did not sell in two attempts and James filed for bankruptcy. There was some scepticism voiced in court that two of the properties allegedly built for his wife were genuinely not part of the bankrupt's possessions. He owed £510 to creditors at the time.

The mortgagees tried again to sell some of the property in 1906 and were seemingly successful at last. James and his wife moved away from the town. In 1911 he was a Building Works Manager boarding at Shottesdon, Shropshire. 

An early family to set up home in Holland Road was the Haddon family. In 1907 Richard Johnson Haddon (who may be the father of the family or his identically named son) appeared as a witness at the Old Bailey in London when Arthur Malyon of Leytonstone, Henry East of Dean Street (fruit and horse dealer), Frank Price of Dean Street and James Newell (of Marlow or Stokenchurch reports vary) were accused of a string of thefts in London and it's environs involving horses, wheeled vehicles and harnesses.

Some of the stolen property was sold in Marlow, some at Henley Fair and some elsewhere. Richard Johnson Haddon reported taking 4 horses to Henley Fair for East, including one of the allegedly stolen animals. He also believed he had seen another of the stolen animals in a field off Dean Street by the Bank of England pub. This field was one of two rented by East. 

The charges against Frank Price were dismissed by the courts at an early stage. Henry East was found not guilty and was welcomed home to Marlow by a crowd of 200 people who repaired to the Plough pub for a raucous celebration (on which more here) The rest of the accused were found guilty and sentenced to 18 months in jail. The court case contains various interesting points not relating to Holland Road but to Marlow in general and how the horse dealing trade operated here in the early 1900s.

It is also noticeable for the statement that using the "F word" as Henry East was quoted as doing was common in the town in 1907 (at least in Dean Street!). There is a link to a transcript of the Old Bailey trial in the Sources section below. The earlier hearings at lower court's were reported at great length in the South Bucks Standard.

Those giving evidence for the good character of East, included Francis Crawford Caffin who was a fruit customer of his and William Fisher the butcher of Market Square 

Two years earlier Richard Johnson Haddon Senior and Richard Johnson Haddon Junior had been in court at Marlow following an altercation with their Holland Road neighbour William Henry Lavell. It was alleged that a sickle had been thrown by Lavell at a dog owned by Haddon Junior and threats made against Haddon Junior himself. The judge accepted that he had not intended to harm the dog, only frighten it off and had been provoked by the dog taking one of his valuable chicks. He was thus asked to pay only half the costs of the case and Haddon Junior the rest. Lavell was bound over to keep the peace towards the Haddons.

 In 1914 William Lavell, still of Holland Road was sentenced to 4 months hard labour for arson at Wright's paper mills where he worked as a packer. Drunk thanks to a long drinking session at the Carrier's Arms in Wycombe Road (that and the Plough would be his nearest pubs from home), William had wanted to get revenge on the mill owners for exploiting and under paying certain female staff as he saw it. Women in his eyes could not stand up for themselves in such matters! He set fire to a door and put up barricades to hinder attempts at extinguishing the fire. Nobody was inside at the time. William was married to Ellen (nee Smith. M 1896) who on the previous census was described as a paper mill hand. This would have been at Wright's. It is not mentioned in the court case that Ellen was one of the women William thought was being mistreated but it may have been so. The couple's address in 1901 was "New Town" the district around Holland Road so they were already close to Holland Road. It is possible their home existed in the street prior to it being named or properly laid down as a road both of which occurred - officially speaking - several months after the census was taken. Development in Marlow was sometimes very haphazard, piecemeal and disorganized!

Written and researched by Charlotte Day.

NB Early residents often gave their address as "xx Holland Road, New Town, Marlow"  or just "New Town". Most of the houses were named, and these names often changed with each new resident..

For other posts about specific Marlow Roads, shops or farms see this index. All references to any individual on this blog can be found on the A-Z Person Indexes. Thousands of people are mentioned.

Sources:

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?name=19070528

South Bucks Standard September 6th 1901 and 21st July 1905. Bucks Herald 27th June 1903 and June 6th 1914. Bucks Advertiser July 11th 1902. All British Library Archives via the BNA.

England and Wales Census 1911. National Archives, Kew. Census information remains Crown Copyright. 

"England and Wales Census, 1901," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X96C-M5W : 20 May 2019), James A Hollands, Ashford, Middlesex, England, United Kingdom; from "1901 England, Scotland and Wales census," database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing Sunbury subdistrict, PRO RG 13, The National Archives, Kew, Surrey.

"England and Wales Census, 1881," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q27J-WWZG : 12 December 2017), James A Holland, Leicester St Margaret, Leicestershire, England; from "1881 England, Scotland and Wales Census," database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing p. 17, Piece/Folio 3158/106, The National Archives, Kew, Surrey; FHL microfilm 101,774,883.

"England and Wales Census, 1911," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X7VP-XTT : 22 July 2019), William Henry Lavell, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, England, United Kingdom; from "1911 England and Wales census," database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO RG 14, The National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.

GRO marriage index.

1915 Marlow Directory and Almanack, Welbourne & Simpson, Marlow. 

1907 Marlow Guide, Marlow Printing Co. 

Tales Of A Marlow Policeman - Sergeant Maneely

Sergeant John James Maneely has had a walk on role in several of the stories we have already told about life in old Great Marlow. So we thought it was time to feature the man himself centre stage. 

As you have probably guessed from his name, Sergeant (later Superintendent) Maneely was born in Ireland [Co Tyrone, 1841. His wife Maria was Welsh.] So he was not, in common with most of our Bucks Constabulary police from days past, a Marlow man as such. But he certainly had a big role to play in the lives of many here! 

At the time of his retirement in 1901 we are told that Maneely had served for 38 years up to that point. He came to Marlow from Burnham in 1881, having previously been stationed at Amersham. 

Marlow may be a relatively small town but we mustn't assume that Maneely and his colleagues had anything like a peaceful time here.  Maneely is frequently to be found rounding up the drunk and disorderly, the users of "disgraceful language", the domestic abusers and those "trespassing after game." Such was the bread and butter work of Marlow Police.

However Maneely had been less than a year in his role in Marlow when he narrowly escaped being stabbed by Mary Ann Grace. He was struggling with her to gain possession of a knife she had used to stab her husband in the head during an argument. He managed to overcome her and secure the weapon for evidence. Mary Ann recieved a year in prison for the attack on her husband - you can read about the incident in a post here

The Sergeant was involved in executing warrants and interviewing suspects. He also laid a trap or two to catch a criminal. For example, in 1881 he worked with bookseller, stationer and printer Robert Hayes Smith to catch the person responsible for stealing from the the shop till. One Sunday Robert had heard a sound at the shop door (the shop being closed). He realised afterwards it was the sound of someone checking to see if it was locked. However at the time he was not alarmed, and on seeing no one trying to come in, he actually unlocked the door as he realised his children would shortly be coming back from church. This was clearly a gift to a thief who had not gone far away, and when the children arrived home they found the street door wide open. On checking his till, Robert realised several coins were gone. He decided to quietly speak to Sergeant Maneely about the matter. They thought that the thief might try the same trick having got so easily away the first time. So Maneely agreed to hide in the shop the following Sunday, and Robert marked some coins and placed them in the till drawer. The door was left unlocked and the shop was also watched from the outside. Before Maneely arrived to assume his position, Robert saw the door pushed open but it was only 13 year old Elizabeth Price. Elizabeth said she had a message to deliver to one of Roberts daughters from "some person" who wanted to complain that the girl had interrupted the play of the message sender's children. The message didn't make much sense, and Elizabeth couldn't say who had sent it via her. It seems she then left the shop but sadly not for long. For Robert was surprised when Sergt Maneely called him to come to the sitting room where he had placed young Elizabeth under arrest. She had been observed to hang around the shop door, re enter, take a purse off the shop shelf and then remove the coins from the till. The marked coins were found on her. Robert was surprised at the youth of his thief and asked in court for her to be treated with mercy given her age. His pleas were only partially successful. The judges thought Elizabeth's actions showed much pre mediation and so she was sentenced to a month in prison with hard labour. The work would be suited to her age they assured Robert. They added that they could have given her a 3 month term. 

A more bizarre watch was instigated by Sgt Maneely in 1886 when he set some constables to stake out Colonels Meadow (behind Borlase school). Reports had come to him of someone working their way around the perimeter breaking down and then carting off the fence. The constables caught our fence gatherer at work the following night - labourer Henry Stroud. He plead guilty - perhaps not surprising given he was found with the fence railings in his hands! He was charged with two similar offences and fined £1 plus costs for each. 

A particularly sad case came to the Sergeants attention in the summer of 1887. Two "little boys" belonging to the Neighbour family decided to go fishing for minnows in a ditch that bordered The Croft (now Gyldernscroft) near the Alder Meadow (Marlow Cricket Club ground). They had been done so many times before. On this day the boys saw what they thought was a parcel dumped in the water. They fetched it out with a stick, and found it was actually a sacking wrapped bundle weighted down with a length of metal chain. On starting to open it, the poor little lads discover the partially decomposed body of a new born baby girl. They ran to get their parents who in turn fetched Maneely. The sergeant gathered up the "parcel" and carried his sad bundle back to the police station. The identity of the infant was never established.

It was not all hard work for Maneely in Marlow. He played cricket for the Bucks Constabulary team when they played the occasional fixture, against other police or works teams. Perhaps he found time to watch a match or two at Marlow also. Maneely was also a member of the Christian Policemans Association. In 1886, 16 year old daughter Annie entered one of the Associations regular Bible knowledge quizzes and earned a "highly commended" for her efforts. This was organised through the group's monthly journal where the questions were published. The answers were then sent in by post and scored by a vicar. Annie recieved her name in print as a result. 

In 1890 Maneely was moved to Fenny Stratford, to fulfil the role vacated by the sudden death of his predecessor. He did not however remain there long as he was promoted to Superintendent and went to join the High Wycombe County Police in 1892. He replaced Superintendent Summers who was retiring - Summers had also served in Marlow. Maneely remained in Wycombe until his retirement in April 1901. Granted a "handsome pension" he also recieved gifts from his fellow police officers. This included an inscribed clock and silver cruet set as well as a "purse of gold". The local magistrates were sorry to see their efficient officer depart. He had they said been "most excellent" in his role and they could not imagine a better choice could have come their way for Superintendent. Maneely retired to East Sussex and died there in 1923 age 82. 

NB. Maneely had a son also named John James. He was an electrical engineer who settled in Penshurst, Kent. (Husband to Jane nee Card, married 1900)

Written and researched by Kathryn Day. 

Related Posts:

Crime and disorder in old Great Marlow: Early policing - crime fighting societies, parish constables, sheep stealing and the night watch here

The Old Police Station and Police Court History: here

General index of posts related to crime and policing: here

* More about Robert Hayes Smith here

To find every mention of an individual here, use the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu. As of June 2022 there are more than 4,000 people listed there. 

Sources include:

Census 1881, 1891 : transcripts by Jane Pullinger from the original records. 

On and Off Duty - February 1886 (International Christian Policemans Association,1886)

Grace and Card family research by Charlotte. 

South Bucks Standard 29 July 1892 & 15 March 1901 British Library Archive. 

 Bucks Herald 12 February 1881, 27th April 1901 as above. 

Kellys Directory of Buckinghamshire... 1869 & 1883 (Kelly's Directories Ltd)

England and Wales Death Registration Index 1837-2007", database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVHQ-PXM6 : 22 August 2020), John J Maneely, 1923.

© MarlowAncestors

A Very Unsuccessful Thief - John Neighbour of Great Marlow

 This is a post continuing a series of features about some of Great Marlow's past residents who found themselves transported to Australia for committing a crime. The crime was nearly always theft of one kind or another or recieving stolen goods. And one person really not very good at thieving was John Neighbour born circa 1804 - 1806. (Note there were a number of John Neighbours in Marlow and nearby at this time. A post about John Neighbour of Potland's /West Street is available here)

John was a brick maker by trade. I hope for the residents of Marlow he was more successful at that than in his criminal career. 

His first brush was the law was an assumed attempt to commit a burglary of sorts at the Barge Pole Inn, in Church Passage off St. Peter's Street (now demolished) in 1830. His method here was potentially quite cunning. He went inside to have a drink but instead of leaving at closing time he had hid himself within. At some point he had hit upon the chimney as a good place to conceal himself and so up he went. It can't have been a particularly comfortable experience! How long he was up there isn't clear. The Sparkes family who were the then landlords went to bed unaware of their uninvited guest. John then made his move to free himself but unfortunately it was not a noiseless activity. The sound travelled through the house and he was discovered. And kicked out quite literally into the street. 

John could have gone home but decided to have another go at housebreaking. He arrived in the High Street, and decided the then uninhabited house of Mr Hone would be the ideal target. It does not seem John was blessed with the gift of stealth and he made enough noise to attract the attention of John Moss who lived nearly opposite (in the building occupied by Mathers now). John had just gone to bed but roused himself smartly and when he then heard a window break, he dashed across the street to see John attempt to get through the window. John was no match for the outraged Mr Hone who seized him and fetched the parish constable. John would now get some time in gaol - 3 months. 

Two years later John had committed another theft. The victim of this was butcher Charles "Shock" East who would himself be transported to Australia! (See here for the details of that) He stole 6lbs of mutton valued at 2/6, but was observed during the crime and so arrest followed with inevitable speed. John was now in serious trouble as a second conviction for a theft was treated severely. He also had a minor prior conviction for vagrancy. So before the Bucks Quarter sessions he went. His sentence was transportation to Australia for 7 years. 

Initially transferred from prison to a prison hulk to await passage, John finally left England on the 19th November 1832. He was aboard the convict ship the Surrey/Surry. The journey took 3 and a half months. For all of the uncertainty of what awaited him, it must have been a relief to land in Van Diemens Land in March 1833 after so long at sea. A detailed record of what John looked like was made by the authorities to identify him from the other prisoners and of course to enable a description to be accurately circulated should he try to abscond. In this we are told John sports small red whiskers (a number of others are clean shaven so the men were obviously allowed to shave during their journey or before being assessed), brown eyes and eyebrows, an aquiline nose, small mouth and low forehead. 

The convicts were sentenced to do varying amounts of hard labour in chain gangs, and otherwise might be assigned to an approved person to perform unpaid labour. John was in the road gangs for some time. This time was extended as John took part in mutiny of sorts with 20 others who refused to work. Later he was in trouble for absenting himself from his work party and using "disgraceful and disgusting language". And of course he was found out when involved as an accessory to a "system of pilfering". As not one of the prime movers in the last, he just got a severe reprimand for his trouble. He had moved into forced private service but was removed from this to see out his sentence working in some brickfields. No doubt this was partly because of his previous experience in this trade. I see no evidence that John received the unconditional pardon that would have allowed him in theory to return home. I suspect therefore he remained in Australia. He was unmarried in England and hopefully was able to make something of himself down under. 

Written and researched by Kathryn Day, additional research by Charlotte Day. 

Related Posts

Crime and disorder in old Marlow here

Another Neighbour transported: here

Everyday life in John's Great Marlow and general crime related posts: here

All posts about an individual or family here can be found within the top drop down menu. 

SOURCES:

Reading Mercury 8 February 1830

Berkshire Chronicle 13 February 1830

1820/30s residential directory by Charlotte. 

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/38941373-db4e-46f3-996c-2ec1170cef78

Australian Joint Copying Project. Microfilm Roll 89, Class and Piece Number HO11/8, Page Number 463 (232). Linc, Description List CON18/1/20 Page 425 and Conduct Record CON31/1/33

http://search.archives.tas.gov.au/ImageViewer/image_viewer.htm?CON31-1-33,152,41,L,56

https://stors.tas.gov.au/CON27-1-6P32

©MarlowAncestors

Moor End Murder

 28th March 1891. 

Charlotte Cooper, an unmarried woman in her early 40s, left her little cottage at Moor End near Marlow to go on a trip to High Wycombe. She shared her home with her parents Henry and Jane. 

Henry was aged 67 and still working as an agricultural labourer. Though he had been born in nearby High Wycombe he had for some years lived in Bourton On The Water in Gloucestershire and as such was known as "Gloucester Cooper" in the hamlet. He worked at Moor End Farm, probably specifically as a cowman. Seven or eight years previously he, while suffering from sunstroke, had fallen off a hayrick. Since then he had suffered from bouts of dizziness and a "bad head". His wife Jane, in her seventies, suffered from an illness that rendered her paralysed and confined to her bed. She could speak but could only eat with a spoon. On the day in question she was in her bed, while Henry sat smoking his pipe downstairs. He had been able to lead the cows out that morning but his "bad head" was troubling him he told his daughter.

Charlotte was not overly concerned however and left for High Wycombe. Charlotte would say later that Henry was a patient and uncomplaining carer for her mother despite Jane accusing him of not doing anything for her and not really liking her. It seems these feelings were caused by her illness rather than reality.

When she returned, not receiving a reply from her father and puzzled as to why she found his boots set aside and hat on a chair if he was not in, she went upstairs to find him in the bed slightly conscious and covered in blood and her mother lying dead beside him. Henry had cut her throat with his razor, and then stabbed himself in the abdomen and throat in an attempt to commit suicide. She ran to a near neighbour Mrs Grimsdale, landlady of the Black Boy pub, who went to fetch the police while Mrs Grimsdale's daughter remained with Charlotte, comforting her. Dr Francis Culhane came up from Marlow to attend the scene.

Barely alive, Henry was taken to the Marlow Cottage Hospital. Dr Culhane said that Henry became very violent there and it was considered necessary to use the straight jacket in order to attempt care of his injuries. 

The inquest into her death was held at the Moor End farmhouse. The jury reached a verdict of willful murder against her husband. A few days later he died and another inquest was held for him this time at the Cottage Hospital.

Charlotte Cooper was the main witness in both enquiries.

That madness tended to run in families was a strong belief in later Victorian Britain so inevitability the mental health of the wider Cooper family was inquired into. Charlotte could not tell the court much about her father's side of the family but she admitted that she had a brother who had died in an insane asylum (perhaps her brother Thomas, she had half brothers too from either an earlier marriage or earlier relationship of Jane Coopers).

Her near neighbour Sarah Humphries testified to hearing Charlotte scream and run out of the house after she came home. She also saw her leave in the morning, helping to prove Charlotte could not have killed her parents herself as did the testimony of William Plumridge junior who delivered bread to the house while Charlotte was out. He spoke to Henry, making him likely the last person to see him alive. Henry looked "strange" he said and in answer to enquiries about his wife said that he feared that she would never be well again. Dr Deane of Hambledon who had visited the Cooper's earlier in the year said Henry had become "weak in the head". 

Some of the inquest jury members donated their fees for serving to the Cottage Hospital.

Related information: 

Biography of Dr Francis Culhane: 

here

Other posts relating to the Moor End/ Lane End area of Great Marlow Parish here

Index of crime related posts: here

All mentions of a person or family here can be found in the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu. 

Sources:

South Bucks Standard 3rd April and 10th April 1891. Buckinghamshire Examiner 8th April 1891. Bucks Herald 11th April 1891. All British Library Archives via the BNA.

"England and Wales Census, 1851," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SG27-CXN : 9 November 2019), Charlotte Cooper in household of Henry Cooper, Bourton On The Water, Gloucestershire, England; citing Bourton On The Water, Gloucestershire, England, p. 49, from "1851 England, Scotland and Wales census," database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO HO 107, The National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.

"England and Wales Census, 1861," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7GZ-TCT : 3 March 2021), Henry Cooper, Gloucestershire, England, United Kingdom; from "1861 England, Scotland and Wales census," database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO RG 9, The National Archives, Kew, Surrey.

Slough, Eton and Windsor Observer, April 11 1891,/Slough reference library. 

The Fountains of Dukes Place / Burroughs Grove

 The Fountain family lived in Dukes Place Great Marlow from (at least) 1908 to (at least) 1913. Peter Fountain was born 1868 in Wendover Bucks to Emmanuel, a gamekeeper for Alfred De Rothschild Esq, and Charlotte. Mary Ann his wife was née Clarke and married him in 1895. 

Peter appears on the 1881 census as a 12 year old plough boy. The following year his family suffered the loss of his baby brother Henry. The 16 month old died from convulsions brought on by severe whooping cough.

By 1891 Peter lived at "Dirty Bottom" Marlow Bottom and was an agricultural labourer lodging with a 62 year old widower James Clarke who was presumably a relative of his future wife. In the years prior to his marriage however he was working as a gamekeeper for Lord Carrington. As such he appeared in several court cases as a witness for the prosecution when poachers were bought to justice. That didn't seem to stop Peter taking an interest in poaching himself - he was fined in 1901 for stealing a nest of pheasant eggs from another man's land. At the time this was classed as poaching because pheasants were game birds. This didn't seem to stop Peter being employed in later years as a gamekeeper.

Mary Ann was born around 1869 just outside Marlow at Burroughs Grove. I saw an online tree that gave her parents as William and Mary however on the 1881 and 1891 censuses she was living at Burroughs Grove as the daughter of David and Mary Clarke. David was a farm labourer. 

In 1908 Peter was fined for being drunk in Little Marlow. This was (at least) his second conviction for public drunkenness. (Fine 10s including costs.) By then the family had moved from Burroughs Grove to Dukes Place. Greater trouble came to the family through Mary Ann a few years later. In July 1912 she was fined £1 for stealing a pair of scissors and a hairbrush from Mrs Debbin at Prospect House. Mary Ann was not a very careful thief as after the act she went for a drink at the Horns public house just down the street from Prospect House. Multiple people in the tap room saw the stolen scissors on the floor at Mary Ann's feet and the hairbrush sticking out of her pocket. In December that year she and James Clarke (perhaps her brother) were found guilty of stealing a ferret from the garden of her Dukes Place neighbour Archibald Grainger. Again careful planning was not foremost in Mary Ann's mind. The theft occurred while another neighbour Mrs Ann Tilbury from no 2* Dukes Place was visiting Mary Ann and was thus a witness to her and James disappearing into the garden and coming back with the ferret. When suspicion began to be thrown at Mary Ann and James, Mary Ann told Mrs Tilbury not to admit to having seen them with the ferret, while James tried to get rid of the incriminating animal by offering it for free to a fellow drinker in the bar of the Railway Hotel. The original intent was to sell it. James tried to say he had found the ferret in the garden of the Carpenter's Arms around the corner from Dukes Place but the court dismissed this explanation.

In May 1913 Mary Ann was jailed for two months hard labour for stealing the hand bag of another woman on the train between Cookham and Maidenhead. Her accomplice was another Marlow woman Gladys Edwards. Inside the bag was 2 sovereigns which the women split between themselves and a gold watch and chain. Gladys kept the gold items. She sold the chain to High Street jeweller Frederick Rowe. The bag was thrown down a drain to hide the evidence. When arrested Mary Ann claimed that the bag was found by Gladys on the Maidenhead platform and having asked anyone around if it was their bag, decided to keep it when it was otherwise unclaimed.

Context for this is provided by a newspaper report that later the same year Peter was brought to court for abandoning his wife and family and thus rendering them as paupers dependent on the Parish. Poor Mary Ann may have been desperate when she stole the ferret. Her youngest child Annie was then only two years old. How much of her previous stealing had been acts of desperation caused by an uncommitted breadwinner? Peter said he left his home because it was used for "improper purposes". The Bench said there was no doubt his house was "badly conducted" but that was no excuse to leave. He was sent to prison for a month. 

Four years later Peter, during WW1, was arrested in Marlow as a deserter from the army. More humiliation for Mary Ann. 

Mary Ann knew what it was like to be on the receiving end of theft. When she was six her sixteen year old neighbour Sarah Green and Green's father John were jailed for breaking into the Clarke's home via a window and stealing from a box some shoes, 2 pairs stockings, a bonnet and 2 petticoats. The loot was discovered by a constable under the Green family's kitchen floorboards. Mary Ann was out with her mother at the time. Her brother William discovered the theft.

Above, Dukes Place in 2022 including the row known as Sunlight Villas/Cottages. 

*numbering in Duke's Place seems to have altered since.

Related Posts:

All mentions of a person on this blog can be found on the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu - 4,000 plus individuals are mentioned here. 

A short biography of another, earlier Dukes Place resident Elizabeth Keen is here.

Everyday life in old Marlow post index here

Index of posts relating to specific streets, properties etc here 

Other Borroughs Grove related posts here

©Marlow Ancestors. You are very welcome to use this material for family or local history purposes with credit to this blog.

Sourced included:

Census transcriptions from microfilm. my own.

South Bucks Standard editions 18th July 1912, 11th December 1913. British Library Archives.

Bucks Herald 16th October 1875. As above.

Burrell Research and Graves Great Marlow

See "Research" at the bottom of this page to read more about these people and how they connect to each other.

Above - Harriet, wife of Thomas Burrell d. Feb 20 18(..4?) age 40, name Thomas is inscribed below but the other details too worn to read.

Above, another grave. Thomas Burrell. Smith of this town, d. Sept 9th 1776 age 48

ALSO OF

Elizabeth his wife d. Feb 16 1799 age 67 years. 

Above, John Burrell, d. Sept 30th 1819 age 52

"Under this stone here lies a stone living with GOD above/ built on the rock was such a one/ whom force nor ...   could move/Near this place lay the remains of ..

Thomas Burrell d. Oct 8th 1818 age 57 years. 

John Burrell as above. Another view of same.

HB 1850, TB 1860, ?B 186?

AB 1829, WJB 1865

 Above, Sarah Burrell died Mar 1st 1825 age 65 years.

Research:

Harriet Burrell née Badger married blacksmith and ironmonger Thomas Burrell at Bisham in 1833. They lived, and Thomas worked, in premises on the East side of the High Street, Marlow by what is now Institute Road corner. That year his premises consisted of his house ,"shop" as in workshop, garden and an "iron house" and was worth an estimated £10 a year. Thomas was baptised at Little Marlow in 1801 to Thomas and Alice Burrell. His family was however of Great Marlow origin. Harriet died between the 1841 and 51 censuses leaving behind several young children. Thomas's married sister Elizabeth East (married Charles East 1822) moved in with him to help look after the family. In 1841 Thomas inadvertently bought for 3 shillings some copper wire stolen from the cellars of James Bavin in Marlow by William Heather and George Perry. The thieves initially used the wire to poach game but having been seen by a gamekeeper and fleeing, they decided to sell the guilty wire to various Marlow business people instead. They were jailed but no summonses were sent to those who had innocently bought the wire. The family had had a much more shocking brush with the law in 1839 when that Charles East, husband of Elizabeth was found guilty of sheep stealing and transported. More on this case here.

 On a more positive note Thomas Burrell came to the rescue of one of the Marlow church bells which had developed a crack in 1849. An iron band was made for it in his High Street forge, and a man, perhaps Thomas himself, ran with the red hot ring to the church. There it was heated a little more in a temporary fire made in the bell fry before being successfully fitted and quenched with water. 

Thomas was the victim of a robbery himself in 1862 (Windsor and Eton Express 20th December 1862) during a town crime spree. Old coins and 45 shillings in current money were stolen from his premises, as discovered by his daughter upon her returning from church.

It is possible Thomas eventually took over the smithing and ironmongery business of his uncle John. 

The Thomas Burrell in the second grave photo (d 1776) was the grandfather of Thomas, husband of Harriett. His wife was Elizabeth (d 1799) who appears in a grave photo further down this page. The couple married at Great Marlow in 1757. Elizabeth was née Saunders. In her will written in 1794 she mentions her sisters Jane Saunders to whom she left £5 and Ann Cork, wife of John Cork whom she left £150 invested in stocks. A share she had in 3 cottages in Wooburn went to her son Thomas while son John got 2 sheets and 2 pillows. Her two daughters (unnamed but one was Sarah) got to share all her wearing apparel. All the rest of her money and property was to be equally divided between all her surviving children. Sons Thomas and John were made joint executors.

The John Burrell on the grave (d 1819) was also a blacksmith, the son of Thomas and Elizabeth. He left his stock in trade and business to his unmarried sister Sarah who also features in the graves above and in her mother's will.

John's will was witnessed by his close neighbour George Davis landlord of the Chequers, William Hatch the baker from across the road and attorney Robert Goldsmith. Executors of the will were John Mossenton the cordwainer (of Chapel Street) and Sarah the primary legatee.

The Thomas Burrell who died 1818 was the son of Thomas and Elizabeth, brother of John, and father of the Thomas who married Alice.

Alice is presumably the AB 1829 on the grave above as she definitely died that year.

The HB 1850 may be Harriet, daughter of Thomas and Harriet who was born circa 1838, and the T.B may be her brother Thomas born circa 1836.

Photos and grave transcriptions by Kathryn Day, research and will transcriptions by Charlotte Day.

More information:

To find all mentions of an individual here, use the A-Z Person Index in the top drop down menu. New posts / people added daily. Over 4,000 people get a mention!

More grave photo posts for Marlow, Little Marlow and Hurley here

Will transcription posts listed here

Posts about everyday life in Marlow for the Burrells and others here including links to posts about specific trades, recreated trade and address directories etc. 

©Marlow Ancestors. You are very welcome to use this research for family or local history purposes with credit to this blog.

Highwayman Peter Rivers

Marlow's history is scattered with a few home - grown highwaymen. One of the earliest I have come across is Peter Rivers.

Peter was born circa 1673 and raised in Marlow by parents able to afford to send him to school and to pay for his apprenticeship to a cordwainer. I have not found his baptism but there is a good chance he was a close relative of the Peter Rivers of Marlow who issued his own trade token in 1667. This elder Peter found himself twice facing suits in Chancery over property in Marlow, at least one of which he lost. 

After completing his apprenticeship Peter junior was free to marry. As a bride he chose Sarah Spicer and the couple tied the knot in High Wycombe in 1698. 

In 1702 Peter, either the elder or the younger, was thrown in jail because he could not pay his debts.

One of the Peters tried his hand at running an alehouse or beershop but had his licence revoked after it was found to have been incorrectly issued and he of too poor character to hold such. Both men had frequent connection to those involved in the brewing trade in Marlow- in terms of both who their friends were and who their enemies were (!)

Peter junior certainly had severe financial difficulties. That he admitted to while he was in jail. So bad were those difficulties that he could not see any way out of them. Peter took another man's advice to "raise contributions on the Highway" - that is become a highwayman. Armed with firearms he and his fellow Marlovian John Carter (a common name but could be the John Carter who lived about then in Chapel Street, Marlow) robbed Henry Howard of 3 shillings 4 pence, a pair of silver buckles presumably lifted from the victim's shoes, and a silver corkscrew (!)

A lack of criminal experience led to Peter's quick apprehension, trial at the Old Bailey and sentence to death for what he insisted was the only crime he had ever committed. The Old Bailey tried him as the robbery occurred on the roads of Middlesex near Uxbridge.

Peter was hung on Friday 17th April 1730. He claimed to be around 57 years of age at the time. Whilst in jail awaiting death he was described as "sullen and morose". He told the staff that he was very conscious of the shame he had brought upon his family by his conviction.

John Carter got a last minute stay of execution following a petition sent to the Secretary Of State from 25 Great Marlow residents. Amongst those supporting John were Marlow's 2 M.PS and wealthy local gentlemen George Bruere Esquire and Sir James Etheredge. Why a petition for John and not for Peter?

For more crime based posts see under Crime on the General Marlow History Index here.

All mentions of someone on this blog can be found on the A-Z person index which covers several thousand people.

To read our recreated 1600s trade directory for Great Marlow and Little Marlow, see here and here

©Marlow Ancestors. You are welcome to use this research for family or local history purposes with credit to this blog.

Some sources used:

Http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=186828 (image of Peter Rivers senior's trade token)

Old Bailey Online, Ordinary Of Newgate's Accounts, April 1730. Ref OA17300417.

State papers, Secretary of State. National Archives, Kew. Ref: SP 36/150/1/98

"England Marriages, 1538–1973 ", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NJ14-SZZ : 6 January 2021), Peter Rivers, 1698.

http://www.bucksrecsoc.org.uk/QS-VOLUMES/QS5.html

Light Fingered Marlow - A List

 Updated Jan 2024

Just for fun here's a list of all the more unusual items (to us) that residents of the Marlows (Great and Little) were accused of helping themselves to during the reign of Victoria. Those names marked with an asterisk were found guilty. The other cases I do not know the outcome of - yet. 

Acorns (2 bushels)- Frederick Brooks and Charles Smith 1848. These would have had good resale value as pig feed.

Aprons- Ann Stockbridge* 1857. Six weeks in jail. A juvenile offender.

A clothes line (part of) from the garden of Henry Aldridge - John Thatcher* 1849. 6 weeks hard labour. 

Bell- Henry Smith* 1850. Three months hard labour.

Herrings (200!)- William Bowles and William Thatcher. 1855.

Lead Trough- Henry Knight* 1840.

Several sacks full of moss, (used for flower arranging etc) - James Perry of Dean Street* 1901. Fined 27s 6d including costs and damages. 

Pair of trousers - removed from their owner's person in a highway robbery 1845. Josiah Brookes* knocked down victim William Blackwell and made off with his trousers as well as a purse of money. A second telling of this event says the "trowsers" of William were in fact carried by him in a parcel as they were newly purchased. Whichever is true, you will be pleased to know that William's trousers were eventually recovered. Josiah was a familiar face to the justices. 

Part of a fence- John Finch* 1856. One month in jail.

Dahlia roots from Spinfield gardens - (and some chickens) James Lomax* and Henry James*, 1837. Henry was transported for life. James was sentenced to a month in jail then transportation for 7 years. He had stolen the birds from his own nephew James Pusey!

Shoe leather- John Wickes 1850. Offence occurred at High Wycombe but John was of Marlow. I am pretty sure he was convicted. In 1852 he was transported for 7 years for stealing a saw in Marlow, the property of Joseph East. He was then 23 years old.

Smelling bottle - John Martin* 1845. Stolen from house of William Curtis. 

Umbrellas, X 2 stolen from the vestibule of All Saints Church. Ellen Gibbons* and Maria Edwards* 1860. They each got 1 days imprisonment. Both plead guilty. The girls however said that they had taken the umbrellas only because it was raining and they had always intended to return them the following week, and indeed had attempted to do so but on seeing the parish Beadle just outside the church, had been too afraid to continue. Their lack of previous convictions helped their case. 

Watering pot (watering can)- Andrew Stuart* and Richard Kibble* 1848 from Alfred Batting. 14 day sentence each.

Whip- William Tilby 1844.

Wooden spokes-  Abraham James* and Thomas Rose*, 1838. Stolen from High Rews Wood. The spokes were the property of John and Thomas Rolls. It seems the spokes may have been being made in the wood. They convinced an 11 year old boy to help them in the theft, telling him the spokes belonged to them. The boy was allowed to escape prosecution if he gave evidence against the two men. Three months in jail and a whipping for both of the accused. In 1839 and 1842 Abraham was fined for poaching.

And for stealing the same horse twice, honorary mention must go to John Edmunds whose full and somewhat odd story you can read here

Related posts: 

 Crime and disorder in old Marlow here

The old police station and police court here

To find other crime/policing related posts see the General Marlow history index here and to find every mention of your ancestor here, use the A-Z Person Index in the top drop down menu. New content added daily. 

Sources:

Criminal research of Jane Pullinger supplemented by Bucks Herald 21st February 1857, 22nd November 1856 and 20th October 1855. Bucks Gazette 6th January 1838. South Bucks Free Press July 14 1860. Copies held at the British Library.

Bucks Advertiser 19 July 1845. 

All Saints Parish records  - my old transcription from the originals.

Censuses, my transcriptions from microfilm.

©Marlow Ancestors. 

Crime And Disorder In Old Marlow

This is a post about crime and apprehending wrongdoers in the late 18th century and the first half of the 19th in Marlow. 

Before there was an organised police force in Bucks, Marlow relied on it's parish constables, tithing men, night watchmen and the parish beadle to keep law and order.  For more on the role of the Beadle and a bit about George Pocock who held this position for some time, see a dedicated post here

Parish Constables were unpaid and selected from local householders in theory. You couldn't refuse the role as such, but you could pay someone else to do the job for you. If you didn't put sufficient effort into the role, you could find yourself in court yourself. The standard of policing therefore varied year on year. Some parish constables were summoned in their own right, usually for failing to execute an arrest, or delaying it at least. 

In Marlow, the same people often appear to hold this role for several years, probably because they were known to be willing to take on the job. They were effectively therefore paid by whoever was supposed to take on the role for that term, and they could also claim back certain expenses and get a payment for apprehending some offenders. (See Note 1) Marlow seems lucky to have gained these semi professional constables, because a number of them were known to travel far and wide in the pursuit of offenders in the 1820's - 40's. Constable John Boulter in the mid 1820's stands out as one of these. Some of those working with Boulter were regarded as much less satisfactory, and in the end an additional Special Constable William Sawyer was brought back out of retirement to bring something of a local crime wave under control in the later 1820s. It seems they were partially successful at least, with a number of members of a robbery gang based in Marlow sent to the Assizes after Boulter and Sawyer tracked gang leader George Edmonds to a pub in Flackwell Heath, a village with a very rough reputation, and arrested him. George's brother was hung for horse stealing. See a post here.

But before these dedicated men came along, and in the gaps between them, the constables were said to be extremely wary of apprehending offenders such as poachers given the fact they were frequently outnumbered and arrests could lead to bloodshed. Even in 1840, an attempt to arrest Well End (modern day Dean Street, not Well End, Little Marlow) poacher William Perry involved a 100 strong crowd calling for the law mans blood, an attack by a dog and eventually the knocking out and disarming of the outmanoeuvred Parish Constable. A full account of this tumultuous day can be read here. This is an extreme example, but it is no surprise that unpaid men were not going to necessarily go looking for troublemakers if they could avoid it in a not too overt way. In the interests of balance I must add we have also found examples of parish constables here acting in a violent manner with little provocation, and more on this will follow. 

From 1842, paid constables could be directly employed by the parish. I'm not sure when Marlow got their first constable of this type but it would appear the regular constables in this period were some of the men performing the role prior to 1842. In the same year, the magistrates became the ones responsible for appointing the paid constables as opposed to the parish vestry or manor. But Marlow does not seem to like this change for in 1842 after the magistrates appointed their choice of parish constables, an old style "court leet"  was held at Harleyford and another batch of constables were appointed and sworn in. Some men were actually appointed by both! 

   The early 1840's did see something of a crime epidemic in Marlow. The Bucks Gazette claimed that house breaking and robbery were so prevalent in Marlow in 1841 that few evenings passed without a home being attacked. Draper Mr (Edward) Hewett of the High Street had just became the latest victim. (His premises are shown below, read more about him here)

Despite this, a meeting by Marlow inhabitants to decide on the "propriety of establishing a police force" in the town resulted in a vote resoundingly in favour of doing no such thing. No doubt the issue of paying for this was foremost in the voters minds. The issue was taken out of the locals hands when Buckinghamshire Constabulary was formed in 1857.  However Marlow continued to elect Parish Constables for decades. The cost of maintaining both was a very frequent cause of complaint, because the parish constables were entitled to certain fees and payments even though they did not receive a wage as such. Arguements relating who should receive a fee for executing a warrant on behalf of the Marlow Petty Sessions magistrates are common in the late 1850's and 60s. A dual system of constables had some advantages though. If you wished a summons to be issued on your behalf for certain offences eg to a husband for deserting his family or for an affiliation order in the event of an illegitimate child, you as the victim actually had to pay the police to execute the warrant under some circumstances. (Who is deemed liable to pay is very variable) The parish constables were often willing to do so for free, on the basis that they would claim back a fee from the court in the event of a successful prosecution, paid out of costs awarded. 

Parish Constables were still appointed by the magistrates in the 1890s, from a list of "fit and proper persons" provided by the parish vestry. At this point they were normally 4 in number and their everyday duties light. 

DIY CRIME FIGHTING

Although Marlow was fortunate to gain several diligent Parish Constables, they did have limited time and training. So if you suffered a crime, and were rich enough, it was down to you to take many of the steps that might bring the perpetrator to justice. You could circulate a description and advertise an reward for the suspects apprehension for example. It seems some people were reluctant to spend money on this kind of activity, as it involved more outlay when you had already suffered a loss, with no guarantee of success. This in turn upset others who were anxious that criminals should feel it likely they would be pursued until caught. So in an effort to increase convictions, a couple of anti crime related subscription societies were set up in Marlow. 

One was the Society for Prevention of Sheep Stealing which was active by 1775. If a sheep was stolen, the subscription funds were used to cover the cost of advertising for information as well as providing a reward should an arrest result. There was for example a hefty 10 guinea reward in 1775 for the capture of the person responsible for stealing a "fat ewe" from Lower Temple Meadow. The same amount was offered in 1778 for the recovery of some sheep last seen grazing in a turnip field in Well End, Little Marlow. If an accomplice to the theft should come forward with information, the Society would they said, endeavour to procure them a pardon. There was no guarantee they would be successful in this appeal however! 

In 1788, Marlow had an "Association for Prosecuting Felonies, Robberies and Thefts" which was also a subscription organisation. It was open to those living in Great and Little Marlow as well as Bisham and Wycombe. If a member suffered a crime on their person or property, and their subscription was up to date, they could be paid back for costs incurred in the pursuit and apprehension of the offender. So should you discover that you had been a crime victim, the first thing you needed to do was record this fact with either the treasurer Mr Herne, or the secretary Mr Henry Allnutt (an attorney who was also secretary of the anti sheep stealing association) as well as two other members. Either of the first would then go to all of the trouble of organising the advertising of a reward and doing whatever they could to trace the offender. Expenses incurred yourself to the same end would be settled at one of the bi annual subscribers meetings at the Crown. One thing you could not do however, and that was chose not to press charges in the end. If you did not play your part in bringing the criminal to trial, you would have your membership terminated for good with no subscription payments returned. Membership was restricted to those who could make the minimum 5 shilling payment a year, in addition to additional fees based on the amount of land you owned and it's value. You were covered even if you were away from home, outside the membership catchment area. 

The amount of reward offered by the above depended on the punishment that could be inflicted on the wrongdoer. You could get £10 for information securing the conviction of someone for a capital offence, and £7 7s if they were transported for a minimum of 14 years. Other crimes not leading to transportation could earn an informant just over £1.

In the 1820's there are also mentions of a Great Marlow Society for the Protection of Property with similar aims and adverts offering rewards.

THE NIGHTWATCH

Originally adult males were supposed to take it in turn to participate in the night watch, or they could pay someone to deputise for them. The Parish Constables were responsible for organising and supervising this. Some towns had an exclusively paid night watch organised by the parish but I have not found evidence of this in Marlow until the 1840's. Organised watching seems to have faded away here but some citizens got together in 1828 to pay for a private night watch in "consequence of the numerous depredations committed in and about the town." The three men would be employed during the winter months only. Other references to the watch in this period refer to it being introduced to deal with specific events such as during the period of canvassing before the 1830 election. This particular night watch doesn't seem to have been too effective as under it's nose the town became victim of a spate of night burglaries supposed to have been committed by a Berkshire gang. (Many of these crimes are blamed on Berkshire residents over time, no doubt Berkshire people blamed Bucks gangs for the same!) But in 1840's Marlow did have a paid designated night watchmen, Mr Shaw, who patrolled all night, calling out the time and weather as they went. "Past twelve o'clock and a cloudy night!" was a typical phrase as remembered by a later Victorian looking back. 

I have also found descriptions of parish constables themselves coming across a crime in progress at night, perhaps while out checking on the public night watch when it existed. Parish Constable Henry Stallwood for example is described as on patrol at 2am in Marefield when he comes across a man who has been robbed.  He subsequently catches those responsible as he had seen them lurking suspiciously a little before. Interestingly, he does not approach these suspicious men when he first sees them, despite noticing that one had his face disguised and they were standing about in the early hours of the morning. He obviously recognised them and thought it better to apprehend them in the daylight. 

NOTE

1. The Constables were required to present signed accounts not less often than every 3 months, to the overseers of the poor. The books could be examined by rate payers and the payment had to be approved by them. It was paid out of the poor rates. 

Written and researched by Kathryn Day. 

Related Posts:

To read about the first police station and the later police court extension see here. 

Light fingered Marlow here

Charles East, transported for 14 years - info within the post here

Webb's gang of marauders - bringing terror to 1820s Marlow here

For other crime related posts see the General History option  here or use the top drop down menu 

SOURCES

The Parish Officer: Comprising the Whole of the Present Law Relating to the Several Parish and Union Officers, as Well as of the Guardians of the Poor in England, Comprising Also the Law as to Church Rates, Highway Rates, Vestries, Watching and Lighting, &c - Archbold, Frederick John, Shaw 1858

The Complete Parish Officer, Clavering, Henry. Pub: J Stratford 1802. 

Reading Mercury 19 July 1775, 21 January 1788, Copy from the British Library and accessed via the BNA. 

Oxford Journal 24 February 1778, as above. 

Berks Chronicle 26 March 1825, 2 February 1828 as above.

Oxford University and City Herald 25 November 1826 as above

Bucks Gazette 17 April 1841, as above. 

 Windsor and Eton Express November 15 1828, 13 November 1841 as above

Bucks Herald 17 April 1858, as above

 British Library Online: https://www.bl.uk/georgian-britain/articles/crime-and-punishment-in-georgian-britain Accessed April 2021

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/laworder/policeprisons/overview/watchmenconstables/ Accessed March 2021

©MarlowAncestors