Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Neighbour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neighbour. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 3, 2026

Life in 1930s Marlow Part Four- Style and Annual Events


Part one dealt with employment, homes and general shopping here. Part two covered sport and leisure plus transport and is available here

Part three dealt with childhood and religion and is available here


Post by Charlotte ...


Looking Swish 

Hair and cosmetics:

The hairdresser's in the town in the thirties was Maison George in the High Street. One of the hairdresser's trained there Miss Edith Neighbour ended up trading on her own account as a private hairdresser, offering the trendy permanent wave. You could write to or telephone her for an appointment. In 1935 a whole head permanent wave by Edith would set you back 15 shillings.



A 1930s permanent wave. Picture by Louis Calvete. Creative Commons Licence.CC BY-SA 3.0.

Maison George were agents for Ineco hair dye and "lady's beauty aids". 

There were at least five other hairdressers in Marlow apart from Maison George during the 1930s. Maison George gained a serious competitor in 1936 when Milady (as in "my lady") opened at 72 West Street. This was a beauty parlour which also offered high class hairdressing for women and children. It's opening "special offer" was a full head permanent wave for 15 shillings, the same price as Edith Neighbour above charged as her standard price for a full wave so Edith was good value, especially as she would come to your own home to wave your hair.

Perfumes and early cosmetics could be bought from Marlow chemists, though by no means all women routinely wore any makeup let alone a full face look. It was considered especially likely for "country" girls to go make up free. In the 1930s Marlow was still considered to be a country town. Cheap make up was not so easily available as it is today so cost constraints also played a role in determining how many cosmetics if any a woman could wear. The most commonly worn cosmetic product in the 1930s was face powder, usually in a pale shade. Eyebrows were severely plucked into a high arched shape and often darkened. Over plucking meant that a reasonable number of women lost their eyebrows and instead had to draw them on. Lip colour was available in various shades but red won out. Mascara was still applied by brush from a palette. Hollywood glamour looks encouraged fashionable women to exaggerate their lashes as much as possible. 


Saturday, October 22, 2022

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

Friday, September 9, 2022

A Triangle Used In Anger - Life In Eton Place, Marlow


While Eton Place survives as a place name in Marlow, unlike it's "twin" Cambridge Place, the old buildings are all long gone. As we have often been contacted by those with ancestors living in this busy little place in the Victorian and Edwardian era, this post will hopefully bring the old street back to life. 


Most of the housing was occupied by working class families, but it did not have the reputation for real poverty that some of the other nearby streets and rows did. This is not to say there were not some individuals there who were really badly off however. It's worth noting that Eton Place is in the general area known as Marefield and many people give that as their address as opposed to anything more specific well into the 1920s. Sometimes they may also describe their address as "Eton Place, Marefield(s). 


It's proximity to the very many public houses in Dean Street did mean a certain amount of drunk and disorderly behaviour spilling over there, not necessarily actually involving any of the residents! It's amusing how often those slightly worse for wear seem to end up wandering down Eton Place when it was not exactly part of their route home.  However there was one nasty brawl that did involve a resident, 37 year old bricklayer William Stacey, in April 1882. The victim was John Neighbour of Marefield and the weapon a rather unusual one...


A Triangle Wielded In Anger


Constable Birch was on routine patrol around midnight in Cambridge Road, just behind Eton Place. He heard a tremendous row going on so hot footed it to the scene. As he approached he heard John Neighbour call out several times that he had been hit, and what he took to be the sound of a bottle falling to the floor.  It was dark in the place but eventually he saw John leaning up against a wall with blood pouring down his face. It transpired that William Stacey had struck John on the head not with a bottle but a "triangle" which was in fact an iron cornice mould. Amusingly William had been using it as a triangle in the musical sense as part of an impromptu band celebrating a local wedding, I think in one of the Dean Street pubs. (Concertina, spoons..) He was returning home to Eton Place with his wife in what might be called a jolly state. It was at the corner of the Place and Queens Road that he met brothers John and William Neighbour also on the way home from an evening drinking. William Neighbour made a comment that it was time Stacey went home to bed, and especially his wife Elizabeth should do the same. Stacey took that as an insult, insinuating that Mrs Stacey was the sort of woman to stay out late, with the connotation of immoral character. He asked the Neighbours if they wanted to "start something" at which John Neighbour turned and asked him just what he meant by that. The end is not hard to predict and Stacey hit John on the head above his eye, knocking him unconscious briefly with the results we've seen. He was taken to Mr Atterbury, assistant to surgeon Shone, and then PC Birch returned and arrested Stacey who admitted the action. The doctor said the cut to Neighbour went to the bone and narrowly avoided destroying his eye. 


The background to this seemingly petty squabble is a little complicated. The Neighbour brothers were something of a terrible twosome, getting into no end of minor scrapes and brushes with the law.** They seem inseparable and rarely does a case involving one not involve the other. But they were not serious offenders, mostly troubling police with drunken and disorderly behaviour and silly nuisance offences such as kicking a door and then running away. It was for one of the last offences in February 1882 that saw Mrs Stacey testify that she had seen William Neighbour kick the door of William Smith in Queens Road, an action that resulted in him receiving a fine. It was insinuated that Elizabeth had lied about this as another man there "Potter" confessed to the action and yet another witness said it was in fact brother John who was guilty. It seems in the melee it was probably difficult to see what was going on. So there was bad blood between the Neighbours and the Staceys who also trouble the courts fairly often with drink related bad behaviour. The court found against Stacey noting that you could not be under the illusion that hitting someone with such an implement could do anything other than a nasty injury. But they also decided he had acted under provocation and counted the fact the weapon was not carried with the intention to do any harm. So a sentence of 4 months detention with hard labour came Stacey's way.* 


Most crime associated with Eton Place was minor thefts such as the loss of  George Rockell's ferret, lifted from his back garden. It was thankfully recovered alive and well! 



A Stranger Appears...

Although the number of people living in Eton Place was relatively dense, it's certain they all knew each other well and a stranger wandering about would attract attention, especially if he was discovered to be foreign. In 1902 one such person visited the Boddy family home. Ellen Boddy opened the door to a loud knock and found a well dressed man unknown to her standing there. He said (in a heavy foreign accent) that he had lodged with a Mrs Boddy in Station Rd about 5 years previously and wished to call on her. Young Ellen was clearly not this person so she took him to see her mother in law who had indeed lived previously at Station Rd but she did not recognize him either. Whether he himself thought Mrs Boddy senior was his former landlady is not clear. Regardless he left, having asked for no assistance or favour of any kind. A day later he was found floating face down in the river off the end of St Peters Street. He was spotted by Charles Woodley, who alerted the landlord of the adjacent Two Brewers, John Clark Truss. Truss recovered the body but the victim was not immediately identified. I do believe his identity was eventually established as a Frenchman who had been living in London but the circumstances of his trip to Marlow were a mystery. 



Tragedy for No.14

In 1939, resident of no 14 Eton Place, chauffeur Henry Samuel Batt, was killed on the sinking of the Dutch liner Simon Bolivar. This sank after coming in contact with a German mine. Henry was traveling aboard with his employer Sydney Preece of Maidenhead and the latters 3 year old daughter Elizabeth. He helped to put little Elizabeth in a wooden box to act as a sort of life raft for her, an action that undoubtedly saved her life. Preece managed to keep Elizabeth afloat and push her in front of him as he kept afloat in turn but he became separated from Henry. Henry is buried in Maidenhead cemetery. The horror for the Preece family was that Sydney Preece's wife and parents had all died in a car accident recently and so father and daughter had been travelling to visit her other grandparents who would be taking care of little Elizabeth for a while. 


Eton Place Gossip

Other events an Eton Place ancestor would have remembered and talked about were the scarlet fever outbreak amongst children in 1882. There were thankfully no fatalities. The Sanitary authorities ordered that the landlords of the affected properties should have them thoroughly cleaned out and disinfected. Predictably some landlords were less than forthcoming with work and at least one was fined for delaying the necessary actions. (He claimed he did not think the children really had scarlet fever and the house was already clean.)


Then there was the great stink of March 1887. A cart carrying barrels of waste from cess pits in neighbouring cottages was left standing by Eton Place for more than an hour, causing a sickening odour and obstructing the road. A brave soul ventured past the cart and summoned a constable to investigate. The cart was driven by William Burt but the case presented against him was dropped as he was only following orders of employer farmer William Creswell. 


I hope this gives you an idea of the events that impacted on the lives of our Eton Place residents of days gone by. There's many more we could mention..but if you are looking for a specific person or family, look for them in the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu or the Biographies of Families menu here


William Stacey's wife Elizabeth or Lizzie was nee Sadler and her little sister Ellen was the "Sleeping girl of Turville" - see here


To find other posts on specific streets see the menu here


Other posts about everyday life in old Marlow here


Written and researched by Kathryn Day. 


© MarlowAncestors. 


* Also present at the infamous Triangle fight was labourer George Jones of Marefield. 


**The Neighbour brothers were aged 23 (John) and 19 (William). Their sister Matilda features in a post to follow shortly.  The boys grandfather, a convict transported to Australia will also feature soon. 





Saturday, September 3, 2022

The Resilience Of Jane Moody / Anson

*Please be aware that the contents of this post includes historic information that may be distressing to read related to the Anson, Moody, Bowles, Anderson and Neighbour families.* 


Jane Ann Moody was born to agricultural labourer William and wife Jane of St Peter's Street, Great Marlow in 1856. We have chosen to feature her as she represents a tale of survival. Life for the men and women of the working class Victorian Marlow was often extremely tough and the reality of the existence of those on the lowest income bracket can be shocking to read to modern Marlow residents long separated from this period. We will tell Jane's story honestly but also fairly. She did not conform to the moral standards of the day and as such was always going to be looked down upon by some in authority. We want to flesh out some the official details of her life so her struggles can be put into context. 


By the time she was 15 years old Jane had moved to Dean Street with her parents and siblings, a densely populated working class area of town. It was about this time that the young girl met the teenage William "Billy" Bowles, grandson of the then landlady of the Cherry Tree pub also in Dean Street. He worked as a hawker. William's grandfather  Thomas Bowles had died under tragic circumstances when still young - you can read more about it and the Cherry Tree here. He was therefore from a family that knew hardship. But it was also one that had came back from disaster, thanks to the strength and determination of his grandmother Emma. William and Jane began to court each other openly - their young age and relative lack of supervision was commented on later but they remained together for something like 7 years. Their relationship was by all accounts tempestuous at times, driven by mutual jealousy. They began to fight both verbally and physically. When Jane was 18 she took out a summons on William for assaulting her but the case was settled out of court. 


A Poor Diet Leads To Tragedy

If Jane and William had to deal with gossip about their relationship before, it was going to get a lot harder after 1876 when Jane fell pregnant. At the time of the baby's birth, the couple had not married which was another black mark against them in the eyes of society. This infant would sadly not live beyond a few months. An inquest was held at the Duke Of Cambridge, and the doctor described the child's emaciated condition. But the coroner's jury was quick and specific to state that they cleared Jane of any charge of neglect. She had made a mistake it was said, and had weaned the child when it was just a few days old, feeding the little one on cornflour and sugar paste with milk. Surgeon Shone who completed the post mortem said such a diet was nutritionally insufficient and the child had never thrived and therefore died of natural causes hastened by malnourishment. It should be noted that very early weaning of children was not at all uncommon in this period. Some of the papers made much of the fact that the bereaved mother was called into the court room and given a "severe reprimand" as to regards her future conduct. (Moral that is, not as regards to infant care). But let's also look at what the more sympathetic sources had to say. They stated that Jane was at this point living in lodgings with one of her sisters, and both girls had gone to work all day every day. As an unmarried women Jane could not simply become a stay at home mother and still support her child, nor could she take the baby to work with her. She needed to have the baby fed while she was away, and while the cornflour and sugar mix seems to us a strange feed, it was in fact a standard feeding mixture of the time for babies old enough to be truly weaned. The surgeon stated that the diet should have been primarily milk based and Jane's error was in the thinking the balance should be different. What's more the initial decision to "dry nurse" or wean the child was made because of Jane's poor physical state of health immediately after the birth. 


Two years later, Jane was pregnant again and William Bowles was the acknowledged father of this boy, known as William Moody. He paid a weekly sum for maintenance, as ordered by a court. The couple still did not marry however, which further blackened her reputation.  



Body Found In The River

In 1878, the relationship of Jane and William was going through a particularly difficult time. She had begun to see other men, at least according to rumour, but William declared he still loved her. Sadly, a young woman, Matilda Neighbour*, decided to cause a little trouble, although she may have been motivated to protect William too. In any case she went to the Cherry Tree where William was to be found and told him that Jane was with another man (a relative of hers) and that if he didn't believe her perhaps he should come and see. William left, and his grandmother told Matilda off, asking her not to come to her premises with such gossip. It seems William did see Jane walking with another man, as well as others, and according to some, a fight broke out although who was involved exactly is hard to pick out from confused accounts given later. Jane said William had threatened to kill her, struck her, and dragged her by the hair. John Neighbour, of whom William had been jealous, intervened. She said they had actually agreed to separate a few days before, but William did not want to be replaced as a sweetheart so soon. (Jane denied there was a successor to her affections and said John Neighbour was actually the sweetheart of another.) Ultimately Jane was said to be aggrieved at William acting in an possessive way as she saw it, and told him to go home as she did not want him. These words were alleged to weigh heavily on the young man. A few days later, William was found floating face down in the river near the bottom of St Peter's Street. His lifeless body was retrieved by John Clark Truss of the adjacent Two Brewers pub, where the inquest into his death was also held. Much was naturally made of the events of the days leading up to his death and the reports tend to hold Jane to blame for it, although a verdict of "found drowned" was recorded rather than suicide. One declared that Jane was a young woman of "considerable notoriety" in the neighborhood of Marlow, and that the case shone a dark light into the immoral "going ons" in the Dean Street area. 


But there is another fact the newspapers skip over. Jane was living with her sister in a cottage in Dean Street that had been previously declared as unfit for human habitation. Numerous orders were made to force the owners to clean it up and provide proper sanitation, most of which were ignored. Finally some work (but not all that was required) had been done and Jane had found a home there. Would those who criticized Jane for being always out, have happily stayed in in such a premises? The neighbouring cottage was let to another woman tarred with the same brush as Jane, the "notorious" Eliza Anderson.**


What's That In Your Apron?

By 1881, Jane and her little boy were back living with her parents and numerous younger siblings elsewhere in Dean's Street - sometimes they were also living in Hatches Row, off Dean Street. The next few years were eventful for her. It started with a 10 shilling fine for stealing some rape greens (used like spring greens, a common edible of the past and only recently "rediscovered" here as a gourmet vegetable) growing in a farm field. A number of other woman were caught in the same sweep - this kind of harvest or turnip greens were a common subject of crop rustling as they were easy to gather quickly. The woman had collected them in their aprons and when challenged they claimed to be gathering primroses. This claim unfortunately fell apart when the ladies were ordered to empty their aprons! Some time after this, Jane was also amongst a group of woman caught taking mushrooms from some fields belonging to the Wethered family. In this instance she escaped a fine despite pleading guilty as the Wethereds declined to press the charges further. They had suffered a plague of mushroom thefts and so wanted to make a point without making a particular example of the women. They hoped the summons to court would act as a deterrent for others. 


A little later Jane fell out with a lady, Sarah West*** of Marefield Passage, also located off Dean Street. What the two bickered over the records don't really make clear but Sarah went to court asking that Jane be bound over to keep the peace against her. Sarah said Jane would follow her up the street and swear at her and call her names, to the point Sarah was in fear of her life. However once Jane had spoke in her own defence, the case was dismissed.

 

In 1884 Jane was pregnant with another illegitimate child, young Nellie. It was her fifth child according to statements reported as uttered by Jane during a maintenance order hearing. This does not quite tally with the numbers of her then children given elsewhere. Regardless, she said the current babies father was William Price but she was denied a maintenance order for "lack of corroborating evidence". 


Jane would go on to marry William Anson. He was usually described as a general labourer at this time. 



Happily Ever After?

Jane, her husband, and her two illegitimate children moved eventually to Primrose Lea, another fairly crowded group of houses adjacent to Dean Street (the place name remains but none of the housing). Was this the start of happier times for the troubled woman? Sadly for her children in particular, the answer is no. We have written many posts about the number of drinking establishments to be found in Marlow, and in the Dean Street/Marefield area of Marlow in particular at this time. If you had sorrows to drown, there was plenty of opportunity to do so on your doorstep. Tragically, William appears to have been an alcoholic, or at least a heavy drinker unable to hold his drink. Numerous convictions for drunk and disorderly behaviour and/or using obscene language while under the influence came his way. But William was not a happy drunk winding his way home singing merrily with a few swear words thrown in. In the words of Inspector Pearce of Marlow police, Anson became "nearly mad" when in drink. On one day in 1908 the officers were called because Anson was rolling drunk and carrying an axe. He chopped up every single piece of furniture in the couple's home. (In Church Road. In this period both of what's now part of Trinity Road and Wethered Road were called Church Road but in this case Wethered Road was meant).The next day he was drunk and armed with an axe again, this time he was apparently attempting to chop up some wooden clothes pegs and the washing. Without much success naturally. It's a miracle he didn't loose a limb! He bravely plead not guilty to behaving in a disorderly fashion on this occasion but given the witness and obvious state of his belongings, he was found guilty and fined. This was not his last conviction for something similar. A few weeks later, Jane had finally had enough. She said he had deserted her and so begged for a separation order to be made. This entitled Jane to live apart from him without legal harassment to re join the marital home. She was granted it along with a maintenance order for a weekly sum to be paid by her husband for the care of her youngest daughter Maude. Jane explained that her husband had even before this time frequently stayed away from work. She had found him at the Cherry Tree or slumped drunk on their doorstep on such occasions. He in his defence accused her of being a heavy drinker herself but I have found no convictions for any public misdemeanours on her part of this kind.  At the separation order hearing, a weary policeman stated that really Anson's problems were all alcohol related and if only he could stay sober, he'd get on well. (In 1891 William Anson was described as a labourer at the Gas Works which were off Dean Street very close to the couple's home. He may have still been working there at this point.)


Afterword

Anson did not learn his lesson straight away as at least one more drunkenness related conviction followed in 1909. But let us hope he did so eventually, because as is so often the case, Jane would return to live with her husband. In 1911 both he and the couple's son Charles who lived with them were described as wood cutters. A tragically comic occupation for Anson given his form with an axe. In the 1910s the couple lived in what is now called Wethered Road. This blog deals with the pre First World War period primarily but we must finish by saying that Jane lived to the age of 83, dying in 1939. 


* Matilda Neighbour age 17 was the daughter of Dean Street general dealer William Neighbour and wife Jane a needlewoman. 

** The owner of the two cottages (James Meakes) wrote a defensive letter to the South Bucks Free Press after the Moody/Bowles case. He does not mention the fact his properties were in a poor state or that they had been condemned. Instead he wishes to defend himself from the charge of renting to two girls of poor repute. He says they were not in fact his tenants but their respective fathers were. He said Jane Moody's father had declared he wanted the property for a daughter of his who was soon to get married. Mr Anderson had rented the other because he declared he had a small home and large family so wanted a second cottage to put some of the children in! The landlord added that both girls had now moved out and so "all difficulty in the matter as far as I'm concerned is removed". Except of course terrible living conditions for the next tenant! 

*** Sarah West's son William John Stacey features in a post here


Written and researched by Kathryn Day. 


Other related posts:

All mentions of a person can be found in the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu where you will find more than 4,000 people mentioned. The same menu has options for post listings of  more detailed entries relating to specific individuals and families. 

More beer sellers than bakers : temperance in Marlow here

Crime and disorder in old Marlow -  here and images of the police court at which Jane made her several appearances here

History of the gas works where William Anson worked: here

More on the history of some of the streets/addresses mentioned above can be found here

Every day life in old Great Marlow when Jane lived here here


SOURCES INCLUDE:

Census 1841,1851,1861,1871,1881,1891 - Transcribed from the original microfilm by Jane Pullinger and Charlotte Day

Judicial case notes for Great Marlow Petty Sessions compiled by Jane Pullinger in 1975, and used with thanks. 

Maidenhead Advertiser 5 April 1876, copy from the British Library archive. 

Reading Mercury 1 April 1876

Berkshire Chronicle 28 April 1883

Bucks Herald 8 November 1884.

South Bucks Standard 7 August 1908. 

England and Wales Death Registration Index 1837-2007", database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVHP-QKBB  Jane A Anson, 1939. 

South Bucks Free Press 23rd August 1878. 

© MarlowAncestors

 

Sunday, August 28, 2022

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




Sunday, August 7, 2022

Trouble At The Toll House - William and Sarah Neighbour


Great Marlow seems to have had some trouble attracting fair and diligent turnpike road toll house keepers. Several of the ads for taking over the lease of these came with wording along the lines of "the current occupiers did not reapply". Complaints ranged from failing to pay the rent, collecting tolls from those who were entitled to go through free of charge, letting others through who were supposed to pay, or using the toll houses to sell alcohol without a licence. In 1842, the toll house keepers of what was known as the Well End Gate (Dean Street, not Well End Little Marlow) or Seymour Court Gate were William and Sarah Neighbour. The powers that be might have felt the place was now in safe hands. William was on the surface a respectable butcher, or rather had been prior to taking on his latest role. The couple were clearly living there from the evidence that follows, so they were not one of the many absentee collectors paying someone else to do the job. (They did not own the lease, they had been paid to do the everyday collecting by the person that did). Unfortunately for those in authority, while William may not have had any criminal convictions, the rumour on the street was that this was more as a result of luck than angelic conduct!


William was age 38-49 depending on the source you look at. His wife Sarah nee Cres(s)well was the daughter of respectable Chapel /Spittal street baker James. They had married in 1823 and had a number of young children.


In 1841, William was seen leaving the town in the company of Samuel Smith*, a 20 year old groom who had also worked as a general labourer. The pair headed in the direction of Tetsworth. A few miles from that destination, the pair parted and Samuel continued into Tetsworth itself. He was seen browsing in the grocers shop of George Shrimpton. Perhaps something about Samuels behaviour aroused suspicion as his presence was remembered afterwards. When poor George came downstairs the following morning he discovered that had been a victim of a substantial theft. A plated pair of candlesticks, a cruet stand, and a large quantity of tea, coffee and tobacco was amongst ''divers articles" lifted from the shop. Some reports gave the value of the theft at 150 to 200 pounds worth of goods. That was a large sum. His mind went back to the visitors in his shop earlier that day who may have looked a little suspicious with hindsight. He recalled Samuel but as the suspect was a stranger, there were no immediate chance to interrogate him. 


A month later London peddler Meyer Horwitz, a German, bumped into William Neighbour in Marlow. William knew the peddler was a man likely to be interested in buying a variety of objects. He mentioned he had a few things to sell and invited the peddler back to the turnpike house. Inside Sarah welcomed her visitor and left her husband to his business. Samuel Smith was already there along with friend James Bowles, a carpenter. The goods were not actually in the toll house said William but a short distance away. He left with Samuel who returned carrying a large red handkerchief, and once the door was safely closed, he revealed the silver cruet inside. The candlesticks were then bought out. Meyer must have had his doubts about the provenance of such items. He claimed to not be very interested in them as they were not quite his usual line. He might be willing to swap them for some jewellery he suggested but no, William said only cash would do. After a bit of haggling, Meyer said he bought the items in innocent good faith for half the initial suggested price. Hmm. 


A little later Meyer said he was working near Tetsworth when he heard news of the grocer shop theft and in particular the description of the stolen candlesticks and cruet. He still had them it seems and subsequently felt he must come forward. It's likely that whether he really was not suspicious when first buying the items or not, he now realised the items were likely to be too hot to handle and the best he could hope to get out of the business was a reward for the conviction of the criminals. He said he was motivated by a wish to see justice done too. He went to Tetsworth and saw Mr Shrimpton. As a result the two returned to Marlow. Meyer was clearly a clever man as he decided to get as much incriminating information as possible out of Neighbour before going to the police. He went alone to the tollhouse where William Neighbour could be found. William expressed surprise at seeing Meyer again - "Holloa, young man, what? Are you here again!"-  but relaxed a little when the pedlar said he had sold the last batch of items for a good profit and was hoping that the sellers would have something else to trade. William asked who Meyer had sold the goods to but Meyer replied that he need not be concerned, a good sale had been done. As a result of the information gleaned, all three Marlow men plus Sarah were arrested. The constable doing so heard Samuel accuse William Neighbour of being the one who had set up the burglary, to which William made no reply. 


William and Sarah found themselves indicted on the charge of recieving stolen goods. William was at this time described as popularly known as a "notorious fence". If this was the case, the rumour had clearly not reached those responsible for appointing him to his position. They stood trial at the Oxford Assizes in 1842 alongside James Bowles and Samuel Smith who were charged with the actual theft. 


It was quickly decided that there was no real evidence of Sarah's involvement and that any action she took would be under her husbands direction as it was considered at the time. What relief she must have felt as recieving stolen goods was a crime often treated as seriously as the theft itself. But the relief was short-lived. Because husband William Neighbour was convicted and sentenced to 14 years transportation. Both Samuel Smith and James Bowles had previous convictions for a felony so this pair were sentenced to  transportation for life. It was the difference between having a previous conviction or not that was the stated reason for the difference in the men's sentences, rather than the different crimes they were sentenced for. 


James Bowles admitted to his presence during the haggling over the stolen goods but said he had no part in it or the theft. It made no difference. Meyer had testified that once he had paid Neighbour, Neighbour had handed the money to Bowles. 


Sarah may not have been transported but to loose her husband was also to loose her breadwinner. It was a sentence also very hard on her children. She did what many wives did in her situation, and moved back in with her family. In this case with her mother Mary Cresswell in Spittal Street. She worked as a laundress for some of the time. 


William left Sheerness on the convict ship the Duchess of Northumberland with Samuel Smith - see below for the sailing dates. Once he arrived he was assigned various jobs, but even while in "service" to others rather than a chain gang, treatment could be strict. He spent 10 days in solitary confinement as punishment for being out after restricted hours and for being drunk. Other punishments include lashings for more drunkenness as well as using bad language. I believe he recieved his freedom in 1852 after which he worked for himself but under what trade I do not know.  

 


Aftermath

Samuel's previous offence was to steal three shirt collars valued at 1s 6d from the property of Marlow surgeon Robert Colborne in 1840. For this he had spent 1 month in Aylesbury gaol.


He left England on convict ship the Duchess of Northumberland on 1st October 1842, arriving in Van Diemens Land 18th January 1843. He would survive less than 3 years, dying at the Cascades Probation station in October 1845. 


James Bowles, age 33, was transported on The Triton on August 4th 1842, arriving at Van Diemens Land 19th December that year. He left behind a wife and child. Recommended for a ticket of leave 1857 and recieved a pardon later the same year. Prior to that James caused the authorities in Australia no end of trouble before he decided to knuckle down and get his freedom. Several stints in solitary confinement cames the way of James for using indecent language, neglecting to do his work and drunkenness on different occasions. More seriously he was marked as absent from muster in 1852 and had indeed absconded. He was found  and sentenced to 18 months hard labour in a chain gang.  


Written and researched by Kathryn Day. 

**There were more than one Samuel Smith in Marlow at this time. I believe this Samuel's parents were Samuel and Elizabeth. The Samuel here is also not of the West Street family of that name. Lastly a Samuel Smith alias Zachariah Lee a man of gypsy heritage who was often resident in Marlow is a different person. He also had a 1 month stint in Aylesbury gaol for stealing (1842) but this was stealing wood from ash trees belonging to Mr Atkinson of the Rookery. 

Related Posts:

Crime and disorder in old Marlow: here

The Marlow Turnpike toll gates: here

Every day life in old Great Marlow: here also the place to find other convicts/crime related posts. 


To find every mention of an individual or family here see the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu. 4,400 people are listed and counting. 



Sources:

1841,51 census transcripts from microfilm by Jane Pullinger.  

Oxford Chronicle and Reading Gazette 08 January 1842. 

Oxford Journal 5 March 1842

Oxford University and City Herald 5 March 1842

Reading Mercury 5 March 1842

Bucks Gazette 26 June 1841

Windsor and Eton Express 22 January 1842. 

 Australian Joint Copying Project - Microfilm Roll 91, Class and piece no HO11/13, page 218. 

Australian Joint Copying Project - Microfilm Roll 91, Class and piece no HO11/13, page 161 (82)

Convict record James Bowles Tasmanian Libraries here 

https://stors.tas.gov.au/CON33-1-36$init=CON33-1-36p183

https://librariestas.ent.sirsidynix.net.au/client/en_AU/tas/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fARCHIVES_DIGITISED$002f0$002fARCHIVES_DIG_DIX:CON69-1-1/one


© MarlowAncestors

Thursday, July 28, 2022

Fight to the Death at The Bear


In its early life The Bear in Chapel Street was known as a "Tom and Jerry shop" or small-scale beer shop. Its landlords always had another job to run along side the beer selling, usually shoe making, a traditional pairing in Marlow and elsewhere. And on top of that a few lodgers were squeezed in too, until The Bear became just as known as a "common lodging house" as a beer seller. It led a quiet life for much of its existence, but in the 1870s that would all change in shocking circumstances. 


In the late 1860s the premises was taken over by the very experienced couple of Charles and Charlotte Hoare, formerly of the Travellers Friend, Dean Street and The Three Horseshoes, Gun Lane (Trinity Road) Charles died shortly afterwards, but the capable Charlotte continued. 


At the time of the 1871 census Charlotte had 9 male lodgers aged between 34 and 67 plus one female one with two children. It's clear from the complaints made about common lodging houses, that the sharing of rooms, and sometimes beds was normal. It would be inevitable in a premises the size of Charlotte's. But to those needing affordable lodgings they were a lifeline.  She managed to attract a number of longer term lodgers which must suggest they were happy with her accomodation  - there was plenty of rivals within Marlow, chiefly in Dean Street. (David Banks mentioned below had been with her 8 years for example)


A little minor trouble affected the Bear in 1872 when the vigilant P C Parsons heard some sounds coming from within at 11.15pm, after last orders should gave been called. He tried the door to the taproom which was unbolted. Within were 4 of Charlotte's lodgers plus a female visitor with an incriminating "cup of beer" on the table next to them. Charlotte was hauled before the magistrates to explain her apparent selling of alcohol after hours. The constable made something of the fact that the other woman present was a Mrs Brewer who was, according to him, a known prostitute. Charlotte was indignant. She said Mrs Brewer was a married mother of two, quite respectable and what's more had merely called in on the subject of some washing she was doing for Charlotte. Perhaps the constable thought it a little late to be making such a errand. No charge was made in relation to harbouring prostitutes in any case. It was the fact a non lodger was on the premises, seemingly drinking alcohol that was the problem. But Charlotte wasn't pleased with that accusation either. She said she had been selling alcohol for 30 years and never had a single complaint been made against her before. She had just lost track of time she said, blaming the fact it was hay making season, and she so had been especially busy (many of her lodgers were agricultural labourer, full time or seasonal). She bought forward one of her neighbours, coal merchant Mr Brown, to speak up for how quiet the Bear usually was and even Inspector Breene agreed it was a well conducted beer house. So she was let off any fine with a mild finger wagging and a reminder to keep a closer eye on the clock in future. 


Two years later things were very different. Quiet as the Bear may seemingly have been, it was a premises where a lodger might pass out drunk on the floor and be left to come to in their own time. This was to have a tragic consequence. 


Two lodgers, George "Topper" Frewin(g) and George Blewitt, had fallen out. Frewing had borrowed tuppence from Blewitt, and the latter thought its return was over due. So late one evening in the tap room, he asked for the money back. Frewin didn't have it, Blewitt wasn't happy and drunkenly suggested he would go and fetch a policeman. Frewin told him to do just that, it would do no good, at which Blewitt lost his temper altogether. He hit the seated Frewin, and a tussle ensued. Frewin was knocked to the floor (possibly hitting a fire place) and on attempting to get up, was kicked back down by Blewitt. He was by this time unconscious with a bloodied face. The reaction of those present, (Charlotte Hoare, two other lodgers, a young couple and the 8 year grandson of Charlotte, Charles Neighbour) suggest such an encounter was not unusual in the tap room. For no one did anything at all for the injured man for half an hour. A female customer coming inside, not known to those present, was concerned at his state and asked Charlotte for a basin of water to wash the blood away from the face of Frewin. She then thought she had made him fairly comfortable. A little later Charlotte shut up and left Frewin lying where he was. The answer everyone gave was they did not think he was really hurt, more drunk than anything, and because he very often slept things off lying on the tap room floor, they thought he may as well stay there. Time and time again the lack of understanding of potential head injuries or the dangers of concussion comes out in similar Marlow tales. 


Lodger David Maxwell Banks, aged about 38, came downstairs at 4am for a glass of water (or so he said later). He heard moans coming from the tap room but was surprised to find Frewin where he had been left. He told him to get up "my dear fellow" and try and get to bed. Poor Frewin could not answer and so..Banks went back to bed himself. Eventually another guest came down and Charlotte was fetched. She now suspected something was wrong and called a doctor but it was too late. Topper died, aged in his early 40's. 


Blewitt was  supposed to be aged 30 and at the time was working as a general labourer. He plead guilty to "feloniously killing or slaying" Frewin. His punishment was 6 months in gaol. In 1875, as a resident of the Wycombe Union workhouse in Saunderton, he was accused of a savage assault upon another resident. This earned him another trip to the assizes and a 14 day prison sentence. 


Frewin was the son of Joseph and Amey of Chapel Street. As a younger man he had lived with his widowed 66 year old mother in the Oxford Lane Almshouses. Later Amy would lodge with the Allum family, also in Oxford Lane at which time she was described as a lacemaker. 


Charlotte Hoare gave up the licence of the Bear later that year. She herself died rather young  - you can read more on that and see her grave here


 Written and researched by Kathryn Day. 


RELATED POSTS:


Life of Charles and Charlotte Hoare at the Three Horseshoes here

Bear landlady Catherine Neighbour nee Sparkes here

List of landlords of The Bear, Black Horse etc here

Link to the Pub Post Index here

Post about Charlotte's son in law Alfred Neighbour, an innkeeper here

More beer sellers than bakers - temperance in Marlow here

Everyday life in old Great Marlow post index including crime related content - here

To find every mention of an individual or family here use the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu. (4,000 names and counting) 


Sources include:

Kelly's Directory Bucks 1847 

Parish Assessment 1833, original notebooks in our possession. 

Duttons Directory 1863. 

Reading Mercury 25 July 1874 ,British Library Archive 

Bucks Advertiser 25 July 1874, 7th January 1878 as above 

Northants Mercury 25 July 1874, as above. 

Bucks Herald 18 July 1874 - thanks to Jane Pullinger for view of this. 

1841,51,61,71,81,  - transcript from microfilm made by Jane Pullinger and Charlotte Day. 



© MarlowAncestors

Sunday, July 24, 2022

Lady Of The Riverside - Catherine Sparkes/Neighbour

  Catherine Spark(e)s was a women who must have wondered whether it wasn't the River Thames running through her veins in place of blood, so strong was her connection to it. Born in 1814 to Thomas and Ann, Catherine's family were involved in the barging business. Uncle William Sparkes was the landlord of the Black Boy inn at Church Passage, although as a bargemaster himself, he was frequently a long time away from home. As was often the case in reality, the everyday business of keeping the place running was down to Catherine's aunt. By the time Catherine was a teenager she was living in the Causeway, very close to the river. Nearby was the Swan Inn, run by another bargemen, George Cresswell. The property leased by young Catherine's family was a fairly valuable one, valued at a higher amount than the Swan, and significantly more than any of the cottages in the streets adjacent. Thomas and Ann were clearly doing well for themselves at this time. 


A few years later, Catherine's parents took over the Barge Pole Inn.  The adjacent Black Boy was also in the Sparkes family for many years. (See the link below for more information on these other family members and landlord listings for all those licensed premises). This was close to the river and associated with bargeman drinking and lodging there, although a close study of records shows the clientele was actually quite mixed. Although those connected to the barge trade had a tough reputation, there are fewer incidents of trouble recorded for the Barge Pole than at other inns not so associated with the trade. It is likely that many of the people the young Catherine associated with were involved with river trades in one form or another. She almost certainly followed the path of most innkeepers daughters and helped her parents run the premises. She also followed that well worn path of growing up to marry someone who was involved in the alcohol trade.


Her spouse was Henry Neighbour whom she married in 1837. I believe they had began to run the waterside Waterman's Arms (aka The Waterman) by 1841. The Neighbour family may well have been there longer. Right on the river front, at a location sometimes known as Limbrooke Wharf, The Waterman was just a few minutes walk from the other Sparks family premises. You could say they had the river side trade quite sewn up! It was a smaller affair, and does not seem to have taken lodgers, at least on a regular basis. Catherine was again most likely to be the one to be found within dealing with the customers, despite Henry's name on the licence. Henry had another job, which he would continue in for decades, that of a cordwainer. Beer or ale retailers who followed one occupation only were very much in the minority in Marlow at this time, and the most common "other" trade to follow was  that of a cordwainer or shoemaker. How the worker gets described depends on the context, often only the most relevant one to the circumstances gets mentioned or just the one that generates the most income. While some "side" businesses were minor in scale, Henry employed assistants. In 1851, a pair of shoes was stolen from him by one of his employees, John Wicks. Perhaps Catherine attended the court session that saw the guilty John sentenced to 4 months hard labour. It was a punishment that took into account the fact John was considered to have committed a particularly serious theft as it was from his employer. The Neighbours  clearly forgave John as he continued to be involved with the family.  John was subsequently convicted of another theft, and with that being his 3rd conviction he was sentenced to 7 years transportation. He was 23. (1852). The last item stolen was a saw taken from Joseph East and taken to Henry and Catherine. They say Wicks claimed it as his own and that he was short of money and so they lent him 6d with the saw as security. 



In 1854 Catherine and Henry moved premises, to The Bear in Chapel Street. It must have felt strange to be living out of ear shot of the river at last, although it was just a few minutes walk away. The Bear was a fairly small concern as regards the selling of alcohol but it also acted as a common lodging house. The Bear lodgers tended to single men working as general or agricultural labourers.   Records of trouble on the actual premises itself were virtually absent. A fight to the death in the tap room lay in the future and occured under another proprietor. (Details in post here) It's fair to say The Bear was not the most luxurious place to stay in Marlow but it was quite peaceful relatively speaking during the time  Catherine and Henry were in charge. The number of lodgers increased afterwards and some of those staying there became associated with petty crime.  There was one incident that did see the couple appear in court as a witness however. 


In 1855 John Simson of Marlow had been in the Bear drinking heavily. Some of the drinkers had (while fairly inebriated themselves) decided to play a practical joke on John and blacken his face with soot. He was apparently in no state to resist and they then attempted to paint his face with tar, but Catherine intervened and took the tar away. Catherine herself would later deny ever even seeing the tar however. Things took a more serious turn when John then went missing and some of those in the Bear on the last night he was seen alive were found to be in possession of his coat, a handkerchief and an umbrella. Three weeks later John's body was found in the river near Marlow Mills. Further investigation did however reveal that John had been seen alive by several people the morning following his Bear drinking session, when he was unsuccessfully enquiring for work in the fields. It was also revealed that he was subject to epileptic seizures, especially when he'd been drinking heavily, and there were no marks of violence on his person. Those who'd been found in possession of John's coat etc said they given him money for them on the understanding he could buy them back at the same price in a few days. A sort of unofficial pawnbroking service. Henry Neighbour was the one who'd had the umbrella and a handkerchief from John but he said he'd been drinking through the two days before as it was Marlow Fair and he couldn't recall that much about it all. This caused Henry to be censured heavily by the JP who also felt both he and Catherine had prevaricated in their evidence. They were told they were lucky not to be pursued on a charge of perjury. Henry was obviously not in much of a state to police his taproom, and Catherine seems to have been busy elsewhere in the premises during the sooting. No doubt she subsequently wished to play down the raucous behaviour on the premises rather than admit she had  harboured a group of badly behaved drunks. 


Henry and Catherine remained at The Bear until at least 1863. Henry had continued to work as a cordwainer after his move here. There is a possibility they moved back to the Church Passage area (or nearby) the following year, with the couple retailing beer from an unknown premises but this requires more investigation. (To rule out other members of the Neighbour family, a number of whom had similar roles). What is sadly certain is that Catherine died when she was only 55 years old. Henry had a long widowhood. By the time of the 1881 census the 67 year old was an inmate in the Union Workhouse at Saunderton. When the census enumerator came by 10 years later, Henry was still there. Despite working at two occupations, the poor man could not support himself in his old age. 


Researched and written by Kathryn Day. 


Related Posts:

The Sparkes Family of The Bargepole etc here

Fight to death at The Bear here

List of landlords of the Black Boy/Waterman's/ Bargepole here

A tribute to our bargemen here

All mentions of a family or individual can be found in the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu. (4,000 + names and counting)

Index for other inn/beer seller etc  related posts: here

100+ Marlow Pubs/Ale Houses/Inns etc list here

General posts about everyday life in Catherine's Marlow here

 

Sources:

Parish Assessment 1833, original notebooks belonging to our family. 

Census 1841,51,61,71,81 - transcripts from microfilm made by Charlotte Day and Jane Pullinger. 

Slaters Commercial Directory 1852 

Dutton, Allen & Co Directory 1863. 

Robson's Directory 1839

Bucks Herald 05 July 1851.

Windsor and Eton Express 1 December 1855, Slough Borough Libraries. 

Petty Session records transcript by Nick & Jane Pullinger -1987, with thanks. 



© MarlowAncestors.



Saturday, July 16, 2022

Head Gardener at Court Garden - William Neighbour

If you have Neighbour from Bucks or elsewhere in your family tree, you ought to be very green fingered. A large number of them worked as gardeners both domestic and market. The subject of our list today is Marlow's William Neighbour, head gardener at both Court Garden and Harleyford (Medmenham) in the 1860s and early 1870s. 


There were more than one William Neighbour in Marlow at the time. The subject of our post is William, born 1834, the son of John Neighbour the gardener living at Potlands/West Street. William is the brother of Alfred Edmund Neighbour, inn keeper who featured in a post here .


Young William (and at least three of his brothers) would follow in his father's footsteps. He grew up in an area of Marlow populated by domestic and market gardeners and their staff. His dad worked for a time as the head gardener of the nearby Remnantz estate in West Street, which occupied around 12 acres including a meadow. Young boys wanting to start in the trade usually did so by the age of 14, if not before. It's possible that William had a position under his father at Remnantz but it seems more usual for the sons of head gardeners (or garden foreman as they were sometimes known) to get their basic training in a different garden. It was an era where the heads of a large team did not need to get their hands quite literally dirty but the most junior member "the boy" most certainly did. Washing out the clay plant pots between uses, filling the water "pots" (water cans), damping down the glass house floors, and the endless sifting and mixing of compost to strict recipes were a few of their tasks. Although some gardeners moved up into a higher position within the team on the estate they started out on, most seem to move on when they are ready for a new level of responsibility. In his leisure hours we know that William the boy liked to go "bird nesting" around Bovingdon Green and Chisbridge. This means collecting birds eggs and nests, then a common hobby and a legal one at the time. We know this as William happened to mention it when describing his familiarity with certain Clayton owned areas of land during an 1885 court case relating to the removal of hedging and fences in which he was purely a witness. You never know from which unlikely  source the personal nuggets about an old Marlovian may come! 


Wherever William started out, by the time he was 27 he was working as a gardener at Court Garden in Marlow. The grounds of this are now Higginson Park and Court Garden Leisure centre.  He may or may not have assumed the head position straight away, but he certainly had this role by 1863. He was accompanied by wife Emma and their little daughter. William's employer Frederick William Berger was at this time president of the Great Marlow Horticultural Society - an organisation that has had many incarnations. As such the 1864 Horticultural Society show was held within the then private riverside grounds of Court Garden. Berger opened up his gardens as a whole to the curious (or at least those able to pay the entry fee!) Did host gardener William enter any of the classes? Absolutely, and he came away with a few prizes too. 






Berger seemed to spare no expense with his garden. His pride and joy was the  magnificent 75ft long "orchard house" and it was William that was credited with making it a horticultural marvel within the trade. An orchard house is a glass house that is designed to house fruit trees, usually dwarf cultivars. The climate can be more carefully managed, as can pests in an enclosed environment. This allowed the trees to produce fruit earlier in the season safe from the damage frost might bring to their blossoms, and ripen earlier too. Berger was the one to erect the building at Court Garden, to his own design. Sadly no trace of it remains. 13 ft high at the apex, and 30 foot wide, it housed 144 dwarf trees - mainly apples, peaches, nectarines, apricots, cherries and plums - plus traditional greenhouse borders used to grow things such as lettuce and other "saladings". The trees were planted in 13-16" pots to restrict their roots and therefore their growth. This mean they were technically always under stress and needed very careful feeding and watering. William developed this system to a fine art and managed to get the sort of crops expected from full size trees from his dwarf ones. Not to mention some pretty impressive fruit - apples 1lb in weight for example. The downside was that William said the orchard house took at least an hour to water every morning and in the summer would need top up watering. And the gardeners still had the other greenhouses to attend too! Nevertheless William's fruit growing skill meant that representatives of the national horticultural societies and journals (there was a LOT of Victorian garden newspapers) came to see the orchard house and the "very intelligent" Mr Neighbour.  He also experimented with growing miniature versions of cabbages and cauliflowers. And flowers were not neglected. William bagged prizes for petunias, roses and asters locally to name but a few. . 


The market for celebrated head gardeners was a competitive one and he was poached by the nearby Sir William Clayton of Harleyford in 1866. The Harleyford estate was a step up in size compared to Court Garden. Clayton was also interested in his new head gardener entering and winning horticultural shows both local and in London. But he was also interested in technology and so around the time William arrived, a telegraph system was installed around the estate. This allowed Clayton to communicate with his gardeners, the coach man, lodge keepers and gamekeeper from his study. There were 6 circuits in all, with three miles of underground copper wires "laid by plow". An extension to the system was described as imminent in 1867. William was also responsible for maintaining the hedges and the management of trees at Harleyford. As the foreman of the garden team, he had a lot of responsibility. He still found time to exhibit at the Royal Botanic garden in 1872 where his azaleas were regarded as the star attraction bar none. 


William remained at Harleyford until 1874. I have not traced him to another garden at this point. But by 1881 he had moved out of our area to set up as a market gardener at Grange House, Top Locks, Southall. (1891 Norwood, 1901 Manor Farm, Southall) It was a common path for gardens to take moving from domestic service to running their own market garden, nursery or seed merchants. There were other Neighbours working in similar fields in the general area and it was a location full of market gardens and nursery grounds. At the time of the 1891 census, the half brother of William, 25 year old John is staying there. Occupation? Market gardener's assistant of course! 


There is a sadder end to Williams usual tale of success. In 1906 the Ealing Gazette and other papers carried adverts for an auction of all of his commercial equipment plus household effects due to the fact William was "in distress of  rent" and had other debts. They really did sell off everything from the carpets and kitchen utensils to the night commodes and bed linen. The commercial part included two market carts, a manure cart, a cob, a number of rabbits, and the crops from 12 acres of orchard as well as some vegetables and flowers, mainly carnations. The following year William died. I am sure his passing was mourned by many lovers of fine fruit and flowers. 


Related posts:

People of Potland's - about the area of Marlow William grew up in and his dad John: here

Where your gardener ancestor worked: here

Scandal involving a previous gardener at Court Garden: here

General posts about every day life in old Great Marlow: here

To find every mention of an individual or family here see the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu. It currently lists 4,300+ individuals about whom we have some info on the blog. 



Researched and written by Kathryn Day. 

Sources include:
Census 1841,51,61,81 - transcript from the microfilm by Charlotte Day and Jane Pullinger. 

The Floriculturalists Cabinet And Florists Magazine Volume 5 1863 (Whitaker and Company 1863)

Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener - Article by George W Johnson FRHS and Robert Hogg LLD  27 September 1864, digitised by Google. 

England and Wales Census, 1891," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QD7K-VMM : 22 February 2021), William Neighton, Norwood, Middlesex, England, United Kingdom; from "1891 England, Scotland and Wales census," database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO RG 12, Middlesex county, subdistrict, The National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.

Uxbridge and West Drayton Gazette 14 July 1906, copy from the British Library archives and accessed via the BNA partnership. 

Berkshire Chronicle 19 May 1866
Bucks Herald  17 September 1864, as above

Ealing Gazette 14 July 1906 - thanks to Paul Martin for this. 

Gardeners Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette, May 25 1872, digitised by Google. 

 Journal of Horticulture and Practical Gardening, Volume 22
Published 1872
Original from Cornell University
Digitized by Google 29 Oct 2009. 

© MarlowAncestors






Saturday, May 14, 2022

Alfred Neighbour - Innkeeper And Duck Wrestler

 This post is a summary of the life of Alfred Edmund Neighbour, landlord of the Red Lion in Marlow, and the Dog & Badger inn at Medmenham. 


Gardening in the blood

Alfred was born in 1840 to 34 year old gardener John who was in charge of the gardens of Remnantz in the 1850s. The family lived for decades in "Potlands" or the Portland's area off West Street - for more about this time see the People Of Potland's post here Alfred's older brother William would grow up to be the celebrated head gardener at Court Garden and later Harleyford (read more here), while 3 other brothers Edward, John and Edwin also spent at least some time working as gardeners too. The kitchen gardens of Remnantz could be accessed from Portland's Alley as well as from West Street. It's possible the younger brothers may also have spent some time working at Remnantz in their junior roles. I believe Alfred's mother Hannah Maria died shortly after his birth. 


Young Alfred however took another path and came to work on the railways. By 1861 he was at Leatherhead in Surrey* working as a railway guard, a responsible position for a young man. Like many youthful railway workers who were unmarried, he lodged with another family, in this case the Walkers at the Plough Inn. By the time of his first marriage in 1864, he had been promoted to a railway inspector (that is of safety rather than tickets). 


His bride was Marlow's Hannah Elizabeth Hoare, daughter of beer sellers and lodging house keepers Charles and Charlotte. Hannah grew up in Gun Lane (now Trinity Rd) where her parents kept the small but respectable The Three Horseshoes. They always had lodgers, as beer sellers often did, so conditions were cramped. Later the Hoares moved to run the rather less salubrious by reputation Travellers Friend in Dean Street. This functioned more as a common lodging house than a beer seller by this time but it was licensed. Sometimes as many as 16 mostly young single men were slotted in with the family - no one expected their own room. Finally the Hoares would run the The Bear in Chapel Street, again a licensed premises that functioned chiefly as a lodging house, and not a very spacious one given the sometimes high number of residents. 


At The Red Lion

A couple of years after their marriage, Alfred and Hannah were back in Marlow. Hannah would find herself yet again serving beer as the couple decided to take over the Red Lion in West Street. This was just next to the Neighbours original Potland's home. The Red Lion did have the odd longer term lodger and regular overnight paying guests but it  was definitely a few steps up from the "common lodging houses". The Neighbours time there was relatively peaceful although Alfred went through that Marlow rite of passage of recieving a summons for allowing illegal gambling on the premises. (1867) This was related to the playing of card games there.  Alfred was caught by a plain clothes constable who found several games ongoing in the back room, with Alfred frequently present. Alfred argued that he was new to the publican business and he had observed other licensees allowing card games so he thought there was no harm in it. He would however promise to abide by the terms of his licence in future. The court was fairly sympathetic and issued a low fine. Perhaps they did not realise his wife had been bought up in the trade and probably knew the regulations very well! 


Sadly Hannah passed away when her youngest son Edward (b.1870) was just an infant. Soon afterwards, Alfred gave up the licence, and we loose sight of him for a couple of years. By 1877, however Alfred was in Medmenham and preparing to marry again..to another publicans daughter. 


The Dog & Badger

Emma Sawyer grew up in Medmenham with parents James and Mary, innkeepers at the historic roadside Dog and Badger inn. By age 14 she was helping her parents as a bar maid, no labour restrictions relating to the employment of minors selling alcohol were yet in place! It was the tradition role for young unmarried publicans daughters, and good training - there is a reason a very high number go on to marry into other innkeeping families. When Emma and Alfred took over the Dog & Badger in turn from Emma's widowed mother, they would describe their 14 year old son/ step son Charles as their ostler and and 13 year old Hannah as a bar maid in turn. (1881). Alfred's son Edward age 11 was still obliged to go to school but he did not escape beer selling entirely. The adult Edward would (after a stint as a carpenter) be a beer dealer and grocer at Neighbours Stores in Quoiting Square with wife Catherine nee White. 


Enter the duck

Things were not always peaceful for Alfred and Emma. In 1879 Alfred got into a tussle with a customer that landed him in court. It was the day of Marlow October Fair, and so there was a lot of traffic passing between Henley and Marlow. It was therefore a busy day for Henry too, in his position on the roadside between the two. Henley licensed victualler Joseph Ball was amongst those stopping by on both the way in and out.  Shortly after Joseph and two friends arrived, Alfred encountered them and showed them a (dead) duck in his possession. (It seems Alfred thought it a good example, and drew their attention to it) Joseph took hold of the bird and made an offer to buy it that was presumably cheekily low. Alfred contended the encounter was a jocular one and he thought they were joking so laugh over he reached to retrieve the bird. But Joseph said he had made a bargain and would insist Alfred kept to it and so refused to hand the duck back. Some arguments went on for 5-10 mins, including a tug of war involving the thankfully dead animal. Alfred then lost what was left of his temper and threatened to hit Joseph if he didn't hand back the duck. Shortly afterwards he followed through with this, making several blows and drawing blood. There were plenty of witnesses and it was admitted Joseph had had quite a bit to drink. The court found Alfred guilty but expressed regret that they felt obliged to do so as they felt he had been much provoked. They set his fine as low as possible and relieved him of the obligation to pay some of the costs. Whether the duck was left in a fit state to be of use to either is unrecorded! 


Afterwards

In the early 1880s the Neighbours decided to leave the Dog & Badger. Many people were not landlords for long and a great number of past Marlow people with diverse backgrounds can include a stint as a beer seller in their history. They lasted longer than many. They did have one last attempt to take on another premises, that of the troubled Chairmakers Arms in Dean Street in 1884 but their application was refused. The authorities were sick of trouble at the Chairmakers and a constantly changing set of landlords and would not consider someone with any kind of question mark against them. For the Neighbours it was the fact they had been operating the premises in practice for a short time without a licence while someone else was technically in charge. You can read about that here

The couple moved out of our area to London where Alfred would remain for the last 15 years or so of his life. He is described as a engineers labourer on the 1891 census. Half brother Edwin was not too far away, working as a gardener in Hanwell. There appears to a number of more distant Neighbour relatives in the general area which may have provided a different incentive to move there. He died in 1907. 

Written and researched by Kathryn Day with extra research by Charlotte Day. 


RELATED POSTS:

Pub index where you will find proprietor listings for the pubs and lodging houses mentioned above: here

Other posts related to Medmenham: here

To find every mention of an individual here, use the A-Z Person Index in the top drop down - 4,000 individuals are currently listed. 

The Allams - details of Hannah Hoares sister Sarah, who married into the Allam fish monger family, as well as information on the sad death of mum Charlotte  - here

Every day life in old Marlow : here

Biography of individuals index here


 * Trip points for researchers:

Some online research databases have misread the birthplace of Alfred on the 1861 census as "St Marleybone", Bucks which does not exist. It actually reads Great Marlow but that's old handwriting for you! Always best to check several sources if you can. Beware too of the similar aged ALBERT  Edmund Neighbour which again some sites (and only some) have accidentally listed as ALFRED, born Beaconsfield. There were many Neighbours there but our Alfred was born in Great Marlow. Both married Lambeth, but different years. The Hoares other daughter Sarah Tilleard also married at Lambeth. 

 The Neighbour families of Bucks /Oxfordshire/ Surrey include people who work in the kind of trades that mean frequent moves further afield such as domestic and market gardening, railway workers, publicans and soldiers.  It is therefore best to cast the net widely when looking for them. 


Posts on gardener William Neighbour, Waterman Arms landlord Henry Neighbour and wife Catherine, and tollgate keeper and convict William Neighbour are available by searching this index here


SOURCES INCLUDE:

Census 1841 -1891 transcripts from the originals microfilm by Charlotte and Jane Pullinger.  

Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener -  Article by George W Johnson FRHS and Robert Hogg LLD, September 1864

South Bucks Free Press 9 March 1867, from the British Library Archive via the BNA

Bucks Herald 7 November 1867. 

Reading Mercury 09 March 1867

The Horticultural Domestic Journal collected, 1870-1880. (1881)

Landlord listing research for the Dog and Badger by Charlotte. 






© MarlowAncestors












PHOTO ID ANYONE?

 Can anyone help a fellow family history researcher Linda identify where this staff photo may have been taken in Marlow? Underneath are some...