Author: secretary

A gang of three shopliftering three sisters operated in Stamford on market days. There were many such gangs in London the victorian era. The fashion for long, voluminous skirts and cloaks made for easy concealment.

“Shocking cases of shop-lifting by three sisters, daughters of a man at Edithweston, and all married women, were investigated at the Town-hall in Stamford on Monday and Tuesday last, as noticed in another column of our paper. It seemed that the three women, residing in parishes several miles apart, have long been in the habit of meeting at Stamford on market days, and, dressed in large cloaks, going together to drapers’ shops, and stealing whatever articles they could secrete amongst them. They were all three in the shop of Mr. Knight in the afternoon of Friday, last, when one of them, named Webber, of Baston, was detected in stealing a roll of cotton print; and other stolen goods (as well belonging to Mr. Knight, as to Mr. Brown, draper) were found upon her. Her two sisters (Woods, or Collyweston, and Broughton, of Edithweston) escaped from the shop before the relationship was known, but joining Webber afterwards when she was in custody at the station-house, sufficient passed between them to authorise their detention also, and warrants were granted to search the houses of their husbands. At Baston and at Edithweston an immense quantity of drapery goods of all descriptions were found concealed under beds and in boxes. Woods, being far advanced in pregnancy, was allowed to go home on Friday evening before the search-warrant was executed at Collyweston, and nothing was afterwards found there; but from confession since made, in which each sister charges the others, it seems that all three were in the habit of partaking of the plunder, which in one instance consisted of a whole piece of linen cloth, containing 68 yards and weighing more more than 30 lbs! this they stole from the door of Mr. Brown, in the High-street, in the middle of a Friday. The practice was, after stealing goods, to go together to a public convenience under the market portico, and there to make a dividion of them, each sister taking a share, or selecting articles of most use to her. – The scene at the Town-hall on Tuesday night, when the women ascertained that each had separetly made a confession implicating the others, can hardly be conceived. Each attributed to the ill counsel of her sisters her own criminality, and one laid her melancholy situation to the want of care of her education and habits of a dissolute father! They were all committed to gaol, for trial at the quarter sessions in April. – Besides drapery goods, stolen shoes, ironmongery, and other articles were found on executing the search-warrants.”

The Stamford Mercury, 23rd February, 1838.

The trial of the three sisters was later reported and also another woman who stole from her employer.

“All the four women tried at Stamford sessions on Saturday last were sentenced to transportation. The three shop-lifting sisters, from Baston, Collyweston, and Edith Weston, were all married women, and one of them has a family of six children: there were 17 indictments against them. – Against Frances Elsom, for robbery at Mr. Lumby’s in St., Martin’s, where she lived as servant, there were four indictments: the plunder she has committed is supposed to be the extent of more that a thousand pounds! about half of which has been recovered by the representatives of Mrs. Holman. On the day before her trial, Elsom made an assignemnt of her property to a person at Stretton, in Rutland, on whgose premises some of the stolen articles were found secreted, when the chief-constable of Stamfor executed a search-warrant on Friday afternoon. The most melancholy proof arising from this trial is, of the facility with which the convict found persons to purchase and to conceal stolen property of all kinds.”

The Stamford Mercury, 13th April, 1838.

A child, abandoned in mysterious circumstances was, sadly, placed in the workhouse, despite having all the appearances of being well cared for.

“Rather Mysterious. – About three weeks back, a respectably-dressed female, having an infant child, who had been staying two days in March, was about to leave by the Wisbech mail at 6 o’clock on the Monday morning. As she was proceeding to the coach-office she met a woman going to her work, whom she requested to carry the infant and a small basket, and say the lady would be there in a few minutes. The woman, on arriving at Mr. Wiles’s residence, gave them to Miss Barket, who with her monther also resided in the house, and who has since been married to Mr. Wiles: she declined receiving the infant, and would not allow it to be taken into the house. The poor woman, therefore, not knowing what to do, and being compelled to attend to her work, left the infant outside Miss Barker’s door, where it lay smiling at the passers-by nearly an hour, until at last some of the neighbours took charge of it: it appeared to be about six months old, and was very healthy, clean, and handsomely dressed; the basket containing various changes of clothes, made in the best manner. After remaining with these good samaritans some days, and no tidings being heard of the unnatural parents, the poor infant was removed to the Union-house at Doddington, where its fine clothes were exchanged for the workhouse dress. It is needless to say that the supposed mother did not make her appearance, nor has she since been heard of – thought rumour, which is very busy in this case, fixes her residence near Stamford. Several humane persons in March would willingly have taken charge of the child, but the Magistrates advised it being taken to the Union, in order that, being chargeable to the parish, proceedings might be taken against the parents should they be discovered, as it is hoped the will be.”

The Stamford Mercury, 4th October, 1839.

As we mourn our own dear Queen Elizabeth II, we found this interesting piece about how the French mark the passing of their monarchs. The piece was published in 1837, just after Queen Victoria’s accession, so such things were of interest to the public. Presumably, if the clock exists today (somewhere?) it still marks the moment of death of Louis XVIII.

“In the courtyard of the Palace of Versailles is a clock with one hand, called l’Horologe de la mort du Roi. It contains no works, but consists merely of a face,in the form of a sun, surrounded by rays. On the death of a King the hand is set to the moment of his demise, and remains unaltered till his successor has rejoined him in the frave. The custom originated under Louis the Thurteenth, and continued till the Revolution. It was revived on the death of Louis the Eighteenth, and the hand still continues fixed on the precise moment of that Monarch’s death.”

The Stamford Mercury, 8th December, 1837.

The villagers of Caistor were keen to witness the marriage of an elderly shoemaker to his housekeeper, the difference in their ages being 63 years! The couple, however, conspired to avoid the public and marry in secret.

“The quizzical portion of the inhabitants of Caistor have been during the past month considerably amused with the publication of the ‘bans of marriage‘ between Mr. Thomas Tomlinson, and eccentric ‘English gentleman of the olden times,’ aged 85! (formerly an eminent shoemaker – celebrated in his youthful day for ‘Tally O! the hounds, Sir,’ and throughout his protracted life for possessing ‘a light heart and a thin pair of breeches,’) to Elizabeth Jackson, his buxom housekeeper, a spinster, aged 22! No impediment was declared during three succeeding sabbaths ‘why these two persons should not be joined together his holy matrimony.’ Many great lords of the creation, – matrons, ‘looking unutterable things,’ – simpering misses, – and ready-made ‘fools thick as blackberries,’ for miles around, eager to witness the making of the amorous couple one, became impatient of the happy event’s taking place; and it was slily consummated early last Sunday morning, through the sheer tact of the gay Lothario: the Rev. G. Watson tied the silken bands without clamour, according to request. The candidates for matrimony toddled to and from church in a zig-zag direction, and separately in both cases: they arrived at the temple unobserved, and the veteran then and there, quickly, for the third time, ‘plighted his troth,’ and endowed his lady with all his worldly goods. On their return from church, the bride, accompanied by a ‘brother chip,’ (who had kindly given ‘this woman to be married to this man,’ in the regretted absence of the groom’s godfather!) was assailed with the queerest gibes and jokes ever heard at Caistor, compelled both to take shelter in the house of a relation, and they were ultimately escorted home by the Caistor rural police! By the bye, the son of St. Crispin, unconscious of what had fallen upon his newly-made rib, not like Jacob of old, ‘leaning on his staff,’ but contrariwise wielding it as he waxed warm at his numerous mockers, ever and anon laid about him, but found that in doing so he only increased their mirth: he therefore wisely imitated the stern indifference of a philosopher, and quietly marching away, arrived at his castle to breakfast. – Great anxiety was expressed by many to know how the happy pair were next morning’ and we are happy to state that the answer to the numerous enquiries was that both were as well as could be expected.”

The Stamford Mercury, 1st February, 1839.

Following a report in a previous issue of the newspaper, the clergyman accused of assaulting a lady in his house seeks to put the record straight.

“To the EDITOR of the Mercury.

Sir, – I have noticed a paragraph in your paper of last week (headed ‘Clerical Faux-pas‘) respecting an unfortunate event between Miss Nevitt and myself, wherein wilful misrepresentation, very prejudicial to my character, are stated, which renders it my duty to request that you will be candid enough to give publicity to the following simple and succinct facts of the case. In making my comments, I shall adhere closely to the misstatements as they have appeared: and in the outset positively assert that Miss Nevitt did not come to my house that evening by any express invitation; nay, indeed, she was not even expected. – The Magistrate, it is intimated, to whom the complaint was first made, refused to take cognizance of it: that is utterly false. After hearing both sides of the matter, he told Miss N. she had better separate, and think no more of it: this good advice would have been acted upon, had it not been for an officious person, ‘of better feeling,’ it is true, than judgement – late a Minister, but now properly deprived of his preferment and cure, and who therefore cannot find other an better employment than to meddle and amuse himself with what does not at all concern him. – It is further stated that Mr. Bourne entered the court with a ‘handful of letters;’ whereas I communicated only once with Miss N., and then by her earnest solicitation. This said solicitor certainly did his part ‘very ably,’ as far as exaggeration went and in deviating strangely from the truth, even magnifying in a manner a look into an assault. – The next point is the unreasonable intrusion, and the disturbance she created during the time my family were assembled for prayers: when mildly asked whether she intended to join in our devotions, her reply was, ‘No : human nature will not permit me, not shall I quite the house till paid what is due to me.’ This led to other subjects; and when accused, not without reasonable cause, of being marked and avoided as a busy-body and mischief-maker, she became very furious and noisy; and not accustomed to such contentions and strife, I begged of her repeatedly to desist, – if not, I should be under the necessity of putting her out of the house. This threat made her more violent still, and in the course of which, her provocations being very great, I gave her, in an unguarded moment, a slight tap on the mouth, which was then covered with eruptions, and turned her out. At the same moment, and before the door was closed, I placed the clothes she required into her hands. However, it is alleged that she returned again and was abused, which is an abominable falsehood – she let the premises immediately, nor was a single stitch in her old tattered garment disarranged. – I have every reason to believe, and undoubtedly it will be evident to unbiased minds, that she came to my house on the said evening with a premeditated determination to disturb the peace and quietness of my family: at all event, her unbecoming behaviour will hear me out in this impression; and the only lame pretext assigned for her unseemly conduct is, her ‘being unfortunately dull of hearing’ – she never showed any objection to such a privilege when an inmate of the house, and had her heart been in the cause then, no interruption of unpleasantness would have occurred. – Again, it is insinuated that I invited her to my house out of charity, and afterwards charged nearly 4l. for her board: no agreement was alluded to in my letter, because Miss N. knew very well, and she cannot deny it, that an engagement was made with Mrs. H. some months previously to her being admitted into my house, that she should pay the very inadequate sum of 20l. a year; and under that express understanding, I of course took payment for the few weeks she had been under my roof, but out of compassion gave her six months’ board prior to this arrangement : and now the public may form an opinion of the suitable return for this kindness. – I would only further observe, that Miss N. left my house to reside with the Rev. Mr. Fisher some six weeks to this frivolous affair having taken place, and had only arrived at the most a quarter of an hour before she was sent back again.

I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, J. HOYLE.”

The Stamford Mercury, 11th May, 1838.

An outrageous assault by a man of the cloth was the result of a lady’s failure to kneel for family prayers. But there is more . . .

“CLERICAL FAUX-PAS, or a Congregation in Danger. – On Tuesday last a rather curious case of assault was brought before the magistrates sitting at Alford. The complainant was Miss Knevet, from the neighbourhood of Grantham, a very respectable lady of good family, who had for a number of years visited in the neighbourhood – amongst others, in the family of the Rev. Jas. Hoyle, and she was there on good Friday last, on a most pressing invitation, as appeared by a letter from both Mr. and Mrs. Hoyle which was read in court. The outrageous assault had been previously complained of before a clerical magistrate, who, it was understood had refused to take cognizance of it: this created intense anxiety, and a clergyman of better feeling took up the matter in Miss Knevet’s behalf. On Mr. Bourne, the solicitor, entering the court (with a handful of letters and papers), it became crowded to excess, and that gentleman in a very able and feeling manner opened the case buy reading Mr. and Mrs. Hoyle’s letter of invitation, couched in language of the finest case, which amused the audience exceedingly. the magistrates, our of good feeling for the cloth, wished to dispense with any more of the letters, to the no small disappointment of most persons present. It appeared that the Rev. Gentleman’s piety outran his meekness! and that on Friday evening, when at family prayer, Miss Knevet did not kneel on the hard floor, but rested her head upon her hand on the table, which his Reverence did not consider due respect to him, and some sharp remonstrance being given, but not distinctly heard by Miss K. (who is unfortunately dull of hearing), his Reverence gave her a violent blow on the head, which broke off her ear-ring and caused her mouth to bleed. Not satisfied with this, he insisted on turning her out of doors; which brought out an expressing that accounts for many a bad feeling, – ‘Not till you pay me what you own me!’ However, he forced her out of doors about 9 o’clock at night, without bonnet, cape, or the like. After having been away for some time, she returned to ask again for them. The ruffian again abused her, and tore her dress in ejecting her from the premises. So ungovernable, indeed, appears to be the temper of this spiritual teacher, that it was with some difficulty the Magistrates could restrain him from the most indecent language in court, though they repeatedly insisted on his silence, and they as repeatedly expressed their thorough conviction that not the slightest imputation could possible be attached to Miss Knevet. The Rec. Gentleman rested his defence entirely on his right to command reverence and respect from his congregation, for such he considered it, there being three or more persons present at prayer. He contended that he had invited the complainant to his house out of charity, and that her want of respect was the height of ingratitude: but Mr. Bourne made it appear that in settling the ‘what you owe me’ question, his reverence had made a stoppage of nearly 4l. for board, as confirmation of the charitable intention of the invitation! The Magistrates (T. W. Yorke and Jos. Hunt, Esqs), after the most patient hearing of the defence and the utmost forbearance (against the insolence shown to them), with great pains prevailed on the parties to retire and arrange the matter.”

The Stamford Mercury, 4th May, 1838.

Many important clergy were present as the Bishop of Lincoln consecrated the reconstructed St. Michael’s church. Unfortunately, the local gentry had another engagement – the Newmarket races!

“The Bishop of Lincoln slept on Tuesday night at the house of the Rev. Dr. Bonney, at King’s Cliffe, and on Wednesday morning came to Stamford to perform the interesting ceremony of consecrating and opening the new church of St. Michael. This event passed off in the most effective and happy way. The weather was fine, and the town was filled with company, including about 70 of the clergy of the neighbourhood, accompanied in many instances by their families. The peculiar service of the occasion was performed at the altar by the Bishop, supported by the Rev. T. K. Bonney, Archdeacon of Leicester; and the Rev. Dr. Bonney, Archdeacon of Bedford and Rural Dean of Stamford, finely read the usual morning service of the church. The choir was found to have been most effectively trained by Mr. Woolman; the performances in this department afforded the highest gratification: indeed nothing could exceed the fine effect of the choruses, and of the musical execution generally; the whole was the result of native talent only. The organ (the old one restored), though of small power, was admirably played by Mr. Woolman.

The Bishop preached the sermon, taking his text from Haggal, ‘The glory of this house shall exceed the glory of the former.’ His lordship adverted to the antiquity and acknowledged acceptableness of such temples for the worship of Almighty God, and attributed to the want of them in sufficient number, or to the want of buildings of sufficient capacity for the population, the secession from the Established Church which had so extensively prevailed. He eulogised the distinguished Prelate by whom the attention of the Legislature had been first called to this evil, and by whom that ‘Incorporated Society’ had been suggested, from which on the present occasion had flowed so liberal a contribution towards rebuilding this church in Stamford. The Bishop urged his hearers to aid the committee by whom the beautiful edifice had been completed for public worship, in liquidating the debt incurred in the good work; – and so effective was the appeal, and so powerful the effect produced by this first opening of the church, that the sum of 171l. 4s. 1d. was collected during the performance of the Hallelujah chorus at the close of the service. The Bishop himself gave 10l., and expressed to the Churchwardens his entire approbation of the way in which every thing had been done.

A party of 120 ladies and gentlemen afterwards partook of a splendid déjeûné provided by Mr. Sandwell at the Hotel. Three tables were set out in the large room: at the principal one, the Bishop of Lincoln presided; and at the others, the Archdeacons of Bedford and Leicester. The health of Mr. Brown, of Norwich, the architect of the church, was proposed and drank with every demonstration of respect. Mr. Brown, in acknowledging the compliment, stated that he was more in his element in building a church than in making a speech; to which it was replied that he had constructed a church which would speak for itself. Every person acknowledged that the edifice was one in which the architect and builders might feel a just pride, with reference as well to its beauty and convenience, as to the singular cheapness with which so admirable a structure had been raised. The cost has been about 4000l.: we have before had occasion to remark, that persons who have a right to be considered judges in such matters, have supposed, on looking at the building, that it must have cost half as much more. – The amount of subscriptions is yet deficient about 200l. to cover the total expenses – a sum which we have no doubt will speedily be contributed. Services will take place on Sunday next in the morning an evening, when sermons will be preached by the Rev. Joseph Pratt, of Paston, and the Rev. Ed. Kelly, of Melton Mowbray.

This being a race-week at Newmarket, the Marquis of Exeter and his family were not able to attend the consecration of the new church in Stamford.”

The Stamford Mercury, 21st October, 1836.

The Asiatic Cholera epidemic of 1831 – 32 began in north east England and spread widely throughout Britain. As today, there was much misinformation and scaremongering in the newspapers. It was not until the outbreak of Cholera in Soho in 1854 that John Snow discovered that the disease was water-borne. But why did all the sockists of Beaufoy’s have so many names?!

“BEAUFOY’s CONCENTRATED DISINFECTING SOLUTIONS of the CHLORIDE of SODA and of LIME. Prepared of uniform strength, according to the formula of M. Labarraque of Paris.

BEAUFOY and Co. of South Lambeth, London, feel it their duty to caution the public against the danger of using Chlorides of uncertain and variable strengths and qualities. – The safe and ample directions for using Beaufoy’s Chlorides are not applicable to any other preparation, unless precisely similar to those made in their Laboratory. – The public safety demands a public declaration that these Directions have been copied, and are affixed by the Venders to Chlorides quite different in every essential particular from Beaufoy’s preparations. Beaufoy’s genuine preparations according to Labarraque’s formula, are easily distinguished by their peculiar label upon the wrapper, which should be examined to see that it has not been opeded.

Sold by Mills and Newzam, Handson, Mortlock, and White, Stamford; Nettleship, Keyworth, and Smith, Lincoln; Smith, Harwood, Caparn, Bean, Dawson, Briggs, Noble, Thomas and Clarke, Boston; Caparn, Morley, Holdsworwth, an Harrison, Horncastle; Creasey, Heckington; Groves, and Simpson, Sleaford; Casswell, Falkingham; Westmorland, Billingborough; Stableforth, Pinchbeck; Digby, Watson, Boor, Pigott, and Gilbert, Spalding; Artindate, Coningsby; Tupholme, and Rainey, Spilsby; Robinson, Alford; Abraham, Wainfleet; Cowham, and Peach, Grantham; Strawson, Hurst, Sutton, and Johnson, Louth; Burnham, and Skelton, Grimsby; Gamble, and Lester and Borkett, Gainsborough; Hope, Uppingham; Silver, Oakham; Tuxford, Melton; Marfleet, Crowland; H. Wright, Whitwell; W. Wright, J. Parnell, and Sturton, Peterborough; Casterton, Market Rasen; Snell, Caistor; Hettersley, Barton; Brown, Ball, and Nicholson, Brigg; Goddard, Holbeach; Wright, Gedney; Fields, Long Sutton; and by all respectable chemists and druggists; of whom may be had, gratis, an account of some of the properties and used to which these Chlorides have been successfully applied.

Price of the Chloride of Soda, 3s. 6d.; of Lime, 2s. 6d., quart bottles included, with directions for dilution and use enclosed with the sealed wrapper.”

The Stamford Mercury, 25th November, 1831.

“Such is the mania for ‘anti-choleras,’ that we have not only anti-cholera scent bottles, and anti-cholera lozenges, anti-cholera girdles to be worn next the skin, but (best of all) there is now found out an anti-cholera gin!

The bodies of persons apparently dead of cholera have been in some instances observed to more. M. Londe, President of the later Warsaw commission, has expressed his belief that many have been buried alive in the complaint.”

The Stamford Mercury, 9th December, 1831.

A captive bear ran amok in London – poor Bruin! His owner was a hairdresser and it seems the bear was kept to provide fur for balding customers. Or perhaps he sold bear grease as a hair preparation?

Bear Hunt in the City – On Friday afternoon the inhabitants of Hen & Chicken-court and the adjacent parts of Fleet-street, near St. Dunstan’s church and Fetter-lane, were thrown into a state of consternation by the escape of a huge Russian bear from premises at the back of the house of Mr. Bailey, hair-dresser, where he had been for some time fattening in order to supply his Majesty’s subjects with crops of hair. Bruin, after slipping his collar and demolishing the den, made his first entrée through the window of a house in the court, where and old woman was busily engaged in ironing, and who saluting him with an emphatic “Who are you?” made a rapid exit, leaving him in quiet possession of the apartment, and , hastily shutting the door, cut off his further advance in this direction. An alarm was instantly raised, and the shop-doors closed so as to prevent his egress to the street, and a gallant sally was made from the windows of a publish house in the rear, buy several persons who happened to be in the parlour at the time, headed by Mr. Bailey, the proprietor, armed with whatever missiles the place afforded. From this position the bear was driven into the vaults below, one of the assailants receiving, however, a grip in the arm, which rendered surgical aid immediately necessary. In the cellar the chance of mischief was more appalling, several workmen being engaged in repairs; and Mrs. Haydon, the wife of the proprietor of the shades below, narrowly escaped encountering him in his path by shutting herself in a pantry. He here seized a youth by the leg, which he severely lacerated, but being hotly pursued soon surrendered at discretion; and by the agility of the proprietor, who in the attempt received a bite in the arm, a rope was thrown round his neck and Bruin was conducted back to his former quarters.

The Stamford Mercury, 25th November, 1836.